United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Water
June, 1985
Environmental Profiles
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge:
Nickel
-------
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, pcses 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, Landfill ing,
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 co
be unlikely, no further assessment will be conducted at this time; how-
ever, a reassessment will be conducted after initial regulations are
finalized. In no case, however, will criteria be derived solely on the
basis of information presented in this document.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • , . . . . . . . . , . . . . • • , , • • • • • • • • • • • •
1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . • , . • • • , • • • , • • , , • • 1.—i
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR NICKEL IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE .. 2—1
Landspreading and Distribution—and—Marketing 2—1
Landfilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—2
Incineration •..s.s........s.s... . ......S.. . 2—2
Ocean Disposal . . . . . . . . . . 2—2
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR N.ICKEL IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 3—1
Landspreading and Distribution—and—Marketing .... 3—1
Effect on soil concentration of nickel (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
Effectonhumans(Indices9—13) . 3—12
LandfiLling ........ .. .... 3—20
Index of groundwater concentration increment resulting
from Landfilled sludge (Index 1) 3—20
Index of human toxicity resulting
from groundwater contamination (Index 2) ..... 3—26
Incineration ..... . ... 3—28
Index of air concentration increment resulting
from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 3—28
Index of human cancer risk resulting
from inhalation of incinerator emissions
( Index 2) .... ... ..... ..s ..s .•...s•s••sIs•••• 3—30
Ocean Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—32
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR NICKEL IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE. ... 4—1
Occurrence ...... 4—1
Sludge . 4—1
Soil — Unpolluted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. . . . 4—1
Water — Unpolluted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—2
Air . ....... ....... ..... ••...... . ... ... .•...... •......... . 4—2
Food •...........e........................................ 4—3
H an Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—3
Ingestion ..... 4—3
Inhalation 4—4
Plant Effects ............... .... 4—6
Phytotoxicity . . . . . . . . 4—6
Uptake ............. . ... . 4—6
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4—6
Toxicity ....................... 4—6
Uptake .............. 4—6
AquatLc Life Effects . . •1 • •• • • • • . . . 4—6
Toxicity ... 4—6
Uptake .. ... . 4—7
Soil Biota Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—7
Toxicity ..................... ......... ..... 4—7
Uptake .. ......... .. . 4—7
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transpozc . 4—7
5. REFERENCES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—i
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
NICKEL IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE ............................. A—i
iii
-------
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. Nickel (Ni) was initially identified as being of poten-
tial concern when sludge is landspread (including distribution and mar-
keting), placed in a Landfill, or incinerated.* This profile is a
compilation of information that may be useful in determining whether Ni
poses an actual hazard to human health or the environment when sludge is
disposed of by these methods.
The focus of this document is the calculation of “preliminary
hazard indices” for selected potential exposure pathways, as shown in
Section 3. Each index illustrates the hazard that could result from
movement of a pollutant by a given pathway to cause a given effect
(e.g., sludge soil • plant uptake - animal uptake - human toxicity).
The values and assumpti T employed in these calcu latibns tend to
represent a reasonable “worst case”; analysis of error or uncertainty
has been conducted to a limited degree. The resulting value in most
cases is indexed to unity; i.e., vaLues >1 may indicate a potential
hazard, depending upon the assumptions of the calculation.
The data used for index calculation have been selected or estimated
based on information presented in the “preliminary data profile”,
Section 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
and incineration practices are included in this profile. The calcula-
tion formulae for these indices are shown in the Appendix. The indices
are rounded to two significant figures.
* Listings were determined by a series of expert workshops convened
during March—May, 1984 by the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (OWRS) to discuss landspreading, landfilling, incineration,
and ocean disposal, respectively, of municipal sewage sludge.
1—1
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR NICKEL IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
The following preliminary conclusions have been derived from the
calculation of “preliminary hazard indices”, which represent conserva-
tive or “worst case” analyses of hazard. The indices and their basis
and interpretation are explained in Section 3. Their calculation
formulae are shown in the Appendix.
I. LANDSPREADINC AND DISTRIBUTION—AND—MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Nickel
Landspreading of sludge may result in increased soil
concentrations of Ni when sludge with a typical concentration
of Ni is applied at a high rate (500 mt/ha) or when sludge
with a high (worst) concentration ofNri appLied at any race
(5 to 500 mt/ha) (see Index 1).
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
The toxic hazard to soil biota posed by increased concentra-
tions of Ni in sludge—amended soil could not be evaluated due
to lack of data (see Index 2). Landspreading of sludge is not
expected to result in Ni concentrations in soil bioca that
pose a toxic hazard to their predators (see Index 3).
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
Landspt-eading of sludge is not expected to result in soil con-
centrations of Ni that exceed phycotoxic concentrations for
plants except possibly when sludge containing a high concen-
tration of Ni is applied at a high rate (500 mt/ha) (see
Index 4). Concentrations of Ni in plant tissues may increase
above background concentrations when sludge is landspread,
except possibly for plants serving as animal feed when typical
sludge is applied at low rates (5 and 50 mt/ha) (see Index 5).
The increased plant tissue concentrations of Ni expected to
result from landspreading of sludge may be precluded by phyco—
toxicity for plants in the human diet when sludge containing a
high concentration of Ni is applied at a high rate (500 mt/ha)
(see Index 6).
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
Landspreading of sludge is not expected ‘to result in plant
tissue concentrations of Ni that pose a toxic hazard to herbi-
vorous animals (see Index 7). Landspreading of sludge is not
expected to result in a toxic hazard due to Ni for grazing
animals that inadvertently ingest sludge—amended soil (see
Index 8).
2—].
-------
E. Effect on Humans
The consumption of plants grown on sludge—amended soil by
humans is not expected to pose a toxic threat except possibly
for adults when high—Ni sludge is applied at high rates (50
and 500 mt/ha) and for toddlers when high—Ni sludge is applied
at a high rate (500 mt/ha). However, the plant concentrations
of Ni which are toxic to humans may be precluded by
phytotoxicity when high—Ni sludge is applied at a high rate
(500 mt/ha) (see Index 9). Landspreading of sludge is not
expected to pose a health hazard due to Ni for humans who
consume animal products derived from animals that feed on
plants grown in sludge—amended soil. (see Index 10); who con-
sume animal products derived from animals that inadvertently
ingest sludge—amended soil (see Index 11); or who ingest
sludge or sludge—amended soil (see Index 12). The aggregate
amount of Ni in the human diet resulting from 1.andspreading of
sLudge is not expected to pose a heaLth hazard except possibly
for toddlers when high—Ni sludge is applied at a high rate
(500 mt/ha) and for adults when high—Ni sludge is applied at
high rates (50 and 500 mt/ha). ifowever, the aggregate health
hazard expected for toddlers and adults when high—Ni sludge is
applied at a high rate may be lower since consumption of
plants grown in sludge—amended soil may be limited by
phytotoxicity (see Index 13).
II. LANUFILLING
LandfiLling of sludge may increase Ni concentrations in groundwater
at the well above background concentrations; this increase may be
large when all worst—case conditions prevail at a disposal site
(see Index 1). Landfilling of sludge is not expected to pose a
human health threat due to Ni from groundwater contamination except
possibly when all worst—case conditions prevail at a disposal site
(see Index 2).
III. INCINERATION
Incineration of sludge may increase air concentrations of Ni above
background concentrations (see Index 1). Incineration of sLudge
may slightly increase the human cancer risk due to inhalation of Mi
above the risk posed by background urban air concentrations of Ni.
An increase may not occur when sludge containing a typical
concentration of Ni is incinerated at a Low feed rate (2660
kg/hr DW) and a typicaL fraction of Ni is emitted through the stack
(see Index 2).
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April—May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
2—2
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR NICKEL
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I • LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND—MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Nickel
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 J’SO 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 mt/ha.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (Sc)
Typical 44.7 Ug/g DW
Worst 662.7 llg/g DW
The typical and worst sludge concentrations are
the median and 95th percentile values, respec-
tively, statistically derived from sludge con-
centration data from a survey of 40 publicly—
3—1
-------
owned treatment works (POTWs) (U.S. EPA,
1982a). (See Section 4, p. 4—1.)
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) 18.6 llg/g DW
The value is the median leveL of Ni for U.S.
cropland soils which are shown to range between
0.6 and 269 I g/g of soil (Holmgren et al.,
1983). (See Section 4, p. 4—1.)
d. Index 1 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha )
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3
Worst 1.0 1.1 1.8 7.9
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 soil concentrations of Ni when
sludge with a typical concentration of Ni is applied
at a high rate (500 mt/ha) or when sludge with a
high (worst) concentration of Ni is applied at any
rate (5 to 500 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.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3—2.
3—2
-------
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(as) = 18.6 1. g/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
(as) = 18.6 ig/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3—2.
iii. Uptake slope of pollutant in soil biota (UB) =
1.17 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DWY 1
The only available slope was for earthworms.
The value selected for the slope is the mean
for two locations where Ni content in the soil
and in earthworms was examined at varying
distances from a roadway (Gish and Christensen,
1973). (See Section 4, p. 4—22.)
3—3
-------
iv. Background concentration in soil biota (BB) =
13 ug/g DW
The background value is for earthworms and is
the mean for earthworms obtained from normal
soil (Gish and Christensen, 1973). (See
Section 4, p. 4—22.)
v. Feed concentration toxic to predator Cm) =
300 ig/g DW
Using birds as a model earthworm predator, it
was desired to choose the most sensitive bird
species. National Academy of Science (NAS)
(1980) suggested as a maximum tolerable level
in poultry feed of 300 mg/kg DW, based on find-
ings of decreased growth in chickens at 500 mg,
added to the diet as NiSO 4 or Ni acetate (Weber
and Reid, 1968). (See Section 4, p. 4—17.)
d. Index 3 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha )
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.043 0.044 0.046 0.064
Worst 0.043 0.050 0.10 0.55
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 bioca.
f. Preliminary Conclusion — Landspreading of sludge is
not expected to result in Ni concentrations in soiL
biota that pose a toxic hazard to their predators.
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 concentra-
tion 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.
3—4
-------
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) = 1.8.6 Lg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3—2.
iii. Soil concentration toxic to plants (TP) =
50 1Ig/g DW
In several experiments where unaltered or Ni—
enriched sludges were applied to acid soils
(pH > 6.5), soil concentrations at which
reduced (30 percent or more) yields were
observed were ibóuc 50 to 80 uglg (MitcheLl et
a].., 1978; Valdares et al., 1983; Weber, 1972).
In neutral soils, threshoLd values tended to be
much higher, in the range of 200 to 300 1Jg/g;
the choice of 50 I.Ig/g, then, is conservative.
(See Section 4, Pp. 4—8 to 4—11.)
d. Index 4 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha )
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.48
Worst 0.37 0.40 0.69 2.9
e. Value Int erpretation — Value equals factor by which
soil concentration exceeds phycocoxic concentration.
Value > 1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard may exist.
f. Preliminary Conclusion — Landspreading of sludge is
not expected to result in soiL concentrations of Ni
chit exceed phytotoxic concentrations for plants
except possibly when sludge containing a high con-
centration of Ni is applied at a high rate
(500 mt/ha).
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.
3—5
-------
b. Assumptions/Limitations — Assumes a Linear uptake
slope. Neglects the effect of time; i.e., cumula-
tive loading over several years is treated equiva-
lently to single application of the same amount.
The uptake factor chosen for the animal diet is
assumed to be representative of all crops in the
animal diet. See also Index 6 for consideration of
phytotoxici ty.
c. Data Used and Rationale
1. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3—2.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 18.6 .tg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3—2.
iii. Conversion factor between soil concentration
and application rate (co) = 2 kg/ha (uglg) 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 1O 3 .
iv. Uptake slope of pollutant in plant tissue (UP)
Animal diet:
Rye forage 0.026 1Ig/g tissue DW (kg/haY’
Human diet:
Cabbage 0.80 ug/g tissue DW (kg/haY 1
The highest uptake slope obtained in a field
study for crops consumed by animals was
0.026 .Ig/g (kg/ha) for rye forage grown at pH
5.0 to 6.0 (KelLing et aL., 1917). Values for
other forage crops and corn in this and other
studies ranged from not detected to 0.222 ug/g
(kg/ha) . Higher uptake slopes from pot stud-
ies were considered less appropriate. The
highest uptake slope obtained in a field study
for a crop consumed by humans was a value of
0.80 Iig/g (kg/ha) for cabbage grown at a pH
of 6.2 to 6.4 (Boyd et al., 1982). Values for
other leafy vegetables ranged from 0.027 to
0.75 in acid soils, and from not detected to
0.068 in neutral soils. Slopes for most other
crops were lower, many showing no detectable
uptake of Ni. (See Section 4, pp. 4—12 to
4—16.)
3—6
-------
v. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP)
Animal diet:
Rye forage 0.9 IIg/g DW
Human diet:
Cabbage 1.7 iig/g OW
The values for the background concentrations in
plant tissues were obtained from the same
studies as used for the uptake slopes (i.e.,
Kelling et al., 1977; Boyd et al., 1982). They
were the highest or among the highest
background levels of Ni for animal and human
consumed plants. (See Section 4, pp. 4—12 to
4—16.)
d. Index 5 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha )
Sludge
Diet Concentration 0 5 50 500
Animal Typical 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3
Worst 1.0 1.1 1.9 8.4
Human Typical 1.0 1.1 1.6 5.9
Worst 1.0 2.5 16 120 a
avalue exceeds comparable value of Index 6; therefore may
be precluded by phycocoxicity.
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 — Concentrations of Ni in
plant tissues may increase above background
concentrations except possibly for pLants serving as
animal feed when typical sludge is applied at low
rates (5 and 50 mt/ha).
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by
Phytotoxicity (Index 6)
a. Explanation — Compares maximum plant tissue concen-
tration associated with phytotoxicity ‘with back-
ground concentration in same plant tissue. The
purpose is to determine whether the plant concentra-
tion increments calculated in Index 5 for high
applications are truly realistic, or whether such
increases would be precluded by phytocoxicity.
3—7
-------
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:
Rye grass 160 1g/g DW
Human diet:
Swiss chard 170 Lg/g DW
In a pot study, a tissue concentration of 160
.Ig/g in rye grass tops was the
approximate threshold concentration for adverse
effects in yield (Bolcon et al., 1975). The
concentration shown for Swiss chard (170 ig/g)
was associated with yield reductLons of 37
percent (Valdares et at., 1983). (See
Section 4, pp. 4—8 to 4—11).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (B?)
Animal diet:
Rye grass 10 j.Lg/g DW
Human diet:
Swiss chard 10 ig/g DW
Values for the background concentrations of Ni
in plant tissues were selected from the same
studies used for the phytotoxicity data (Bolton
et al., 1975; Valdares ec al., 1983). They are
however, the highest or among the highest val-
ues available for such crops. (See Section 4,
pp. 4—8 to 4—11.)
d. Index 6 Values
Plant Index Value
Rye grass 16
Swiss chard 17
e. Value Interpretation — Value gives the maximum
factor of tissue concentration increment (above
background) which is permitted by phycotoxicicy.
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 gtven application rate.
3—8
-------
f. Preliminary Conclusion — The increased plant tissue
concentrations of Ni expected to result from land—
spreading of sludge may be precluded by phytotoxic—
ity for plants in the human diet when sludge
containing a high concentration of Ni is applied at
a high rate (500 mt/ha).
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Explanation — Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in plant tissues grown in sludge—amended
soil with food concentration shown to be toxic to
wild or domestic herbivorous animals. Does not con-
sider direct contamination of forage by adhering
sludge.
b. Assumptions/Limitations — Assumes pollutant form
taken up by plants is equivalent in toxicity to form
used to demonstrate toxic effects in animal. Uptake
or toxicity in specific plants or animals may be
estimated from other species.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of plant concentration increment caused
by uptake (Index 5)
Index 5 values used are those for an animal
diet (see Section 3, p. 3—7).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
0.9 ug/g DW
The background concentration value used 4s for
the plant chosen for the animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3—7).
iii. Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 100 igIg DW
Decreased food intake in calves was observed
when Ni was added to the diet at 100 .ig/g DW as
NiC1 2 (O’Dell et al., 1970). (See Section 4,
p. 4—17.)
3—9
-------
d. Index 7 Values
Sludge Aoplication Rate (mt/ha )
SI. udge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.0090 0.0090 0.0093 0.012
Worst 0.0090 0.0098 0.017 0.076
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
concentrations of Ni that pose a toxic hazard 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.
b. Assumptions/Limitations — Assumes that sludge is
applied over and adheres to growing forage, or that
sludge constitutes 5 percent of dry matter in the
grazing animal’s diet, and that pollutant form in
sludge is equally bioavailable and toxic as form
used to demonstrate toxic effects. Where no sludge
is applied (i.e., 0 mt/ha), assumes diet is 5 per-
cent soil as a basis for comparison.
c. Data Us d and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (Sc)
TypicaL 44.7 .&g/g DW
Worst 662.7 zg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3—1.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(Bs) = 18.6 ig/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3—2.
iii. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (Cs)
= 5%
3—10
-------
Studies of sludge adhesion to growing forage
following applications of liquid or filter—cake
sludge show that when 3 to 6 mt/ha of sludge
solids is applied, clipped forage initially
consists of up to 30 percent sludge on a dry—
weight basis (Chaney and Lloyd, 1979; Boswell,
1975). However, this contamination diminishes
gradually with time and growth, and generally
is not detected in the following year’s growth.
For example, where pastures amended at 16 and
32 mt/ha were grazed throughout a growing sea-
son (168 days), average sludge content of for-
age was only 2.14 and 4.75 percent,
respectively (Bertrand et al., 1981). It seems
reasonable to assume that animals may receive
long—term dietary exposure to 5 percent sludge
if maintained orr a forage to which sludge is
regularly applied. This estimate of 5 percent
sludge is used regardless of application rate,
since the above studies did not show a clear
relationship between application rate and ini-
tial contamination, and since adhesion is not
cumulative yearly because of die—back.
Studies of grazing animals indicate that soil
ingestion, ordinarily <10 percent of dry weight
of diet, may reach as high as 20 percent for
cattle and 30 percent for sheep during winter
months when forage is reduced (Thornton and
Abrams, 1983). If the soil were sludge—
amended, it is conceivable that up to 5 percent
sludge may be ingested in this manner as well.
Therefore, this value accounts for either of
these scenarios, whether forage is harvested or
grazed in the field.
iv. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 100 Ilg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3—9.
d. Index 8 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha )
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.0093 0.022 0.022 0.022
Worst 0.0093 0.33 0.33 0.33
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.
3—11
-------
f. Preliminary Conclusion — Landspreading of sludge is
not expected to result in a toxic hazard due to Ni
for grazing animals that inadvertently ingest
sludge—amended soil.
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 th t all crops are
grown on sludge—amended soil and that all those con-
sidered to be affected take up the pollutant at the
same rate as the most responsive plant(s) (as chosen
in Index 5). Divides possible variations in dietary
intake into two categories: toddlers (18 months to
3 years) and individuals over 3 years oLd.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of plant concentration increment caused
by uptake (Index 5)
Index 5 values used are those for a human diet
(see Section 3, p. 3—7).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
1.7 l.Lg/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 i i’take of affected plant
tissue (DT)
Toddler 74.5 g/day
Adult 205 g/day
The intake value for adults is based on daily
intake of crop foods (excluding fruit) by vege-
tarians (Ryan et al., 1982); vegetarians were
chosen to represent the worst case. The value
for toddlers is based on the FDA Revised Total
Diet (Pennington, 1983) and food groupings
Listed by the U.S. EPA (1984). Dry weights for
individual food groups were estimated from
composition data given by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) (1975). These values
3—12
-------
were composited to estimated dry—weight
consumption of all non—fruit crops.
iv. Average daily hinni n dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 135 .ig/day
Adult 400 ig/day
Estimates of average total daily intake of Ni
range from 165 to 600 ig/day. An average value
of 400 .ig/day for adults was selected by an
expert panel for use in risk assessment (U.S.
EPA, 1985). The present analysis indicates
that total Ni intake for toddlers would be
about one—third of the adult amount of
approximately 135 fig/day. (See Section 4,
p. 4—3.)
v. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
3500 I.lg/day
Based on a chronic no—observed—adverse—effect—
level (NOAEL) of 100 ppm in the diet of rats
(Ambrose ec al., 1976), assuming the rat
consumes 5 percent of its body weight daily,
applying an uncertainty factor of 100, and
assuming a human body weight of 70 kg (U.S.
EPA, 1985), ADI is calculated to be 3500 jIg/day
for Ni in food. Ni in drinking water may be
more readily absorbed, thus an ADI for aqueous
Ni would be somewhat Lower (U.S. EPA, 1985).
Although calculated on a body weight basis of
70 kg, the value of 3500 jIg/day is also
considered to apply to infants and toddlers,
because the uncertainty factor is considered
sufficient to protect sensitive individuals.
(See Section 4, p. 4—4.)
d. Index 9 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha )
Sludge
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500
Toddler Typical 0.039 0.041 0.060 0.22
Worst 0.039 0.093 0.57 44a
Adult Typical 0.11 0.12 0.17 0.60
Worst 0.11 0.26 1.6 12 a
avalue may be precluded by phytotoxicity; see
Indices 5 and 6.
3—13
-------
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected intake exceeds ADI. Value > 1 indicates a
possible human health threat. Comparison with the
null index value at 0 mt/ha indicates the degree to
which any hazard is due to sLudge application, as
opposed to pre—existing dietary sources.
f. Preliminary Conclusion — The consumption of plants
grown on sludge—amended soil by humans is not
expected to pose a toxic threat except possibly for
adults when high—Ni sludge is applied at high rates
(50 and 500 mt/ha) and for toddlers when high—Ni
sludge is applied at a high rate (500 mt/ha). The
concentrations of Ni in plants which are toxic to
humans may be precluded by phytotoxicity when high—
Ni sludge is applied at a high rate (500 mt/ha) (see
Indices 5 and 6).
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) =
0.9 g/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
the plant chosen for the animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3—7).
3—14
-------
iii. Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue (UA)
= 0.024 pglg tissue DW (ILg/g feed DWY 1
Of animal products consumed by humans, beef
liver was the most responsive in terms of Ni
uptake, except kidney, which was regarded as
comprising too small a portion of the U.S.
diet. Uptake by muscle tissue was not signifi-
cant in seven studies. The slope value is
derived from a study in which cattle were given
sludge—amended feed (Boyer et al., 1981). (See
Section 4, p. 4—20.)
iv. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 0.97 g/day
Adult 5.76 g/day
The FDA Revised Total Diet (Pennington, 1983)
Lists average daily make 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 the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (1975).
v. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 135 .ig/day
Adult 400 zg/day
See Section 3, p. 3—13.
vi. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI)
3500 igIday
See Section 3, p. 3—13.
d. Index 10 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha )
Sludge
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500
Toddler Typical 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039
Worst 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039
Adult Typical 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Worst 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
e. Value Interpretation — Same as for Index 9.
3—15
-------
f. Preliminary Conclusion — Landspreading of sludge is
not expected to pose a health hazard due to Ni for
humans who consume animal products derived from ani-
mals that feed on plants grown in sludge—amended
soil.
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
race 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 = Beef liver
Beef liver is an animal product that is consi-
dered to be normally found in the human diet.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 18.6 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3—2.
iii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 44.7 ug/g DW
Worst 662.7 1.Lg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3—1.
iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (Cs)
= 5%
See Section 3, p. 3—10.
3—16
-------
v. Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue (uA)
= 0.024 pglg tissue DW (iig/g feed DWY 1
See Section 3, p. 3—15.
vi. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 0.97 g/day
Adu].t 5.76 g/day
See Section 3, p. 3—15.
vii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 135 pg/day
Adult 400 ig/day
See Section 3, p. 3—13.
viii. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
3500 iig/day
See Section 3, p. 3—13.
d. Index 11 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha )
Sludge
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500
Toddler Typical. 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039
Worst 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039
Adult Typical 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Worst 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12
e. Value Interpretation — Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion — Landspreading of sludge is
not expected to pose a health threat due to Ni for
humans who consume animal products derived from ani-
mals that inadvertently ingest sludge—amended soil.
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.
3—17
-------
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 44.7 ig/g DW
Worst 662.7 Ilg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3—1.
iii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 18.6 Iig/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 (1984).
v. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 135 ig/day
Adult 400 ig/day
See Section 3, p. 3—13.
vi. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
3500 pg/day
See Section 3, p. 3—13.
3—18
-------
d. Index 12 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha )
Sludge Pure
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500 Sludge
Toddler Typical 0.065 0.065 0.066 0.073 0.10
Worst 0.065 0.067 0.088 0.25 0.99
Adult Typical 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Worst 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12
e. Value Interpretation — Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion — Landspreading of sludge is
not expected to pose a health threat due to Ni for
humans who ingest sLudge or sludge—amended soil.
5. Index of Aggregate Human Toxicity (Index 13)
a. Explanation — Calculates the aggregate amount of
pollutant in the human diet resulting from pathways
described in Indices 9 to 12. Compares this amount
with ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations — As described for Indices 9
to 12.
c. Data Used and Rationale - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
d. Index 13 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha )
Sludge
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500
Toddler Typical 0.065 0.067 0.088 0.25
Worst 0.065 0.12 0.62 4• 6 ä
Adult Typical 0.11 0.12 0.17 0.60
Worst 0.11 0.27 1.6 12 a
ava].ue may be partially precluded by phytocoxicity;
see Indices 9 and 10.
e. Value Interpretation — Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion — The aggregate amount of Ni
in the human diet resuLting from landspreading of
sludge is not expected to pose a health hazard
except possibly for toddlers when high—Ni sludge is
3—19
-------
applied at a high rate (500 mt/na) and for adults
when high—Ni sludge is applied at high rates (50 and
500 mt/ha). The concentration of Ni in plants which
is toxic Co humans may be partially precluded by
phytotoxicity for high—Ni sludges appLied at a high
rate (500 mt/ha) (see Indices 5 and 6).
II. LANDFILLING
A. Index of Groundwater Concentration Increment Resulting from
Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation — CalcuLates groundwater contamination which
could occur in a potable aquifer in the landfill vicin-
ity. Uses U.S. EPA Exposure Assessment Group (EAG)
model, “Rapid Assessment of Potential Groundwater Contam-
ination Under Emergency Response Conditions” (u.s. EPA,
1983c). 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, wnich 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 ( n
FORTRAN) was developed to facilitate compucacLon 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 leachace 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
3—20
-------
pulse input; no dilution of the plume occurs by recharge
from outside the source area; the leachate is undiluted
by aquifer flow within the saturated zone; concentration
in the saturated zone is attenuated only by dispersion.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Unsaturated zone
i. Soil type and characteristics
(a) Soil type
Typical Sandy loam
Worst Sandy
These two soil types were used by Cerritse et
al. (1982) to measure partitioning of elements
between sotl and a sewage sludge soLution
phase. They are used here since these parti-
tioning measurements (i.e., Kd values) are con-
sidered the best availabLe for analysis of
metal transport from landfilled sludge. The
same soil types are aLso used for nonmetaLs for
convenience and consistency of analysis.
(b) Dry bulk density ( dry )
Typical 1.53 g/mL
Worst 1.925 g/mL
BuLk density is the dry mass per unit voLume of
the medium (soil), i.e., neglecting the mass of
the water (Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., (CDM),
1984).
(c) Volumetric water content (0)
Typical 0.195 (unitless)
Worst 0.133 (unitlesg)
The volumetric water content is the volume of
water in a given volume of media, usually
expressed as a fraction or percent. It depends
on properties of the media and the water flux
estimated by infiltration or ne c recharge. The
volumetric water content is used in calculating
the water movement through the unsaturated zone
(pore water velocity) and the retardation
coefficient. Values obtained from CDM, 1984.
3—21
-------
ii. Site parameters
(a) Landfill leaching time (LT) = 5 years
Sikora et al. (1982) monitored several
landfills throughout the United States and
estimated time of landfill leaching to be 4 or
5 years. Other types of landfills may leach
for longer periods of time; however, the use of
a value for entrenchment sites is conservative
because it resu].ts in a higher leachate
generation rate.
(b) Leachate generation rate (Q)
Typical 0.8 rn/year
Worst 1.6 rn/year
It is conservatively assumed chat sludge
Leachate enters the unsaturated zone undiluted
by precipitation or other recharge, that the
total volume of Liquid in the sludge Leaches
out of the landfill, and that Leaching is
complete in 5 years. Landfilled sludge is
assumed to be 20 percent solids by volume, and
depth of sludge in the landfill is 5 in in the
typical case and 10 in in the worst case. Thus,
the initial depth of Liquid is 4 and 8 in, and
average yearLy Leachate generation is 0.8 and
1.6 in, 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 in was observed (U.S. EPA, 1977).
For the worst case, a value of in 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.
Cd) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 0.5 m
Worst Not applicable
3—22
-------
The dispersion process is exceedingly complex
and difficult to quantify, especially for the
unsaturated zone. It is sometimes ignored in
the unsaturated zone, with the reasoning that
pore water velocities are usually large enough
so that pollutant transport by convection,
i.e., water movement, is paramount. As a ruLe
of thumb, dispersivity may be set equal to
10 percent of the distance measurement of the
analysis (Ceihar 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 44.7 mg/kg DU
Worst 662.7 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3—1.
(b) Degradation rate (ii) = 0 day
The degradation rate in the unsaturated zone is
assumed to be zero for all inorganic chemicals.
(c) Soil sorption coefficient (Kd)
Typical 58.6 mL/g
Worst 12.2 mL/g
Kd values were obtained from Gerritse ec a]..
(1982) using sandy loam soil (typical) or sandy
soil (worst). Values shown are geometric means
of a range of values derived using sewage
sLudge solution phases as the liquid phase in
the adsorption experiments.
b. Saturated zone
i. Soil type and characteristics
(a) Soil type
Typical Silty sand
Worst Sand
A silty sand having the values of aquifer por—
osicy and hydraulic conductivity defined below
represents a typical aquifer material. A more
conductive medium such as sand transports the
3—23
-------
plume more readily and with less dispersion and
therefore represents a reasonable worst case.
(b) Aquifer porosity (0)
Typical 0.44 (unitless)
Worst 0.389 (unicless)
Porosity is that portion of the total volume of
soil that is made up of voids (air) and water.
Values corresponding to the above soil types
are from Pettyjohn et al. (1982) as presented
in U.S. EPA (1983c).
(c) Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K)
Typical 0.86 m/day
Worst 4.04 rn/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 (1983c).
ii. Site parameters
(a) Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and
well Ci)
Typical 0.001 (unicless)
Worst 0.02 (unitLess)
The hydraulic gradient is the slope of the
water table in an unconfined aquifer, or the
piezometric surface for a confined aquifer.
The hydraulic gradient must be known to
determine the magnitude and direction of
groundwater flow. As gradient increases, dis-
persion is reduced. Estimates of typical and
high gradient values were provided by Donigian
(1985).
(b) Distance from well to landfill (Al.)
Typical 100 m
Worst 50 m
3—24
-------
This distance is the distance between a
landfill and any functioning public or private
water supply or Livestock water supply.
Cc) Dispersivity coefficient ( )
Typical 10 in
Worst 5 in
These values are 10 percent of the distance
from well, to landfill CM .), which is 100 and
50 in, 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 pre—existing 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 in 2 .
iii. Chemical—specific parameters
(a) Degradation rate (ii) 0 day ’
Degradation is assumed not to occur in the
saturated zone.
(b) Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (BC) = 4.8 ig/L
The only available information on ambient back-
ground levels of Ni in water is for surface
waters. In a study of 969 U.S. public water
supplies for 1969 to 1970 (U.S. EPA, 1980), Ni
concentrations varied from <0.001 mg/L to
0.075 mg/L. The average vaLue of 4.8 g/L is
used in Lieu of a value for groundwater. (See
Section 4, p. 4—2.)
3—25
-------
Cc) Soil sorption coefficient (Kd) = 0 mL/g
Adsorption is assumed to be zero in the
saturated zone.
4. Index Values - See Table 3—1.
5. Value Interpretation — Value equals factor by which
expected groundwater concentration of pollutant at well
exceeds the background concentration (a value of 2.0
indicates the concentration is doubled, a value of 1.0
indicates no change).
6. Preliminary Conclusion — Landfilling of sludge may
increase Ni concentrations in groundwater at the well
above background concentrations; this increase may be
large when all, worst—case conditions prevaiL at a
disposal site.
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 corlcentratLon at well at a rate of 2 L/day.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of groundwater concentration increment result-
ing from landfill.ed sludge (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3—27.
b. Background concentration of poLlutant in groundwater
(Sc) = 4.8 zg/L
See Section 3, p. 3—25.
c. Average htimen consumption of drinking water (AC) =
2 1./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,(Dt)
= 400 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3—13.
3—26
-------
TABLE 3—1. INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTiNG FROM LANDF1LLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICiTY RESULTING FROM CROUNL)WATER CONTAMItIATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
1
2
3
Condition of
4
Analysisa,b,c
5
6
1
8
Sludge concentration
T
U
I
T
I
T
W
N
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac—
terist
Site parameterse
T
T
T
T
W
T
NA
U
T
T
T
I
NA
U
N
N
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac—
terist ics
Site parametersS
T
T
T
T
I
I
T
T
W
T
T
W
U
U
N
N
Index 1 Value
1.3
4.8
1.3
1.3
2.3
11
800
0
Index 2 Value
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.14
2.3
0.11
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.
bindex values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
CSee Table A—I in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density ( dry ) and volumetric water content (0).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
Silydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AQ), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-J
-------
e. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
3500 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3—13.
4. Index 2 Values - See Table 3—1.
5. Value Interpretation — Value equals factor by which
pollutant intake exceeds ADI. Value >1 indicates a
possible human health threat. Comparison with the null
index value indicates the degree to which any hazard is
due to landfill disposal, as opposed to preexisting
dietary sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion — Landfillirig of sludge is not
expected to pose a human health threat due to Ni from
groundwater contamination except possibly when all worst—
case conditions prevail at a disposal site.
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from
Incinerator Emissions (Index 1)
1. Explanation — Shows the degree of elevation of the
pollutant concentration in the air due to the incinera-
tion of sludge. An input sludge with thermal properties
defined by the energy parameter (EP) was analyzed using
the BURN model (CDM, 1984). This model uses the thermo-
dynamic and mass balance relationships appropriate for
multiple hearth incinerators to relate the input sludge
characteristics to the stack gas parameters. Dilution
and dispersion of these stack gas releases were described
by the U.S. EPA’s Industrial Source Complex Long—Term
(ISCLT) dispersion model from which normalized annual
ground leveL concentrations were predicted (u.s. EPA,
1979b). The predicted pollutant concentration can then
be compared to a ground level concentration used to
assess risk.
2. Assumptions/Limitations — The fluidi ed bed incinerator
was not chosen due to a paucity of available data.
Cradual plume rise, stack tip downwash, and building wake
effects are appropriate for describing plume behavior.
Maximum hourly impact vaLues can be translated into
annual average values.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Coefficient to correct for mass and time units (C) =
2.78 x l0 hr/sec x g/mg
3—28
-------
b. Sludge feed rate (DS)
i. Typical = 2660 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 2660 kg/hr DW represents an
average dewatered sludge feed rate into the
furnace. This feed rate would serve a coinmun—
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 lb H 2 0/nim BTU
Combustion zone temperature — 1400°F
Solids content — 28%
Stack height — 20 m
Exit gas velocity — 20 rn/s
Exit gas temperature — 356.9°K (183°F)
Stack diameter — 0.60 m
ii. Worst = 10,000 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 10,000 kg/hr DW represents a
higher feed rate and would serve a major U.S.
city. This rate was incorporated into the U.S.
EPA—ISCLT model based on the following input
data:
EP = 392 lb H 2 0/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature — 1400°F
Solids content — 26.6%
Stack height — 10 m
Exit gas veLocity — 10 rn/s
Exit gas temperature — 313.8°K (105°F)
Stack diameter — 0.80 m
c. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 44.7 mg/kg DW
Worst 662.7 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3—1.
d. Fraction of pollutant eniitted through stack (FM)
Typical 0.002 (unitless)
Worst 0.006 (unitless)
Emission estimates may vary considerably between
sources; therefore, the values used are based on a
U.S. EPA 10—city incineration study (Farrell and
Wall, 1981). Where data were not available from the
EPA study, a more recent report which thoroughly
researched heavy metal emissions was utilized (CDM,
1983).
3—29
-------
e. Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum annual
ground level concentration (DP)
Typical 3.4 g/m 3
Worst 16.0 g/m 3
The dispersion parameter is derived from the U.S.
EPA—ISCLT short—stack model.
f. Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air (BA) = 0.009 Ig/m 3
The value is the Lowest estimate of Ni levels in
ambient urban air nationally for the 1970—80 period
(U.S. EPA, 1979a). (See Section 4, p. 4—3.)
4. Index 1 Values
Sludge Feed
Fraction of Rate (kg/hr DW)a
Pollutant Emitted Sludge
Through Stack Concentration 0 2660 10,000
Typical Typical 1.0 1.0 1.4
Worst 1.0 1.4 7.6
Worst Typical 1.0 1.1 2.3
Worst 1.0 2.1 21
aThe typical (3.4 iig/m 3 ) and worst (16.0 .ig/m 3 ) disper-
sion parameters will always correspond, respectively, to
the typicaL (2660 kglhr 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
increase air concentrations of Ni above background
concentrations.
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Explanation — Shows the increase in human intake expected
to result from the incineration of sludge. Ground level
concentrations for carcinogens typically were developed
based upon assessments published by the U.S. EPA Carcino-
gen Assessment Group (CAG). These ambient concentrations
reflect a dose level which, for a lifetime exposure,
increases the risk of cancer by i06.
3—30
-------
2. Assumptions/Limitations — The exposed population is
assumed to reside within the impacted area for 24
hours/day. A respiratory volume of 20 m 3 /day is assumed
over a 70—year lifetime.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of air concentration increment resulting from
incinerator emissions (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3—30.
b. Background concentration of poLlutant in urban air
(BA) = 0.009 1.Ig/m 3
See Section 3, p. 3—30.
c. Cancer potency = 1.15 (mg/kg/day)
The cancer ptoency has been statistically derived by
the U.S. EPA based on clinical and epidemiological
studies linking the inhalation of Ni to nasal and
lung cancers in industrial workers (u.s. EPA,
1983b). It is a point estimate which is based on a
linear (non—threshold) model. (See Section 4,
p. 4—5.)
d. Exposure criterion (EC) = 3.04 x i0 g/rn 3
A lifetime exposure level which would result in a
l0 cancer risk was selected as ground LeveL con-
centration against which incinerator emissions are
compared. The risk estimates developed by CAC are
defined as the lifetime incremental cancer risk in a
hypothetical population exposed continuously
throughout their Lifetime to the stated concentra-
tion of the carcinogenic agent. The exposure
criterion is calculated using the following formula:
EC = 10—6 x i0 3 ii glmg x 70 kg
Cancer potency x 20 rn 3 /day
3—31
-------
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 3.0 3.0 4.3
Worst 3.0 4.1 22
Worst Typical 3.0 3.2 6.9
Worst 3.0 6.2 61
aThe typical (3.4 igIm 3 ) and worst (16.0 ig/m 3 ) disper-
sion parameters will always correspond, respectiveLy, to
the typical (2660 kg/hr DW) and worst (10,000 kg/hr DW)
sludge feed rates.
5. Value Interpretation — Value > 1 indicates a potential
increase in cancer risk of > o—6 (1 per 1,000,000).
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 may
slightLy increase the human cancer risk due to inhalation
of Ni above the risk posed by background urban air con-
centrations of Ni. An increase may not occur when sludge
containing a typical concentration of Ni is incinerated
at a low feed rate (2660 kg/hr DW), and a typicaL
fraction of Ni is emitted through the stack.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April—May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
3—32
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR NICKEL IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
83 to 93% u.s EPA, 1982a
(p. 41, 49)
2. Concentration
Minimum 3 ig/g DW Booz Allen and
Median 53 ig/g DW Hamilton, Inc.,
Mean 229.7 .Lg/g DW 1983
90th percentile 414 .ig/g DW
95th percentile 918 1. g/g DW
Maximum 9450 I.Ig/g DW
Median 44.7 j.ig/g DW Statiscally
Geometric mean 60.5 iig/g DW derived from
Mean 136.5 1g/g DW from sludge
95th percentile 662.7 ig/g DW concentration
data presented
n U.S. EPA,
1982a
3. Soil — Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Virtually 100%
2. Concentration
Unspecified soils (total Ni) Allaway, 1968
“Normal” mean 40 Ilg/g DW (p. 242)
Range 10 to 1000 1tg/g DW
Ohio farm soils (total Ni) Logan and
Mean 18 ig/g DW Miller, 1983
Range 9 to 38 pg/g DW (p. 14)
U.S. cropland soils (total Ni) Holmgren, 1983
Mean (+SD) 24.2 (+28.2) j.ig/g DW
Median 18.6 .igIg DW
Range >06 to 269 1zg/g DW
4—1
-------
Baltimore, MD garden soils (iN HNO 3
extractable)
Mean (+SD) 4.9 (+7.9) ug/g DW
Median 2.8 jlg/g DW
Range 0.5 to 53.4 iig/g DW
Minnesota surface soils (total Ni)
Mean (+SD) 18 (+10) ig/g DW
Range 7 to 66 ug/g DW
Unpolluted
Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
a. Freshwater
North American Riv’ers
Median 10 g/L
Natural freshuaters
Normal. >1 ug/L
b. Seawater
Data not immediately available.
c. Drinking Water
Median <2.7 .ig/L
Mean 4.8 I.Ag/L
99th percentile 20 .ig/L
Maximum 75 g/L
D. Air
1. Frequency of Detection
Urban 30 to 70% U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 22)
Rural 5 to 30% U.S. EPA, 1919a
(p. 25)
C. Water —
1.
Mielke et al.,
1983
Pierce et al.,
1982 (p. 418)
Hem, 1970
(p. 201)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B—i)
Hem, 1970
(p. 201)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C—4)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C—3)
4—2
-------
2. Concentration
Urban U.S. 1970—1980
Median 0.009 to 0.017 Ug/m 3
Mean 0.009 to 0.024 .ig/m 3
Range 0.009 to 0.639 Ijg/m 3
Rural U.S. 1970—1976
Median <0.009 ug/m 3
Mean <0.009 I g/m 3
Range <0.009 to 0.280 Ig/m 3
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
No evidence of carcinogenicity
induced by ingested Ni.
b. Potency
None demonstratedi for ingestion
route. /
4—3
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 22)
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 25)
E. Food
1. Total Average Intake
American adults
300 to 600 ig/day
500 lIg/day
400 .ig/day
InstitutionaLized chiLdren, 9 to
12 years old from 28 U.S. cities
= 451 .1g/day
Nine institutional diets, U.S.
= 165 i.zg/day
Daily fecal Ni excretion, adults
= 258 ig/day
2. Concentration
Data not immediately available.
U.S. EPA,
(p. C—7)
U.S. EPA,
(p. c—i)
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
(p. C-i)
U.S. EPA,
(p. C—i)
U.S. EPA,
(p. C—i)
1980
1980
1985
1980
1980
1980
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C—131)
U.S. EPA, 1983b
(p. 46)
-------
c. Effects
None demonstrated for ingestion
route.
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. ADI
ADI of 31 Ig/day published by U.S. EPA, 1980
U.S. EPA is not valid because of (p. C—133)
methodological deficiencies in the
study on which it was based.
ADI of 3.5 mg/day based on chronic U.S. EPA, 1985
NOAEL of 100 ppm in diet of rats.
b. Effects
In rats given 5 mg/L in drinking Schroeder and
water, reduced litter size, Mitchener, 1971
increased number of runts and
neo—nataL mortality were observed.
In rats given 1000 mg/kg of Ambrose et al.,
diet, body weight reduction was 1976
observed.
3. Absorption Factor
1 to 10% U.s. EPA, 1980
(p. C—21)
4. Existing Regulations
Ambient Water Quality Criteria U.S. EPA, 1982b
(Revised, 1982) = 632 g/L.
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
IARC rating: Group 1, “carcino— International
genic to humans” for the Ni refin— Agency for
ing process; Group 2A, “probably Research on
carcinogenic to humans” for Ni and Cancer (IARC),
certain Hi compounds (especiaLly 1982 (p. 167)
Ni subsulfide and Ni oxide)
4—4
-------
b. Potency
U.S. EPA, 1983b
(p. 136)
U.S. EPA, 1983b
(p. 137)
Amer i can
Conference of
Governmental
and IndustriaL
Hygienists
(ACCIH), 1980
(p. 294—300)
U.S. EPA, 1983b
(p.) 3 )
ACGIH, 1981
(p. 23)
Centers for
Disease Control
(cDc), 1983
(p. 17S)
CDC, 1983
(p. 17S)
Unit risk (at 1 .tg Ni/rn 3 ) =
3.3 x 10
Cancer potency = 1.15 (mg/kg/day) 1
c. Effects
Lung, laryngeal, and nasal tumors
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. Inhalation Threshold or MPIU
See below, “Existing Regulations”
b. Effects
Asthma, pulmonary fibrosis, and
pulmonary edema are putative
effects of Ni in welders using
Ni alloys. Pneumoconiosis,
pneumonia, alveolar hyper—
plasia, and mild irritation of
the lung have been observed in
Ni—exposed animals
3. Absorption Factor
NegligibLe for Mi contained in
welding fumes, probably Ni oxides.
Considerable for Ni carbonyl
(“50%) and Ni chloride (“75%).
4. Existing Regulations
ACGIH Threshold Limit Values ( ig/m 3 )
TLV TWA TLV STEL
Ni metal 1
Soluble Ni compounds 0.1 0.3
Ni sulfide roasting,
fume and dust (as Ni) 1
OSHA Standard
Ni carbonyl 7 Ag/rn 3 (8—hr TWA)
Ni, inorganic
and compounds 1 mg/rn 3 (8—hr TWA)
NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit
Ni carbonyl 7 pg/rn 3 (10—hr TWA)
Ni, inorganic
and compounds 15 g/m 3 (10—hr TWA)
4—5
-------
III. PLANT EFFECTS
A. Phytotoxicity
See Table 4—1.
B. Uptake
See Table 4—2.
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4—3.
B. Uptake
See Table 4—4.
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1. Freshwater
a. Acute
Hardness Criterion U.S. EPA, 1980
( mg/L as CaCO ( iig/L ) (p. B— Il)
50 1100
100 1800
200 3100
b. Chronic
Hardness Criterion U.S. EPA, 1980
( mg/L as CaCOi) ( .ig/L ) (p. B—lI)
50 56
100 96
200 160
2. Saltwater
a. Acute
140 g/L
b. Chronic
7.1 i.Lg/L
4—6
-------
B. Uptake
Fish, whole U.S. EPA, 1980
Range NA (p. B—25)
Mean 61
Bivalve mollusks, soft parts U.S. EPA, 1980
Range 299 to 416 (p. B—25)
Mean 354
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4—5.
B. Uptake
See Table 4—6.
VIII. FHYSIOCOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT
Atomic weight: 5870 Merck Index,
Melting point: 1555°C 1976
Boiling point: 2837°C (pp. 6312 to
Density: 8.90 6313)
Heat capacity (25°C): 6.23 cal/g—atom/°C
Moh’s hardness: 3.8
Latent heat of fusion: 73 ca]./g
4—7
-------
TABLE 4— 1. PIIYTOTQXICITY OF NICKEL
Agronomic crop NA
Li Ssues
Lettuce/shoots
high-Ni 6.5
sludge (pot)
high—Ni 6.5
sludge (pot)
Ni—enriched 5.7
sludge (pot)
(4.5 190
380
<4.5 190
380
Threshold concentration
for adverse effects on
yield
NE No yield reduction
Yield reduced 32-842
compared to control
NE No yield reduction
Yield not reduced com-
pared to controls, but
reduced 342 compared to
Lower sludge application.
3 Suggested tolerance
LI
41 Yield reduced 131
241 Yield reduced 302
345 Yield reduced 752
29 Yield not significantly
reduced
61 YieLd reduced 352
. 166 Yield reduced 952
Cunningham
et al. , 1975a
Mitchell
et al., 1978
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Control Tissue
Soil
Application
Tissue
Chemical
Concentration
Concentration
Rate
Concentration
Plant/Tissue
Form Applied
Soil
p1 1
(pg/g ow)
(pg/g ow)
(kg/ha)
( g/g Dw)
Effect
References
Ryegrass/tops
sludge (pot)
5.0—6.5
10-20
l iKe
NAb
160
Corn/tops
Eye/tops
I.
Bo lton, 1975
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.5
Cunningham
et sI., 1975a
Cunningham
et al., 1975a
7.5 4.5
NA
40
80
160
160
320
640
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Experimental
experimental
Experimental
Control Tissue
Soil
Application
Tissue
Chemical
Concentration
Concentration
Rate
Concentration
Plant/Tissue Form
Applied Soil p11 (iiglg OW)
(pg/g OW)
(kg/ha)
(pg/g OW) Effect References
Swiss chard sludge (pot) 6.9—7.6 5 200 NA 39 Yield not reduced Valdarea
5.4—7.2 <10 46 85 Yield not reduced et al., 1983
S.4—6.8 <10 50 160 Yield reduced 28 2 c
5.3—7.1 <10 73 iao Yield reduced 741 c
4.8—6.1 <10 66 10 YieLd not reduced
4.7—6.0 <10 73 170 Yield reduced 37 %C
4.6—6.0 <10 100 250 Yield reduced 822C
Red beet! high—Ni 6.1—7.0 NH NH 94 d NH Yield reduced 252 Webber, 1972
total
sludge Yield reduced 482
(field)
Ce lery/ high—Ni 6.1—7.0 NH NH 94 d NH Yield not signifi— Webber, 1972
marketable sludge cantly reduced
(field) 2 51e Yield reduced 232
so 2 e Yield reduced 70%
Oats/shoot Ni—enriched NH 12. S NA NH No height reduction Webber, 1972
sludge (pot) 2S Height reduced 272
37.5 Height reduced 53%
-------
TABLI 4—1. (coni inuod)
Plant/Tissue
Chemical
Form Applied
Soil p 11
Control Tissuu
Concentration
(i g/g OW)
Experimental
Soil
ConcenLration
(pg/g L)W)
Experimental
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(pg/g OW)
Effect
References
Wheat/leaves
Wheat/grain
Ni—enriched
sludge (pot)
5.7
2.3
(1.0
40
40
NA
16
22
Grain yield not signil—
icantly reduced
Mitchell
et at., 1978
Wheat/leaves
Wheat/grain
Nj—enriched
sludge (pot)
5.7
2.3
(1.0
80
80
NA
46
64
Grain yield reduced
22%
Wheat/leaves
Wheat/grain
Ni—enriched
aludge (pot)
5.7
2.3
(1.0
160
160
NA
125
119
Grain yield reduced
40%
Wheat/leaves
Wheat/grain
Ni—enriched
sludge (pot)
7.5
3.4
(1.0
160
160
NA
6.8
5.1
Grain yield not signil—
icantly reduced
Wheat/leaves
Wheat/grain
Ni—enriched
sludge (pot)
7.5
3.4
<1.0
J20
320
NA
18
26
Grain yield reduced
312
Wheat/leaves
Wheat/grain
Ni—enriched
sludge (pot)
i.s
3.4
<1.0
640
640
NA
41
50
Grain yield reduced
80%
Mitchell
et al. , 1978
I-
0
-------
TABLI 4—1. (continued)
Experimental
Experimental
Expez-iinental
Control Tissue
Soil
Application
Tissue
Chemical
ConcenLration
Concentration
Rate
Concentration
Plant/Tissue
Form Applied
Soil p11
(pglg lnJ)
(iig/H D’.J)
(kg/ha)
( g/g D )
Effect
References
Oats
NiSO 4 (pot)
6.4
5.7
HR
HR
SO
100
250
50
100
250
NA
NA
HR
HR
Yield reduced 152
YieLd reduced 262
Yield reduced 30%
Yield reduced 16!
Yield reduced 712
Yield reduced 882
Webber, 1972
Nustard
NiSO 4 (pot)
6.4
5.7
NH
NIl
100
250
50
100
NA
NA
NH
HR
No yield reduction
Yield reduced 692
Yield reduced 312
Yield reduced 91!
Webber, 1972
Corn/grain
sludge
(field)
1.3
0.5-1.6
HR
< IBOf
(4.0
No yield reduction
Ilinesly et at.,
1984
Corn/leaf
Corn/grain
sludge
(field)
sandy soil
Bandy soil
0.3
0.3
HR
HR
165
65
3.0
4.0
No grain yield
reduction
CAST, 1976
(p. 46)
aUg Not reported.
bUg = Not applicable.
cSince sludge was applied, effect may not be du to Ni alone.
dcumulacive application during 3 years.
esingle application 3 years prior to cropping.
1 Cumulative application during 10 years.
-------
TABLE 4-2. UPTAKE OF NICKEL BY PLANTS
Range (N) of
Chemical Application Rates
Plant/Tissue Form Applied Soil p11 (kglha)a
Control Tissue
poncencration
(pglg OW)
Uptake
slopeb References
Ryegrass/Lops sludge (pot) 6.5 O_l2OC (4) 10 0.55 Bolton, 1975
5.0 o—l2O (4) 20 0.61
Romaine leLtuce sludge (field) 6.2—7.7 0—59 (6) 1.8 NS i Chaney
5.3—5.6 0—59 (3) 1.6 0.044 ci al., 1982
SwIss chard sludge (field) 6.7—7.7 0—59 (6) 1.7 0.053 Chaney
5.1—6.3 0—59 (3) 2.9 0.12 cc al., 1982
‘ Collard greens sludge (field) 6.3-1.1 0—59 (6) 1.8 0.033 Chancy
5.5—6.3 0—59 (3) 2.9 0.027 ci al., 1982
Reed canary grass sludge (field) 6.2—7.4 0—1.45 (2) I 2.4 NS Duncomb
ci aL., 1982
Corn/leaf Blucige (field) 6.2-7.4 0—1.24 (2) 0.9 NS Duncomb
cc a l., 1982
Corn/grain sludge (held) 6.2—7.4 0—1.24 (2) 0.6 uS Duncomb
ci al., 1982
Green pepper/edible sludge (pot) 7.1 0—33.8 ( 2 )c 0.4 0.033 Purr ci at.,
4.9 0—33.8 ( 2 )C 0.4 0.056 1981
Koh lrab iledible sludge (poL) 7.1 0—33.8 ( 2 )C 0.3 0.030 Purr ci at.,
4.9 0—33.8 ( 2 )C 0.9 0.13 1981
-------
TABLI 4—2. (continued)
Range (N) of Control Tissue
Chemical Application Rates Concentration Uptake
Plant/Tissue Form Applied Soil p 11 (kg/ha)a (pg/g flu) slopeb Referencea
Lettuceledible sludge (pot) 1.1 0—33.8 ( 2 )C 0.8 0.027 Purr et at.,
4.9 0—33.8 ( 2 )C 0.6 0.071 1981
Peas/edible sludge (poL) 7.1 0—33.8 (2)C 1.3 0.033 Purr et at.,
4.9 0—33.8 (2)C 1.7 0.11 1981
Spinach/edible sludge (pot) 1.1 0—33.8 ( 2 )C 0.7 0.068 Purr at at.,
4.9 0—33.8 ( 2 )c 1.0 0.086 1981
Sweet potato/edible sludge (pot) 7.1 0—33.8 ( 2 )C 0.1 0.012 Purr et at.,
4.9 0—33.8 ( 2 )C 0.3 0.027 1981
Turnip/edible sludge (pot) 7.1 0—33.8 ( 2 )C 0.2 0.021 Furr et at.,
4.9 0-33.8 ( 2 )c 0.7 0.068 1981
Apple/fruit sludge (poL) 3.1 0—33.8 ( 2 )C 0.1 0.009 Purr et at.,
4.9 0—33.8 (2)C 0.2 NS 1981
Corn/grain sludge (field) 7.3 0-180 ( 4 )e 0.5 0.009 Ilines ty
at at., 1984
Corn/leaf sludge (held) sandy soil 0—165 (4)1 0.3 0.017 CAST, 1976
Corn/grain 0-165 (4)1 0.3 0.022 (p. 46)
Lettuce/leaf sludge (field) 6.4 0-4.48 (2) 2.4 NS CAST. 1976
(p. 48)
-------
TAIILE 4-2. (continued)
Range (N) of Control Tissue
ChemicaL Application Rates Concentration Uptake
Plant/Tissue Form Applied Soil pH (kg/ha)a (pg/g OW) slopeb References
Broccoli/edible sludge (field) 6.4 0—4.48 (2) 3.3 NS CAST, 1976
(p. 48)
PoLato/edible sludge (field) 6.4 0-4.48 (2) 0.8 NS CAST, 1976
(p. 48)
Tomato/edible sludge (field) 6.4 0-4.48 (2) 1.3 NS CAST, 1976
(p. 48)
CuLumber/edible sludge (field) 6.4 0-4.48 (2) 0.1 0.067 CAST, 1976
(p. 48)
Eggplant/edible sludge (field) 6.4 0-4.48 (2) 1.1 NS CAST, 1976
(p. 48)
String bean/edible sludge (field) 6.4 0—4.48 (2) 1.6 NS CAST, 1976
(p. 48)
Rye/forage sludge (field) 5.0-6.0 0—42 (6) 0.9 0.026 Kelling
et at., 1977
Sorghum—sudan! sludge (field) 5.0-6.0 0-42 (6) 2.5 0.005 Kelling
forage et aL.,1977
Turnip/greens sludge (field) 5.6 08.5 (3)8 3.0 0.75 Hilter and
Bosuelt, 1919
-------
TAUl .I 4-2. (continued)
Range (N) of Control Tissue
Chemical Application Rates Concentration Uptake
Plant/Tissue Form Applied Soil p11 (kg/h 5 )a (pglg DId) Slopeb References
Fodder rape/Lops sludge (pot) 5.6 0-4.6 (3) 1.34 MS Narwal
6.0 0-4.6 (3) 0.24 0.030 et at., 1983
7.5 0—4.6 (3) 0.1) 0.076
Lettuce/shoots Ni—enriched 5.1 0-1280 ( 9 )c 3.5 1.0 MitchelL
sludge (pot) 1.5 0—1280 (9)C 4.5 0.12 et aL., 1978
Wheat/leaves Ni—enriched 5.7 0-640 (g)C 2.3 0.46 Mitchell
Wheat/grain sludge (pot) 0—640 (g)C <1.0 0.39 et at., 1978
Wheat/leaves Ni—enriched 1.5 0—1280 (y)C 3.4 0.029 Mitchell
Wheat/grain sludge (pot) 0-1280 (9)C <10 0.040 et al., 1978
U i
Corn/tops Ni—enriched 6.8 0—162 ( 4 )c <4.5 0.087 Cunningham
sludge (pot) at al., 1975b
Corn/Lops Ni—enriched 6.8 0—162 ( 4 )C <4.5 0.19 Cunningham
sludge (pot) et at., 1975b
Cabbage sludge ash 5.2-5.1 < 420 c,h 0.6 NSh Purr et al. ,
(pot) 1979
Bean/edible sludge (field) 6.2-6.4 0—16.2 (2) 6.1 0.019 Boyd cc al.,
1982
Beet/edible sludge (field) 6.2-6.4 0—16.2 (2) 1.0 0.23 Boyd et al.,
1982
-------
TAIILE 4-2. (continued)
Plant/Tissue
Chemical
Form Applied
Suil p 11
Range (N) of
Applicaliun Rates
(kg/ha)a
Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g OW)
Uptake
Slopeb
References
Cabbage/edible
sludge
(Field)
6.2-6.4
0—16.2 (2)
1.7
0.80
Boyd
1982
et
at.,
Squash/edible
sludge
(field)
6.2—6.4
0—16.2 (2)
1.9
0.28
Boyd
1982
et
at.,
a = Number of application rates, including control.
b = Hope y/x ; x kg/ha applied; y = pg/g OW plasit tissue concentrat son.
C = Application rate estimated from Ni additions La potted soil based on assumption of 1 pg hug soul = 2 kg hi/ha.
d = Cumulative application during S years. Applications to canary grass were made immediately alter cutting and before regrowth.
e Cumulative appliation during 10 years.
O f Cumulative appliation during 4 years.
g Cumulative appliation during 2 years.
h Sludge ashes from 10 different cities were used. No relatio,sshiip between Ni content and uptake was found.
-------
TABLE 4-3. TOXICITY OF NICKEL TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Feed
Chemical Form Concentration
Species (N) 8 Fed (pglg DW)
WaLer
Concentration
(gn glL)
Daily Intake
(mg/kg OW) Duration Effects Relerenceab
Calves (6) IlitO 3 250 NAC Na ° 5 days No adverse effect O’Dell et at.,
soo—iooo Decreased food intake 1970
Hid 2 50 NA 5 days No adverse effect
100—200 Decreased food intake
Cattle (6) NiCO 3 <250 NA HR 8 weeks No adverse effect O’Dell et a l . ,
1000 Decreased food intake, 1970
growth rate, organ size
and nitrogen retention
Cattle, sheep, MR SO NA NR NB Maximum tolerable level in HAS, 1980
horse feed
Poultry MR 300 NA HR N B Maximum tolerable level in HAS, 1980
feed
Chicken (24) NiSO 4 <300 NA HR 4 weeks No adverse effect Weber and
500-1300 Decreased growth and Reid, 1968
nitrogen retention
Ni acetate <300 NA HR 4 weeks No adverse effect
500—100 Decrease growth and
900-1300 nitrogen retention
Swine MR 100 NA 14K NB Maximum tolerable level in HAS, 1980
feed
-------
TABLE 4-3. (continued)
100
1000
2500
No adverse effect
No adverse effect
Initially; emesis. After
accLimation: decreased
body weight and hemoglobin;
increased urine volume,
liver and kidney weights;
granulocytic hyperplasia of
bane marrow; lung
pathologies.
R t (104)
soluble Ni NA
salt
soluble Ni NA
salt
100 NA
500
1000
100 e NA
1000 .. 2000 e
Young: deaths and runta
(Fl—3 generations)
No adverse effect
Decreased growth
Weight Loss; decreased
hemoglobin
No adverse effect
Decreased body and liver
weight; increased heart rate
Schroeder
et aL., 1974
Schroeder and
Mitchener, 1971
Dog (6) LIiSO 4
Feed
Water
Chemical Form Concentration
Species O4) Fed (pg/g Dw)
Concentration
(mg/I.)
1)aLly Intake
(mg/kg D II) Duration
.
Effects Relerenceab
NA BR 2 years
Hat (10)
Ambrose
et al., 1976
5
S
Rat (6) Ni acetate
Rat (So) 11 ;S0 4
No adverse effect
BK Itf etime
IlK 3 generations
NR 6 weeks
IlK 2 years
Whanger, 1973
Ambrose
et al., 1976
-------
TAIILE 4—3. (continued)
Species (N)a
Chemical Form
Fed
Feed
Concentration
(pglg DW)
WaLer
Concentration
(mg/ I.)
Daily intake
(mg/kg D I I)
Duration
Effects
Referenceab
Rat (60)
N i8 0 4
250
500
NA
NH
3 generations
Increased stiliborns in F 1
generation.
Increased atillborns in F 1
generation; fewer pups
weaned in all generations
Ambrose
et al., 1916
Mouse (104)
nictcelous
hA
5
NH
lifetime
No adverse effect
Schroeder
acetate
et al., 1963,
1964
Mouse (12)
nickel acetate
1100
1600
NA
NH
4 weeks
Decreased growth in females
Decreased growth
Weber and
Reid, 1969
Monkey (2)
Ni carbonate
250-1000
NA
HR
6 months
No adverse effect
Phatak and
Patwardhan,
1950
Ni soaps
250—1000
NA
NR
6 months
No adverse effect
= Number of animals/treatmenL group.
bSource of all information in table is hAS, 1980
CNA = Not applicable.
dNR Not reported.
eAdministered in milk (pg/g NW).
(p. 6, 345—363).
‘.0
-------
TABLE 4—4. UPTAKE OF NICKEL BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
= Number of animals/treatment group.
bN a Number of feed concentrations, including control.
CWhen tissue values were reported a wet weight, unless otherwise indicated a
and 722 for muscle.
dslope = y/x; a pg/g I ced (13W); y a ILg/g tissue (ow).
a a A general toxicosis was obberved in treatment group due to high propuriioii (502) ol sludge in diet.
IiS a lissue concentration noL significantly increased.
a Not reported.
M
0
Range (N)
of Feed
ControL Tissue
Species (N)a
Chemical
Form Fed
ConcentrationiJ
(pglg 1 3W)
Tissue
Analyzed
Concentration
(pg!g uw$
Uptake
stopecsd
References
Cattle (6)
sludge
0.88-4.6 (2)
kidney
liver
muscle
0.14
0.14
0.31
0.005
0.024
NS
Boyer et at., 1981
Sheep (ID)
sludge—grown
corn silage
1.40—2.26 (2)
kidney
liver
muscle
0.19
0.06
0.03
0.19
MS
MS
Telford et at., 1982
Sheep (NR)
sludge—grown
corn silage
N f l
muscle
N E
MS
Bray et at., 1981
Swine (28)
sludge—grown
corn grain
1.60—1.30 (2)
kidney
liver
muscle
2.12
0.91
0.94
1.12
MS
MS
Lisk et al., 1982
Swine (l 2 )e
sludge
2.15—123.8 (2)
kidney
0.091
0.020
Osuna et at., 1981
.
liver
muscle
ND
l ID
MS
MS
Rut (2)
sludge—grown
cabbage
0.42—3.68
kidney
liver
muscle
0.2
0.2
0.2
MS
IJS
0.12
Boyd et at., 1982
moisture content of 712 was assumed for kidney, 702 for liver
-------
TABLE 4-5. TOXICITY OF NICKEL TO SOIL BIOTA
Species
Chemical Form
Applied
Soil
p11
Soil
Concencr
(pg/s
ation
DW)
Application
Kate
(kg/ha)
Duration
Effects
References
Agricultural soil
microorganisms
Coal fly ash
6.5
25
50
37 days
No adverse effect on
evolution
CO 2
Arthur
212)
et al., 1984
(p.
lOU
200
37 days
CO 2 evolution reduced
15Z
100
350
37 days
CO 2 evolution reduced
242
a Effect not necessarily due to nickel, since fly ash was applied.
I - ’
-------
TABLE 4-6. UPTAKE OF NICKEI BY SOIL BIOTA
I ’ ,)
I..,
SoiL
Concentration
Control
T aaue
Species
Chemical
Form
Range ( 11 )a
(ug/g OW)
Tissue
Analyzed
Concentration
(pglg OW)
Uptake
Slopeb
Reference
Earthworms
soils near
highway
12.7—25.1 (5)
whoe body
13
1.17
Cish
(p.
and
1061
Christensen, 1973
)
N = Number of soil concentrations, including control.
b ylx: = a = soil concentration; y tissue concentration.
C Nean slope for two locations.
-------
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. 1980.
Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values, 4th ed. Cincinnati,
OH.
American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists. 1981.
Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents
in the Working Environment with Intended Changes for 1981.
Cincinnati, OH.
Allaway, W. H. 1968. Agronomic Controls Over the Environmental Cycling
of Trace Elements. In: Norman, A. C. (ed.), Advances in Agronomy,
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Ambrose, P., P. S. Larson, J. F. Borzelleca, and C. R. Henningar, Jr.
1976. Long—Term Toxicologic Assessment of Nickel in Rats and Dogs.
J. Food Sci. Technol. 13:181.
Arthur, M. F., T. C. Zwick, D. A. Tolle, and P. Van Voris. 1984.
Effects of Fly Ash on Microbial CO 2 Evolution from an Agricultural
Soil. Water Air Soil Pol].ut. 22:209—216.
Bertrand, .1. H., M. C. Lutrick, C. T. Edds, and R. t.. 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.
Bolton, J. 1975. Liming Effects on the Toxicity to Perennial Ryegrass
of a Sewage Sludge Contaminated with Zinc, Nickel, Copper and
Chromium. Environ. PolI.ut. 9:295—304.
Booz Allen and Hamilton, Inc. 1983. A Background Document on Cadmium
in Municipal Sewage Sludge. Revised Draft. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Sludge Task Force. April 29.
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.
Boyd, J. N., C. S. Stoewsand, J. C. Babish, J. N. Telford, and D. Lisk.
1982. Safety Evaluation of Vegetables Cultured on Municipal Sewage
Sludge—Amended Soil. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 11:399—405.
Boyer, K. W., J. W. Jones, S. K. Linscott, W. Wright, W. Stroube, and W.
Cummingham. 1981. Trace Element Levels in Tissues from Cattle Fed
a Sewage Sludge—Amended Diet. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health. 8:281—
295.
5—1
-------
Bray, B. J., R. D. Goodrich, R. H. Dowdy, and J. C. Meske. 1981. Per-
formance and Tissue Mineral Contents of Lambs Fed Corn SiLage Grown
on Sludge—Amended Soils (Abstract only). J. Ani. Sci. 53:384—385.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1983. New York City Special Permit
Application—Ocean Disposal of Sewage Sludge. Prepared for the City
of New York Department of Environmental Protection.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984. Deve].opment 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.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1976. Application of
Sewage Sludge to Crop].and: Appraisal of Potential Hazards of the
Heavy Metals to Plants and Animals. EPA 430/9—76—013.
Centers for Disease Control. 1983. NIOSH Recommendations for
Occupational Health Standards. Morbid. Mortal. Weekly Rep. 32:7S—
22 5.
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.
Chaney, R. L., S. B. Sterret, M. C. Morella, and C. A. Lloyd. 1982.
Effect of Sludge Quality and Rate, Soil pH, and Time on Heavy Metal
Residues in Leafy Vegetables. In: Proc. Fifth Annual Madison Conf.
AppLied Research and Practice on Municipal and Industrial Waste.
University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Cunningham, J. D., D. R. Keeney, and J. A. Ryan. 1975a. Yield and
Metal Composition of Corn and Rye Grown on Sewage Sludge—Amended
Soil. J. Environ. Qual. 4:455—460.
Cunningham, J. D., D. R. Keeney, and J. A. Ryan. 1975b. Phytotoxicity
in and Metal Uptake from Soil Treated with Metal—Amended Sewage
Sludge. J. Environ. Qual. 4:455—460.
Duncomb, 0. R., W. E. Larson, C. E. Clapp, R. 1. Dowdy, D. R. Linden,
and W. K. Johnson. 1982. Effect of Liquid Wascewacer Sludge
Application on Crop Yield and Water Quality. Process Design.
p. 1185—1193.
Donigian, A. S. 1985. Personal Communication.. Anderson—Nichols & Co.,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA. May.
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.
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice—Hall
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
5—2
-------
Furr, A. K., T. F. Parkinson, T. Wachs et al. 1979. Multi—Element
Analysis of Municipal Sewage Sludge Ashes. Absorption of Elements
by Cabbage Grown in Sludge Ash—Soil Mixture. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 13:1503—1506.
Furr, A. K., T. F. Parkinson, D. C. Elfving et at. 1981. Element
Content of Vegetables and Apple Trees Crown on Syracuse Sludge—
Amended Soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 29:156—160.
Geihar, L W., and C. .1. Axness. 1981. Stochastic Analysis of
Macrodispersion in 3—Dimensionally Heterogeneous Aquifers. Report
No. H—B. Hydrologic Research Program, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, Soccorro, NM.
Gerritse, R. C., R. Vriesema, J. W. Datenberg, and H. P. DeRoos. 1982.
Effect of Sewage Sludge on Trace Element Mobility in Soils. J.
Environ. Qual. 2:359—363.
Gish, D. D., and R. E. Christensen. 1973. Cadmium, Nickel, Lead, and
Zinc in Earthworms from Roadside Soil. Environ. Sci. Technol.
7(11): 1060—1062.
Hem, J. D. 1970. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Character-
istics of Natural Water, Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1473,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Hinesly, T. D., L. C. Hansen, and G. K. Dotson. 1984. Project Summary:
Effects of Using Sewage Sludge on Agricu].tural and Disturbed Lands.
EPA 600/S2—83—113. February.
Holrngren. C. 1983. PersonaL Communication. National Soil Survey
Laboratory. Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Lincoln, NE.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1982. Chemicals,
Industrial Processes nd Industries Associated with Cancer in
Humans. IARC Monographs SuppLement 4 (Vol. 1—29). Lyon, France.
Kelling, K. A., D. R. Keeney, L. M. Walsh, and J. A. Ryan. 1977. A
Field Study of the Agricultural Use of Sewage Sludge: III. Effect
on Uptake and Extractability of Sludge—Borne Metals. J. Environ.
Qual. 6(4):352—358.
Lisk, D. J., R. D. Boyd, 3. N. Telford et at. 1982. ToxicoLogic
Studies with Swine Fed Corn Grown on Municipal Sewage Sludge—
Amended Soil. J. Anim. Sci. 55(3):613—619.
Logan, T. J., and R. H. Miller. 1983. Background Levels of Heavy
Metals in Ohio Farm Soils. Research Circular 275. The Ohio State
University Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.
Wooster, OH.
Merck Index. 1976. Encyclopedia of Chemicals and Drugs, 9th Edition.
Merck and Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ.
5—3
-------
Mielke, H. W., J. C. Anderson, K. .1. Berry, P. Ii. Mielke, R. L. Chaney,
and M. Leech. 1983. Lead Concentration in Inner—City Soils as a
Factor in the Child Lead Problem. Amer. J. Pub. Health.
73(12): 1366—1369.
Miller, J., and F. C. Bosuell. 1979. Mineral Content of Selected
Tissues and Feces of Rats Fed Turnip Greens Crown on Soil Treated
with Sewage Sludge. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27:1361—1365.
Mitchell, G. A., F. T. Bingham, and A. L. Page. 1978. Yield and Metal
Composition of Lettuce and Wheat Crown on Soils Amended with Sewage
Sludge Enriched with Cadmium, Copper, Nickel and Zinc. .3.
Environ. Qual. 7:165—171.
Narwal, R. P., B. R. Singh, and A. R. Panhwar. 1983. Plant Availabil-
ity of Heavy Metals in a Sludge—Treated Soil: I. Effect of Sewage
Sludge and Soil pH on the Yield and Chemical Composition of Rape.
J. Environ. Qual. 12(3):358—365.
National Academy of Sciences. 1980. Mineral Tolerances of Domestic
Animals. HAS Subcommittee on Mineral Toxicity in Animals,
Washington, D.C.
O’Dell, C. D., W. J. Miller, S. L. Moore and W. A. King. 1970. Effect
of Nickel as the Chloride and the Carbonate on Palatability of
Cattle Feed. J. D. Dairy Sd. 53:1266.
Osuna, 0., C. T. Edds, and J. A. Popp. 1981. Comparative Toxicity of
Feeding Dried Urban Sludge and an Equivalent Amount of Cadmium to
Swine. Am. .3. Vet. Res. 42:1542—1546.
Pennington, .3. A. T. 1983. Revision of the Total Diet Study Food Lists
and Diets. .3. Am. Diet. Assoc. 82:166—173.
Pettyjohn, W. A., D. C. Kent, T. A. Prickett, H. E. LeGrand, and F. E.
Witz. 1982. Methods for the Prediction of Leachate Plume
Migration and Mixing. U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Phatak, S. S., and V. N. Patwardhan. 1950. Toxicity of NickeL. J.
Sci. md. Res. 98(3):70.
Pierce, F. J., R. H. Dowdy, and D. F. Crigal. 1982. Concentrations of
Six Trace Metals in Some Major Minnesota Soil Series. .3. Environ.
Qual. ll(3):416—422.
Ryan, .3. A., H. R. Pahren, and J. B. Lucas. 1982. Controlling Cadmium
in the Human Food Chain: A Review arid Rationale Based on Health
Effects. Environ. Res. 28:251—302.
Schroeder, H. A., and M. Mitchener. 1971. Toxic Effects of Trace
Elements on Their Reproduction of Mice Rats. Arch. Environ.
Health. 23:102.
5—4
-------
Schroeder, H. A., W. H. Vinton, Jr., and J. J. Balassa. 1963. Effects
of Chromium, Cadmium, and Other Trace Metals on the Growth and
Survival of Mice. J. Nutr. 80:39.
Schroeder, H. A., W. H. Vinton, Jr., and J. J. Ba].assa. 1964.
Chromium, Lead, Cadmium, Nickel and Titanium in Mice: Effect on
Mortality, Tumors, and Tissue Levels. J. Nutr. 83:239.
Schroeder, H. A., M. Mitchener and A. P. Nason. 1974. Life—Term
Effects of NickeL in Rats: Survival, Tumors, Interactions with
Trace Elements and Tissue Levels. J. Nutr. 104:239.
Sikora, L. J., W. D. Burge, and J. E. Jones. 1982. Monitoring of a
Municipal Sludge Entrenchment Site. J. Environ. Qual.
2(2):321—325.
Telford, J. N., M. L. Thonney, D. E. Hogue et al. 1982. ToxicoLogic
Studies in Growing Sheep Fed Silage Corn Cultured on Municipal
Sludge—Amended Acid Subsoil. J. Toxicol. Environ. HeaLth. 10:73—
85.
Thornton, I., and P. Abrams. 1983. Soil Ingestion — A Major Pathway of
Heavy Metals into Livestock Grazing Contaminated Land. Sci. Total
Environ. 28:287—294.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975. Composition of Foods.
Agricultural Handbook No. 8.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Environmental Assessment
of Subsurface Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Sludge: Interim
Report. EPA/530/SW—547. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnacti, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979a. Air Quality Data for
Metals 1976 from the National Air Surveillance Networks. EPA
600/4—79—054. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979b. 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 Nickel. EPA 440/5—80—060. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982a. Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly—Owned Treatment Works. FinaL Report.
Vol. I. EPA 440/1—82—303. Effluent Guidelines Division,
Washington, D.C. September.
U.S. EnvironmentaL Protection Agency. 1982b. Errata for Ambient Water
Quality Criteria Documents. Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office, Cincinnati, OH. February 23.
5—5
-------
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. Health Assessment
Document for Nickel. ExternaL Review Draft. EPA 600/8—83—012.
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983c. Rapid Assessment of
Potential Groundwater Contamination Under Emergency Response
Conditions. EPA 600/8—83—030.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Air Quality Criteria for
Lead. External Review Draft. EPA 600/8—83—028B. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC.
September.
U.S. EnvironementaL Protection Agency. 1985. Drinking Water Criteria
Document for Nickel. ECAO—Cin—443. Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. March.
Valdares, J.M.A.S., M. Gal, U. Mingeigrin, and A. L. Page. 1983. Some
Heavy Metals in SoiLs Treated with Sewage Sludge, Their Effects on
Yield, and Their Uptake by Plants. J. Environ. Qual. 12:49—57.
Webber, J. 1972. Effects of Toxic Metals in Sewage on Crops. Water
Pollut. Control. p. 404—410.
Weber, C. W., and B. L. Reid. 1968. Nickel Toxicity in Growing Chicks.
J. Nutr. 95:612.
Weber, C. W., and B. L. Reid. 1969. Nickel Toxicity in Young Growing
Mice. J. Anim. Sd. 28:620.
Whanger, P. D. 1973. Effects of Dietary Nickel on Enzyme Activities
and Mineral Content in Rats. Toxicol. Appi. Pharmacol. 25:323.
5—6
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR NICKEL
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLIJDCE
I • LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND—MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Nickel
1. Index of Soil Concentration Increment (Index 1)
a. Formula
( Sc x AR) + (Bs x KS )
Index 1 = BS (AR + MS)
where:
SC = Sludge concentration of polLutant
(iig/g DW)
AR Sludge appLication rate (mt DW/ha)
BS Background concentration of polLutant in
soil (i.ig/g DW)
MS = 2000 nit DWIha = Assumed mass of soiL in
upper 15 cm
b. Sample calculation
1 0 = pg/g DW x 5 mt/ha) + (18.6 ig/ DW x 2000 mt/ha )
18.6 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 = TB
where:
I = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil ( ig/g DW)
TB = Soil concentration toxic to soil biota
(pg/g DW)
A-i
-------
b. Sample calculation — Values were not calculated due
to lack of data.
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Formula
1 i — l)(Bs x UB) + BB
Index 3 = TR
where:
= Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ugig DW)
UB = Uptake slope of pollutant in soil biota
(ug/g tissue DW [ j. g/g soil DW] )
BB Background concentration in soil biota
(ug/g DW)
TR = Feed concentratLon toxic to predator (ug/g
DW)
b. Sample calculation
0.044 ((1.0 —1) (18.6 llg/g DW x
1.17 1.Ig/g DW [ .ig/g soil DWJ 1 ) + 13 g/g DWJ s
300 ug/g DW
C. effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxicity (Index 4)
a. Formula
x BS
Index 4 =
where:
= Index 1 Index of soil concentration
increment (unicless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
TP = Soil concentration toxic to plants (ug/g
DW)
A-2
-------
b. Sample calculation
— 1.0 x 18.6 1g/g DW
50 I.ig/g DW
2. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Caused by Uptake
(Index 5)
a. Formula
( i — 1) x BS
Index5 ,cCOxUP+1
BP
where:
Ii = Index 1 = Index of soil, concentration
increment (unitless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ugig DW)
CO = 2 kg/ha (iig/gY ’ 1 = Conversion factor
between soil concentration and application
rate
UP = Uptake slope of pollutant in plant tissue
(3.ig/g tissue DW [ kg/ha] ” 1 )
BP = Background concentration n plant tissue
(iig/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
. 0 — ( 1.0 —1) x 18.6 ug/g DW 2 kg/ha
— 1.7 I.Ig/g DW X ug/g soil
0.8 pg/g tissue
x +1
kg! ha
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)
A-3
-------
b. Sample calculation
— 160 ug/g DW
10 ig g DW
C. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Formula
15 x BP
Index 7 = TA
where:
15 = Index 5 = Index of plant concentration
increment caused by uptake (unitless)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(ug/g DW)
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
0 00 0 — 1.0 x 0.9 i g/g DW
100 g/gDW
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Formula
BS c CS
IfAR=0, 18 TA
IfAR#0, 1 _SCXGS
where:
AR = Sludge application race (mt DW/ha)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(iig/g DW)
BS = Background concentration of polLutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
(unitless)
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
anim4l ( ig/g DW)
A-4
-------
b. Sample calculation
If — 0 0 00 3 — 18.6 ig/g DW x 0.05
AR— , • — 100 I.Ig/gDW
If 0 0 022 — 4• .ig/g DW x 0.05
ARr — 100 ig/gDW
E. Effect on Ifnmgns
1. Index of human Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
a. Formula
[ (15 — 1) BP x DTJ DI
Index 9 = ________________________
ADI
where:
I = Index 5 = Index of plant concentration
increment caused by uptake (unitless)
B? = Background concentration in pLant tissue
(l.lg/g DW)
DT = DaiLy human dietary intake of affected
plant tissue (g/day DW)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (i.ig/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(lig/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
0 041 = [ (1.1 — 1) x 1.7 jg/ DW x 74.5 g/dav] + 135 I.lg/day
3500 ug/day
2. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Formula
[ (Is — 1) BP x UA x DA] + DI
Index 10 = DI
where:
= Index 5 = Index of plant concentration
increment caused by uptake (unitless)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(i.ig/g DW)
UA = Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue
(Jig/g tissue OW [ 1.zg/g feed DW] 1 )
A-5
-------
DA = Daily human dietary intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (izg/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of poLlutant
(pg/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
03 — [ (1.1—1) x 0.9 1g/g DW x 0.024 ug/g tissue [ pg/g feed1 x 0.97 g/day] + 135 1g/day
• — 3500 pg/day
3. Index of Human Toxicity Risk Resulting from Consumption
of Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. Formula
CBS x CS x UA x DA) + DI
If AR 0, Index 11 = ADI
( Sc x GS x UA x DA) + DI
If AR 0, rndex 11 = ADI
where:
AR = Sludge application race ( Inc DW/ha)
BS Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (pg/g OW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(ug/g DW)
CS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
(unit Less)
UA = Uptake sLope of pollutant in animal tissue
(i’g/g tissue OW [ i g/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 (pg/day)
ADI = AcceptabLe daily intake of pollutant
(pg/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
03 — ( 44.7 pg/g OW x 0.05 x 0.024 ug/g tissue [ pg/g feed] x 0.97 g/day DW) + 135 pg/day
• 3500 pg/day
4. Index of Human Toxicity Risk Resulting from Soil
Ingestion (Index 12)
a. Formula
( Ii x BS x DS) + DI
Index 12 =
A—6
-------
• • ( SCxDS)+DI
Pure sludge Lngestlon: Index 12 = ADI
where:
I = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
( .ig/g DW)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (j g/g DW)
DS = Assumed amount of soil in human diet
(g/day)
DI = Average daiLy dietary intake of poLlutant
(rig/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
0.065 = ( 1.0 x 18.6 g/g DW x 5 g soil/day) + 135 pg/day
3500 .ig/day
Pure sludge:
— ( 44.7 ug/g DW x 5 g soil/day) + 135 ug/dav
3500 lig/day
5. Index of Aggregate Human Toxicity (Index 13)
a. Formula
Index 13 = 19 + 110 + Iii + 112 — ADI
where:
19 Index 9 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from pLant consumption (unit—
less)
110 = Index 10 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals feeding on
plants (unitless)
I = Index 11 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals ingesting
soil (unitLess)
112 = Index 12 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from soil ingestion (unitLess)
DI = Average daily dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of poLlutant
(ag/day)
A— 7
-------
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
0.067 = (0.041 + 0.039 + 0.039 + 0.065) — ( 3 x 135 1.I /daY )
3500 i g/day
II. LANDFILLING
A. Procedure
Using Equation 1, several values of C/C 0 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, C , 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, C 0 , 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( ,t ) 4 (exp(A 1 ) erfc(A 2 ) + exp(B 1 ) erfc(B 2 )] = P(X,t)
Co
Requires evaluations of four dimensionless input values and
subsequent evaluation ofA the result. Exp(A 1 ) denotes the
exponential of A 1 , e , where erfc(A 2 ) denotes the
complimentary error function of A 2 . Erfc(A 2 ) produces values
between 0.0 and 2.0 (Abramouitz and Stegun, 1972).
where:
A = L.. [ V* — (V* 2 + 4D* x
1 2D
_ tv*2+4o x *
A 2 = (4D* x
B = .X_ _ [ V* + (V* 2 4. 4D* x
I 2D*
+ t (v 2 + 4D x
B 2 = (4D x
A-8
-------
and where for the unsaturated zone:
C 0 = SC x CF = Initial leachate concentration (izg/L)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
CF = 250 kg sludge solids/rn 3 leachate =
PS x
1 — PS
PS = Percent solids (by weight) of landfilled sludge =
20%
t = Time (years)
x = h = Depth to groundwater (m)
= a x V (m 2 /year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
= Q (rn/year)
0 xR
Q = Leachate generation rate (rn/year)
0 = Volumetric water content (unitless)
a = 1 + P y x Kd = Retardation factor (unitless)
8
dry = Dry bulk density (g/mL)
= Soil sorption coefficient (rnL/g)
365x1.i —l
= R (years)
= Degradation rate (day 1 )
and where for the saturated zone:
C 0 = Initial concentration of poLl.utant in aquifer as
determined by Equation 2 (iig/L)
t = Time (years)
= M. = Distance from well to landfill (m)
= x V* (m 2 /year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
v = K X (rn/year)
øx R
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (rn/day)
i = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unit less)
= Aquifer porosity (unitless)
a = 1 + drv x d = Retardation factor = 1 (unitless)
since Kd is assumed to be zero for the saturated
zone
C. Equation 2. Linkage Assessment
- QxW
o — Cu X 365 [ (K x i) 0] x B
A-9
-------
where:
C 0 = Initial concentration of pollutant in the saturated
zone as determined by Equation I ( ig/L)
Cu = Maximum pulse concentration from the unsaturated
zone (i.ig/L)
Q = Leachate generation rate (rn/year)
W = Width of landfill (m)
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (rn/day)
i Average hydraulic gradient between Landf ill and well
(unitless)
0 = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
B = Thickness of saturated zone Cm) where:
QxWx
B> . andB>2
— Kxix365 —
D. Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
C( ,t ) = P(x,t) for 0 < t <
Co
c( ,t ) = P(X,t) — P(X,t — t 0 ) for >
where:
t 0 (for, unsaturated zone) = LT = Landfill leaching time
(years)
t 0 (for saturated zone) = Pulse thiration at the water
table (x = h) as determined by the following equation:
Cdt]tC
C( .t )
P(X,t) = as determined by Equation 1
0
E. Equation 4. Index of Groundwater Concentration Increment
Resulting from Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
Cmax + BC
Index 1 = BC
where:
Cmax = Maximum concentration of poLlutant at well =
Maximum of C(AL,c) calculated in Equation 1
( zg/L)
BC = Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (jig/L)
A—l0
-------
2. Sample Calculation
1 25 — 1.22 g/L + 4.8 g/L
4.8 ig/L
F. Equation 5. Index of H?nnAn Toxicity Resulting from
Groundwater Contamination (Index 2)
1. Formula
( ( 1 i — 1) BC x AC] + DI
Index 2 = ADI
where:
Ij = Index 1 = Index of groundwater concentration
increment resulting from LandfilLed sludge
BC = Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater ( ig/L)
AC = Average human consumption of drinking water
(L/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
( igIday)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of poLlutant (ug/day)
2. Sample Calculation
— [ (1.25 — 1) x 4.8 ig/L x 2 L/dav] + 400 ug/dav
3500 ug day
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from Incinerator
Emissions (Index 1)
1. Formula
( C x DS x SC x FM x DP) + BA
Index 1 = BA
where:
C = Coefficient to correct for mass and time units
(hr/sec x g/mg)
DS = Sludge feed rate (kg/hr DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
FM = Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack
(unitless)
DP = Dispersion parameter for escimacin maximum
annual ground Level concentration (jig/mi)
BA = Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air (ug/m 3 )
A-li
-------
2. Sample Calculation
1.0 = [ (2.78 x i0 hr/sec x s/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW x 44.7 mg/kg DW 0.002
x 3.4 lJg/rn 3 ) + 0.009 ug/m ] • 0.009 ug/m 3
B. Index of HumAn Toxicity/Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation
of Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Formula
[ ( 1 i — 1) x BA] + BA
Index2= EC
where:
I = Index I = Index of air concentration increment
resulting from incinerator emissions
(unitless)
BA = Background concentration of pollutant in
urban air (i.ig/m 3 )
EC = Exposure criterion (ug/m 3 )
2. Sample Calculation
3 0 = [ (1.0 — 1) x 0.009 i.xg/m 3 ] + 0.009 ug/m 3
0.00304 l.ig(m 3
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April—May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposaL option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
A— 12
-------
TABLE A-i. INPUT DATA VARYING iN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOR EACH CONDITION
Condition of Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
1.53
0. 195
1.53
0.195
58.6
(TI
)W)
ITI
(TI
(TI
(TI
44.7
662.?
44.7
44.7
44.7
44.7
1.53
0.195
NA
NA
N
N
8
Na
7
‘WI
662.7
1 .925
0.133
12.2
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (pg/g DW)
Unsaturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
.
I
‘.,
Dry bulk density, dry (g/UIL)
Volumetric water content, 0 (unitless)
Soil sorption coefficient, 1 d (mLIg)
Site parameters
Leachate generation rate, Q Cm/year)
Depth to groundwater, h Cm)
Dispersivity coefficient, (m)
0.8
S
0.5
0.8
S
0.5
0.8
S
0.5
NAb
NA
WA
.
1.6
0
NA
1.53
0.195
58.6
0.8
S
0.5
Saturated zone
Soil type and characLeristics
Aquifer porosity, 0 (unicless)
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,
K Cm/day)
0.44
0.86
0.44
0.86
0.44
0.86
0.44
0.86
0.389
4.04
0.44
0.86
SiLe parameters
Hydraulic gradient, i (unitless)
Distance from well to landlill, AQ. Cm)
Diaperaivity coefficient, (m)
0.001
100
10
0.02
50
5
0.02
50
5
N
N
N
0.8
S
0.5
1.6
0
NA
0.389
4.04
0.001
100
10
N
N
N
N
N
0.00I
100
I0
0.001
100
10
0.001
100
10
-------
TAbLE A—I. (continued)
Results
Condition of
Analysis
1
2
3
ó
5
6
7
8
Unsaturated zone assessment (equations 1 and
3)
initial leachate concentration, C 0 (pg/L)
11200
166000
11200
11200
11200
11200
166000
N
Peak concentration, C 0 (pgIL)
111
1640
422
11200
111
111
166000
N
Pulse duration, to (years)
504
504
132
5.00
504
504
5.00
N
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquifer Lhickness, B Cm)
126
126
126
253
23.8
6.32
2.38
N
Initial concentration in saturated tone, C 0
(jig/L)
li i
1640
422
11200
111
111
166000
N
Saturated zone assessmeut (Equationb 1 and 3)
Maximum well concentration, Cmax (1ig/L)
1.22
18.0
1.22
1.21
6.46
65.6
3830
N
index of groundwater conccnt.raLIon Increment
resulting from Iandlilled sludge,
index I (unitless) (Equation 4)
1.25
4.76
1.25
1.25
2.35
10.5
800
0
Index of human toxicity resulting trom
groundwater contamination, Index 2
(unilless) (Equation 5)
0.115
0.125
0.115
0.115
0.118
0.140
2.31
0.114
= Null condition, where i so landfill exists; no value is used.
bNA = Not applicable for this condition.
------- |