f/ERA
           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:
           Benzo(a)anthracene

-------
                                 PREFACE
     This document is one of  a  series  of preliminary assessments dealing
with  chemicals  of potential  concern  in municipal  sewage  sludge.   The
purpose of these  documents  is to:  (a)  summarize  the  available data for
the  constituents  of  potential  concern,  (b) identify  the key environ-
mental  pathways  for  each  constituent  related  to  a reuse and disposal
option  (based on  hazard  indices), and  (c) evaluate  the  conditions under
which such a pollutant may  pose a hazard.   Each document provides a sci-
entific basis  for making an  initial  determination  of whether  a pollu-
tant, at levels currently observed in  sludges,  poses  a  likely hazard to
human health  or  the  environment  when  sludge  is disposed  of by  any of
several methods.   These  methods  include landspreading on  food  chain or
nonfood chain  crops,  distribution  and marketing  programs,  landfilling,
incineration and ocean disposal.

     These documents are intended to  serve as a rapid screening tool to
narrow an initial list of pollutants to those of  concern.   If a signifi-
cant hazard  is  indicated by  this preliminary analysis,  a  more detailed
assessment will  be  undertaken  to  better quantify  the  risk from  this
chemical and to derive criteria  if warranted.   If a hazard  is  shown to
be unlikely, no further  assessment will be conducted at  this  time;  how-
ever, a reassessment will  be  conducted after  initial  regulations  are
finalized.   In no case,  however,  will  criteria  be derived  solely on the
basis of information presented in  this  document.

-------
                            TABLE OP CONTENTS


                                                                     Page

PREFACE 	   i

1.  INTRODUCTION	  1-1

2.  PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE IN MUNICIPAL
      SEWAGE SLUDGE	  2-1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketin^,	  2-1

    Landfilling 	  2-1

    Incineration 	  2-1

    Ocean Di sposal 	  2-2

3.  PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE IN MUNICIPAL
    SEWAGE SLUDGE	  3-1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 	  3-1

         Effect on soil concentration of benzo(a)anthracene
           (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) 	  3-6
         Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 	  3-8

    Landf illing 	  3-13

    Incineration 	  3-13

         Index of air concentration increment resulting
           from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 	  3-13
         Index of human cancer risk resulting from
           inhalation of incinerator emissions
           (Index 2)	  3-16

    Ocean Disposal 	  3-17

         Index of seawater concentration resulting from
           initial mixing of sludge (Index 1) 	  3-18
         Index of seawater concentration representing a
           24-hour dumping cycle (Index 2) 	  3-21
         Index of toxicity to aquatic life (Index  3)  	  3-22
         Index of human cancer risk resulting
           from seafood consumption (Index 4) 	  3-24
                                   11

-------
                            TABLE OP CONTENTS
                               (Continued)
                                                                     Page
4.  PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE IN MUNICIPAL
      SEWAGE SLUDGE	  4-1

    Occurrence	  4-1

         Sludge 	  4-1
         Soil - Unpolluted 	  4-1
         Water - Unpolluted 	  4-2
         Air 	  4-2
         Food 	  4-2

    Human Effects 	  4-3

         Ingestion 	  4-3
         Inhalation 	  4-3

    Plant Effects	  4-4

         Phytotoxicity 	  4-4
         Uptake 	  4-4

    Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 	  4-4

         Toxicity 	  4-4
         Uptake	  4-4

    Aquatic Life Effects 	  4-5

         Toxicity 	  4-5
         Uptake	  4-5

    Soil Biota Effects	  4-5

         Toxicity 	  4-5
         Uptake 	  4-5

    Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport  	  4-6

5.  REFERENCES	  5-1

APPENDIX.  PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
    BENZOCA)ANTHRACENE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE  SLUDGE 	  A-l
                                   111

-------
                                SECTION 1

                               INTRODUCTION
     This  preliminary  data  profile  is  one  of  a  series   of  profiles
dealing  with chemical  pollutants  potentially of  concern  in municipal
sewage  sludges.    Benzo(a)anthracene  (BaA)  was  initially  identified as
being of potential  concern when sludge  is  landspread (including distri-
bution and marketing),  incinerated  or ocean disposed.* This profile  is a
compilation of information  that may be  useful  in determining whether BaA
poses an actual hazard  to  human health  or the  environment when sludge is
disposed of by these methods.
     The  focus  of   this  document  is  the  calculation   of  "preliminary
hazard  indices"  for  selected potential  exposure  pathways,  as  shown in
Section  3.   Each  index illustrates  the hazard  that could  result  from
movement of  a  pollutant   by  a given  pathway  to  cause  a  given  effect
(e.g., sludge •* soil •»  plant  uptake •* animal uptake •*  human  toxicity).
The  values  and  assumptions   employed   in   these   calculations  tend  to
represent a  reasonable "worst  case";  analysis  of error  or uncertainty
has  been  conducted  to  a  limited degree.   The  resulting value  in most
cases  is  indexed  to unity;  i.e.,  values  >1  may indicate  a potential
hazard, depending upon the assumptions of the calculation.
     The data used  for  index  calculation have  been selected or estimated
based  on  information  presented  in  the  "preliminary  data  profile",
Section 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,  incineration
and ocean disposal  practices  are  included in this  profile.   The calcula-
tion formulae for  these indices  are shown  in  the  Appendix.   The  indices
are rounded to  two significant figures.
* Listings  were determined  by  a  series  of  expert  workshops  convened
  during  March-May,  1984  by   the  Office   of   Water   Regulations   and
  Standards (OWRS)  to  discuss landspreading,  landfilling,  incineration,
  and ocean disposal, respectively,  of  municipal  sewage  sludge.
                                   1-1

-------
                                SECTION 2

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
     The  following  preliminary  conclusions  have  been  derived  from the
calculation of  "preliminary hazard  indices",  which  represent conserva-
tive or  "worst  case" analyses  of  hazard.   The  indices and  their basis
and  interpretation  are  explained  in  Section  3.    Their  calculation
formulae are shown in the Appendix.

  I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING               _,.

     A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of Benzo(a)anthracene

          The  concentration  of  BaA  is  expected  to  moderately  increase
          above   background  soil  concentrations  as  a  result  of  land-
          spreading sludge (see Index 1).

     B.   Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota

          Conclusions were not  drawn because  index values could  not  be
          calculated due to lack of data.

     C.   Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

          Conclusions were not  drawn because  index values could  not  be
          calculated due to lack of data.

     D.   Effect on Herbivorous Animals

          Conclusions were not  drawn because  index values could  not  be
          calculated due to lack of data.

     E.   Effect on Humans

          Conclusions were not  drawn because  index values could  not  be
          calculated due to lack of data.

 II. LANDPILLING

     Based on the recommendations of the experts  at the OWRS  meetings
     (April-May,  1984),  an assessment of  this reuse/disposal option  is
     not being conducted  at  this  time.   The U.S. EPA reserves the right
     to conduct  such an assessment  for this option  in the  future.

III. INCINERATION

     Incineration of sludge  may slightly  increase  BaA concentrations  in
     air above background urban air concentrations;  this increase  may  be
     substantial when sludge  containing  a high  concentration of  BaA  is
     incinerated  at  a  high  feed  rate  (see   Index  1).    The potential
     effect of these increased air concentrations of  BaA on human  cancer
     risk resulting  from inhalation of incinerator emissions could not
     be determined due  to lack of data (see Index 2).

                                   2-1

-------
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

    Slight to moderate  increases of the  seawater concentration  of  BaA
    are  evident   under  all  the  scenarios  evaluated  (see  Index  1).
    Slight to moderate  increases in the  seawater concentration  of  BaA
    are apparent  over  a 24-hour dumping  cycle (see Index  2).    Only  a
    slight increase  of  hazard  to  aquatic  life  is  apparent  for  all
    scenarios evaluated (see Index  3).   The  potential  effect  of ocean
    disposal  of   sludge  on human  cancer  risk resulting  from  seafood
    consumption   could   not  be  determined  due to  lack  of  data  (see
    Index 4).
                                 2-2

-------
                                SECTION 3

            PRELIMINARY HkZAkD INDICES FOR BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
                       IN MUNICIPAL  SEWAGE  SLUDGE
I.   LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

     A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of Benzo(a)anthracene

          1.   Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)

               a.   Explanation -  Calculates concentrations  in Ug/g  DW
                    of pollutant in sludge-amended  soil.   Calculated for
                    sludges  with   typical  (median,  if  available)  and
                    worst  (95  percentile, if  available)   pollutant  con-
                    centrations, respectively, for  each of four applica-
                    tions.    Loadings  (as  dry  matter)  are  chosen  and
                    explained as follows:

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

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

                     SO mt/ha  Higher  single application as  may be  used
                               on  public  Lands,  reclaimed  areas or  home
                               gardens.

                    500 mt/ha  Cumulative  loading   after   100   years  of
                               application at 5  mt/ha/year.

               b.   Assumptions/Limitations   -   Assumes   pollutant   is
                    incorporated into  the upper  15  cm of soil  (i.e.,  the
                    plow layer),  which  has  an  approximate   mass  (dry
                    matter)  of  2  x 10-* mt/ha  and  is  then   dissipated
                    through first  order  processes which can be  expressed
                    as a soil half-life.
                    Data Used and Rationale

                      i. Sludge  concentration of pollutant  (SC)

                         Typical     0.677  yg/g DW
                         Worst      4.798  Mg/g DW
                                   3-1

-------
                    The typical and  worst  sludge concentrations are
                    the median and 95th  percentile values statisti-
                    cally  derived from  sludge  concentration  data
                    from  a  survey  of 40  publicly-owned  treatment
                    works  (POTWs)  (U.S.  EPA,  1982).    (See  Section
                    4, p. 4-1.)

                ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
                    (BS) = 0.0054 Ug/g DW

                    The average  of  three cultivated  soils  (<0.001,
                    0.0072,  and 0.0080  Ug/g) of BaA  was calculated
                    to  be  0.0054 Ug/g- (from   values  reported  by
                    Mathur  and  Sirois,  1976).    (See  Section  4,
                    p. 4-1.)   These  Canadian values  are the  only
                    BaA values available.

               iii. Soil  half-life   of  pollutant  (t£>  -  Data  not
                    immediately available.

                    Values  for  the   sludge application rate of  500
                    mt/ha were  calculated  assuming the  degradation
                    rate of BaA to be zero.

          d.   Index 1 Values (llg/g DW)

                                   Sludge Application  Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
0
0.0054
0.0054
5
0.0071
0.017
50
0.022
0.12
500
0.14
0.96
          e.   Value  Interpretation  -  Value  equals  the  expected
               concentration in sludge-amended soil.

          f.   Preliminary Conclusion - The concentration  of  BaA is
               expected  to  moderately  increase  above  background
               soil concentrations  as  a result of landspreading  of
               sludge.

B.   Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota

     1.   Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index  2)

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

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

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

            i. Concentration 01: pollutant in sludge-amended
               soil (Index I)"1 '

               See Section 3, p. 3-2.

           ii. Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (TB)
               - Data not immediately available.

     d.   Index 2  Values - Values  were not calculated  due to
          lack of data.

     e.   Value Interpretation  -  Value equals  factor  by which
          expected soil  concentration  exceeds  toxic concentra-
          tion.  Value  > 1 indicates a toxic  hazard  may exist
          for soil biota.

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

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

     a.   Explanation   -  Compares  pollutant   concentrations
          expected in  tissues  of organisms  inhabiting  sludge-
          amended  soil   with  food  concentration shown  to  be
          toxic to a predator on soil organisms.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes   pollutant  form
          bioconcentrated by  soil  biota is equivalent  in' 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.   Concentration  of  pollutant   in  sludge-amended
               soil (Index 1)

               See Section 3,  p. 3-2.

          ii.  Uptake factor of pollutant  in soil biota (UB)
               - Data not immediately available.

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

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

     e.   Value Interpretation - Values equals  factor  by which
          expected concentration  in  soil  biota  exceeds  that
          which is toxic  to  predator.   Value  > 1  indicates  a
          toxic hazard may exist for  predators  of soil  biota.
                         3-3

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

C.   Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

     1.   Index of Phytotozic Soil Concentration (Index 4)

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

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

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

                 i. Concentration  of  pollutant  in  sludge-amended
                    soil (Index 1)

                    See Section 3, p.  3-2.

                ii. Soil concentration toxic  to plants  (TP) - Data
                    not immediately available.

          d.   Index 4  Values  - Values were  not calculated due  to
               lack of data.

          e.   Value Interpretation -  Value .equals  factor  by  which
               soil concentration  exceeds phytotoxic  concentration.
               Value > 1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard may exist.

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

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

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

          b.   Assumptions/Limitations -  Assumes an  uptake factor
               that is constant  over  all  soil concentrations.   The
               uptake factor chosen  for  the  human  diet is  assumed
               to  be representative of all crops  (except fruits)  in
               the human diet.    The  uptake  factor  chosen for the
               animal diet  is  assumed to be  representative of all
               crops in  the animal  diet.   See  also Index  6 for
               consideration of  phytotoxicity.
                              3-4

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

          i.   Concentration  of  pollute.; ?r.  in  sludge-amended
               soil (Index 1)

               See Section 3, p. 3-2.

          ii.  Uptake  factor  of  pollutant  in  plant  tissue
               (UP) - Data not immediately available.

     d.   Index   S   Values  (|lg/g   DW)  -  Values   were   not
          calculated due to lack of data.

     e.   Value  Interpretation  - Valu® equals  the  expected
          concentration in  tissues  of  plants grown  in sludge-
          amended  soil.     However,   any value  exceeding  the
          value  of  Index  6  for  the  same or  a similar  plant
          species may be unrealistically high  because it  would
          be precluded by phytoxicity.

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

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

     a.   Explanation - The  index value is  the  maximum tissue
          concentration,   in  Mg/g  DW,  associated  with  phyto-
          toxicity  in  the  same  or  similar plant  species  used
          in Index 5.  The purpose is to determine whether the
          plant  tissue  concentrations  determined   in  Index  5
          for high applications  are  realistic,  or  whether  such
          concentrations  would  be precluded by  phytotoxicity.
          The maximum  concentration   should  be  the  highest  at
          which some  plant  growth still occurs  (and thus  con-
          sumption of tissue by  animals is possible) but  above
          which consumption by animals is unlikely.

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

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

          i.   Maximum plant tissue  concentration  associated
               with  phytoxicity  (PP)  -  Data  not  immediately
               available.

     d.   Index  6   Values   (ug/g  DW)  -   Values  were   not
          calculated due  to lack of  data.

     e.   Value  Interpretation  - Value  equals  the  maximum
          plant   tissue  concentration  which  is  permitted  by
          phytotoxicity.    Value  is  compared with   values  for-
                         3-5

-------
               the same  or  similar plant species given  by Index 5.
               The lowest of  the two indices  indicates  the maximal
               increase  that   can  occur  at  any given  application
               rate.

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

D.   Effect on Herbivorous Animals

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

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

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

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

                 i. Concentration  of  pollutant  in plant   grown  in
                    sludge-amended soil (Index 5) - Values were  not
                   calculated due to lack of data.

                ii. Peed concentration  toxic to  herbivorous  animal
                    (TA) - Data not immediately available.

          d.   Index  7  Values  - Values were not calculated due  to
               lack of data.

          e.   Value  Interpretation -  Value equals factor  by  which
               expected  plant  tissue  concentration   exceeds   that
               which  is  toxic  to  animals.   Value >  1  indicates  a
               toxic  hazard  may exist  for  herbivorous  animals.

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

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

          a.   Explanation - Calculates the amount  of pollutant  in
               a  grazing   animal's   diet  resulting   from  sludge
               adhesion  to  forage  or from  incidental  ingestion  of
               sludge-amended   soil  and  compares  this   with   the
                              3-6

-------
     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 Used and Rationale

       i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

          Typical    0.677 Ug/g  DW
          Worst      4.798 Mg/g DW

          See Section 3,  p.  3-1.

      ii. Fraction of animal  diet assumed  to be  soil (GS)
          = 52

          Studies of  sludge  adhesion  to  growing  forage
          following applications of  liquid  or filter-cake
          sludge show  that  when  3  to  6 mt/ha of sludge
          solids  is  applied,  clipped  forage  initially
          consists  of up  to  30  percent  sludge on  a  dry-
          weight basis (Chaney and Lloyd,  1979;  Boswell,
          1975).   However,  this contamination  diminishes
          gradually with  time and  growth,  and  generally
          is not detected in  the following  year's  growth.
          For  example, where pastures  amended  at  16  and
          32 mt/ha were  grazed throughout a  growing  sea-
          son  (168 days), average  sludge content  of  for-
          age   was    only    2.14    and    4.75  percent,
          respectively (Bertrand et al.,  1981).   It seems
          reasonable to  assume  that  animals may  receive
          long-term dietary  exposure  to 5  percent sludge
          if  maintained  on  a forage to  which sludge  is
          regularly applied.   This  estimate of 5  percent
          sludge is used  regardless  of  application  rate,
          since the  above studies  did  not  show   a  clear
          relationship between application  rate and  ini-
          tial contamination,  and  since  adhesion  is not
          cumulative yearly  because  of die-back.

          Studies  of  grazing animals  indicate that  soil
          ingestion,  ordinarily <10 percent  of dry weight
          of diet,  may  reach  as  high as  20 percent for
          cattle and  30  percent  for  sheep during  winter
          months when  forage is  reduced  (Thornton and
          Abrams,   1983).      If  the  soil   were   sludge-
                    3-7

-------
                    amended, it is  conceivable  that  up  to 5 percent
                    sludge may  be  ingested in this  manner  as well.
                    Therefore,  this value  accounts  for either  of
                    these scenarios, whether  forage  is  harvested or
                    grazed in the field.

               iii. Peed  concentration  toxic to herbivorous  animal
                    (TA) - Data not immediately available.

          d.   Index 8  Values - Values  were not calculated  due  to
               lack of data.

          e.   Value Interpretation -  Value equals  factor  by which
               expected dietary concentration exceeds toxic concen-
               tration.   Value  >   1  indicates  a  toxic hazard  may
               exist for grazing animals.

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

B.   Effect on Humans

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

          a.   Explanation -  Calculates  dietary intake  expected  to
               result  from  consumption  of  crops  grown on  sludge-
               amended  soil.    Compares  dietary  intake  with  the
               cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of the  pollutant.

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

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

                 i. Concentration  of  pollutant  in  plant  grown  in
                    sludge-amended  soil (Index 5) -  Values  were not
                    calculated due  to  lack of data.

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

                    Toddler      74.5 g/day
                    Adult       205   g/day

                    The intake  value  for adults is  based on  daily
                    intake of crop  foods (excluding  fruit)  by  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
                              3-8

-------
               Diet   (Pennington,   1983)   and  food  groupings
               listed  by the  U.S.  EPA  (1984b).    Dry weights
               for  individual  food groups  were  estimated from
               composition  data given  by  the  U.S.  Department
               of  Agriculture  (USDA)  (1975).    These  values
               were    composited    to    estimate    dry-weight
               consumption of all non-fruit crops.

         ill.  Average daily human  dietary intake of pollutant
               (DI) - Data not immediately  available.

          iv.  Cancer  potency  -  Data  not immediately  avail-
               able.

           v.  Cancer  risk-specific  intake (RSI)  - Data  not
               immediately available.

               The  RSI  is  the  pollutant  intake  value  which
               results in  an  increase  in cancer risk  of  10"^
               (1 per  1,000,000).   The RSI is  calculated  from
               the cancer potency using the following formula:

               RSI _  1Q"6  x 70 kg  x 103 Ug/mg
                          Cancer potency

     d.   Index  9  Values - Values  were not calculated  due  to
          lack of data.

     e.   Value  Interpretaton   -   Value   >   1  indicates   a
          potential increase  in cancer risk  of  > 10~°  (1  per
          1,000,000).   Comparison with  the  null  index  value  at
          0 me/ha  indicates  the degree to  which any hazard  is
          due  to   sludge   application,   as  opposed  to  pre-
          existing dietary sources.

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

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

     a.   Explanation  -  Calculates   human   dietary   intake
          expected to result from pollutant uptake  by  domestic
          animals  given   feed  grown  on  sludge-amended  soil
          (crop or pasture  land) but  not  directly contaminated
          by adhering  sludge.   Compares  expected intake  with
          RSI.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  that  all  animal
          products  are from animals  receiving  all   their  feed
          from sludge-amended  soil.   Assumes  that   all  animal
          products   consumed  take   up  the  pollutant   at   the
          highest  rate   observed  for  muscle  of  any  commonly
          consumed   species  or at  the rate  observed for  beef

                         3-9

-------
     liver  or .  dairy   products   (whichever  is  higher).
     Divides  possible  variations  in dietary  intake into
     two categories:   toddlers  (18 months  to 3 years) and
     individuals over 3 years old.

c.   Data Used and Rationale

      i.  Concentration  of  pollutant  in  plant  grown  in
          sludge-amended soil (Index S)  -  Values were not
          calculated due to lack of data.

     ii.  Uptake  factor  of  pollutant   in  animal  tissue
          (HA) - Data not immediately available.

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

          Toddler    43.7 g/day
          Adult      88.5 g/day

          The fat  intake values  presented,  which comprise
          meat,  fish,   poultry,  eggs and  milk  products,
          are  derived   from the  FDA Revised  Total  Diet
          (Pennington,   1983),   food groupings  listed  by
          the U.S. EPA (1984b)  and  food composition data
          given by USDA (1975).  Adult  intake  of meats  is
          based on males  25 to  30 years of age  and that
          for milk  products on  males  14 to  16  years  of
          age, the age-sex  groups  with  the  highest  daily
          intake.   Toddler intake  of   milk  products  is
          actually based  on  infants,   since  infant  milk
          consumption is the highest among  that  age  group
          (Pennington,  1983).

     iv.  Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
          (DI) - Data not immediately available.

      v.  Cancer  risk-specific   intake  (RSI) -  Data  not
          immediately available.

d.   Index 10 Values -  Values  were not  calculated due  to
     lack of data.

e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for  Index 9.

f.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  Conclusion  was  not  drawn
     because index values could  not be  calculated.
                   3-10

-------
Index of  Human Cancer Risk Resulting  from Consumption of
Animal  Products   Derived   from  Animals   Ingesting  Soil
(Index 11)

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

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

c.   Data Used and Rationale

       i. Animal tissue - Data not immediately available.

      ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

          Typical     0.677  Ug/g DW
          Worst      4.798  Mg/g DW

          See Section 3,  p.  3-1.

     iii. Background  concentration of  pollutant  in  soil
          (BS) = 0.0054 Mg/g DW

          See Section 3,  p.  3-2.

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

          See Section 3,  p.  3-7.

       v. Uptake  factor  of  pollutant  in  animal   tissue
          (UA) - Data not immediately available.

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

          Toddler     39.4 g/day
          Adult      82.4 g/day

          The affected tissue  intake  value is assumed  to
          be  from  the  fat  component of meat  only  (beef,
          pork,    lamb,    veal)    and    milk   products
                   3-11

-------
               (Pennington,  1983).    This  is  a  slightly more
               limited choice than  for  Index 10.  Adult  intake
               of meats  is based  on males  25  to 30  years  of
               age  and  the intake  for  milk products  on males
               14 to  16  years of age,  the  age-sex groups with
               the  highest daily  intake.   Toddler  intake  of
               milk  products  is  actually   based  on  infants,
               since  infant  milk  consumption  is the  highest
               among that age group (Pennington, 1983).

          vii. Average daily  human  dietary  intake of pollutant
               (DI) - Data not immediately available.

         viii. Cancer  risk-specific  intake  (RSI)  - Data  not
               immediately available.

     d.   Index 11  Values  - Values were  not calculated  due  to
          lack of data.

     e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

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

4.   Index of Human Cancer Risk from Soil Ingestion (Index 12)

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

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

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

            i. Concentration  of  pollutant   in  sludge-amended
               soil (Index 1)

               See Section 3,  p.  3-2.

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

               Pica child    5    g/day
               Adult         0.02 g/day
                        3-12

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

                    iii. Average daily human  dietary  intake of pollutant
                         (DI) - Data not immediately available.

                     iv. Cancer  risk-specific intake  (RSI)  - Data  not
                         immediately available.

               d.   Index 12 Values -  Values were not calculated due to
                    lack of  data.

               e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

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

          5.    Index of Aggregate Human Cancer Risk (Index 13)

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

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

               c.   Data Used and Rationale - As described  for Indices  9
                    to 12.

               d.   Index 13 Values -  Values  were not calculated  due  to
                    lack of  data.

               e.   Value Interpretation - Same as  for Index 9.

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

II.  LANDFILLING

     Based on  the  recommendations of  the experts at  the OWRS meetings
     (April-May, 1984),  an  assessment  of this reuse/disposal option  is
     not being conducted at  this  time.   The U.S. EPA reserves the right
     to conduct such an assessment for  this  option  in  the  future.

III. INCINERATION

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

          1.    Explanation    -   Shows   the    'degree   of   elevation   of
               the  pollutant   concentration   in  the  air  due   to   the

                                  3-13

-------
     incineration  of  sludge.   An  input  sludge with  thermal
     properties  defined  by  the  energy  parameter  (EP)  was
     analyzed  using  the  BURN  model  (Camp  Dresser  and McKee,
     Inc.  (COM),  1984a).   This model  uses  the thermodynamic
     and mass  balance  relationships  appropriate for  multiple
     hearth   incinerators   to   relate   the   input   sludge
     characteristics  to the  stack  gas  parameters.   Dilution
     and dispersion of  these stack  gas  releases  were described
     by  the  U.S.  EPA's  Industrial  Source  Complex  Long-Term
     (ISCLT)   dispersion  model  from  which  normalized  annual
     ground  level  concentrations were  predicted  (U.S.   EPA,
     1979).  The predicted  pollutant  concentration  can  then be
     compared  to  a ground  level  concentration used  to asses;
     risk.

2.   Assumptions/Limitations -  The  fluidized bed  incinerator
     was not  chosen  due  to  a  paucity  of  available  data.
     Gradual  plume rise,  stack tip  downwash,  and building wake
     effects    are appropriate  for  describing plume  behavior.
     Maximum   hourly  impact  values  can  be  translated  into
     annual average values.

3.   Data Used and Rationale

     a.  Coefficient  to correct for mass and  time  units (C)  =
         2.78 x 10~7  hr/sec x g/mg

     bo  Sludge feed  rate (DS)

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

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

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

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

               A feed  rate   of  10,000  kg/hr DW  represents  a
               higher  feed  rate  and would serve  a  major  U.S.
               city.   This rate was incorporated  into the  U.S.
               EPA-ISCLT  model  based on the following  input
               data:
                        3-14

-------
               EP = 392 Ib H20/mm BTU
               Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
               Solids content - 26.62
               Stack height - 10 m
               Exit gas velocity - 10 m/s
               Exit gas temperature - 313. 8°K (105°F)
               Stack diameter - 0.80 m

c.   Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

     Typical    0.677 rag/kg DW
     Worst      4.798 mg/kg DW

     See Section 3, p. 3-1.

d.   Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (FM)

     Typical    0.05 (unitless)
     Worst      0.20 (unitless)

     These  values  were chosen  as  best  approximations  of
     the  fraction  of pollutant  emitted  through  stacks
     (Farrell, 1984).  No data was available  to  validate
     these values; however, U.S. EPA  is  currently testing
     incinerators for organic emissions.

e.   Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum annual
     ground level concentration (DP)
     Typical    3.4
     Worst     16.0 ug/m3

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

f.   Background concentration of pollutant in urban
     air (BA) = 0.00239 Ug/m3

     The midpoint of BaA concentrations of various  U.S.
     cities (range = 0.00018 to 0.0046 Ug/m3) was cal-
     culated to be 0.00239 Ug/m3 (U.S. EPA, 1980).   (See
     Section 4, p. 4-2.)
                   3-15

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

                                                   Sludge Feed
          Fraction of                             Rate (kg/hr DW)a
          Pollutant Emitted    Sludge
          Through Stack     Concentration      0     2660  10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.6
5.5
          Worst               Typical         1.0     1.1     3.5
              .-r              Worst           l.-O     2.0    19

          a The typical (3.4 pg/ra^) and worst (16.0 yg/ra3)   disper-
            sion  parameters  will  always  correspond,  respectively,
            to the  typical  (2660 kg/hr DW) and  worst  (10,000 kg/hr
            DW) sludge feed rates.

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

     6.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -   Incineration  of   sludge  may
          slightly   increase   BaA   concentrations   in   air   above
          background urban air concentrations;  this increase  may be
          substantial when  sludge containing  a high  concentration
          of BaA is incinerated at a high feed rate.

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

     1.   Explanation - Shows the  increase  in  human intake  expected
          to result  from  the  incineration of sludge.    Ground level
          concentrations  for  carcinogens  typically  were  developed
          based upon assessments published  by  the U.S.  EPA  Carcino-
          gen Assessment Group (CAG).   These  ambient  concentrations
          reflect  a dose  level  which,  for  a  lifetime  exposure,
          increases the risk of cancer by 10~^.

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

     3.   Data Used and Rationale

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

               See Section 3,  p.  3-16.
                             3-16

-------
               b.   Background concentration  of  pollutant  in  urban air
                    (BA) = 0.00239 Ug/m-

                    See Section 3, p. 3-15.

               c.   Cancer potency - Data not immediately available.

               d.   Exposure  criterion  (EC)  -   Data   not   immediately
                    available.

                    A  lifetime  exposure level  which would  result  in  a
                    10~6 cancer  risk was  selected  as ground  level  con-
                    centration against  which  incinerator emissions  are
                    compared.  The. risk estimates  developed by  CAG are
                    defined as the lifetime incremental  cancer  risk in  a
                    hypothetical     population    exposed    continuously
                    throughout  their  lifetime  to  the  stated  concen-
                    tration  of   the  carcinogenic  agent.   The  exposure
                    criterion is  calculated using the following formula:
                               10~6 x 103 Ug/mg x  70  kg
                              Cancer potency x 20 m^/day
          4.    Index 2 Values  - Values were  not  calculated due  to  lack
               of data.

          5.    Value Interpretation  - Value  > 1  indicates a  potential
               increase   in  cancer  risk  of  >  10~6  (1  per  1,000,000).
               Comparison with  the   null  index  value  at  0  kg/hr  DW
               indicates  the degree to which any hazard'  is  due  to sludge
               incineration,   as   opposed   to  background   urban   air
    •           concentration.

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

IV.  OCEAN DISPOSAL

     For  the  purpose  of  evaluating  pollutant  effects   upon   and/or
     subsequent uptake by  marine life  as a  result  of sludge  disposal,
     two types of  mixing were modeled.   The  initial mixing or dilution
     shortly  after dumping of a single load of sludge  represents  a high,
     pulse concentration  to which  organisms   may  be  exposed  for short
     time  periods  but  which could  be repeated  frequently;  i.e., every
     time  a  recently dumped plume  is encountered.   A subsequent addi-
     tional  degree  of  mixing  can be  expressed  by  a  further  dilution.
     This  is  defined as  the  average dilution  occurring  when  a day's
     worth of  sludge is  dispersed by 24 hours of  current movement  and
     represents  the time-weighted  average  exposure  concentration   for
     organisms in the disposal area.  This dilution accounts for  8 to 12
     hours of the  high pulse  concentration  encountered by the  organisms
                                  3-17

-------
during daylight  disposal  operations and 12  to  16  hours of recovery
(ambient  water   concentration)   during  the  night  when  disposal
operations are suspended.

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

     1.   Explanation - Calculates  increased concentrations in Mg/L
          of  pollutant  in  seawater around  an ocean  disposal  site
          assuming.initial mixing.

     2.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  that  the  background
          seawater concentration  of pollutant  is  unknown  or zero.
          The  index  also  assumes  that  disposal  is  by  tanker  and
          that  the daily  amount of  sludge  disposed  is  uniformly
          distributed  along  a   path   transversing  the  site  and
          perpendicular  to   the   current  vector.     The  initial
          dilution  volume  is  assumed   to   be  determined  by  path
          length,  depth  to  the  pycnocline  (a  layer  separating
          surface  and  deeper water masses),  and  an  initial  plume
          width  defined as  the  width  of the  plume  four hours after
          dumping.  The seasonal  disappearance  of  the pycnocline is
          not considered.

     3.   Data Used and Rationale

          a.   Disposal conditions

                          Sludge         Sludge Mass        Length
                          Disposal        Dumped by a       of Tanker
                          Rate (SS)     Single Tanker (ST)   Path (L)

               Typical    825 mt DW/day    1600 mt  WW         8000 m
               Worst     1650 mt DW/day    3400 mt  WW         4000 m
               The  typical  value  for  the  sludge  disposal  rate
               assumes that  7.5  x 10^ mt WW/year  are  available for
               dumping  from  a  metropolitan  coastal   area.    The
               conversion to dry  weight  assumes  4  percent  solids by
               weight.    The  worst-case   value  is   an  arbitrary
               doubling of the typical value  to  allow  for  potential
               future increase.

               The assumed disposal  practice  to be followed  at the
               model  site  representative of  the typical case  is  a
               modification of that  proposed  for sludge  disposal at
               the formally designated 12-mile site in the  New York
               Bight Apex (City  of  New York,  1983).   Sludge barges
               with capacities of 3400 mt  WW would be  required to
               discharge a load  in  no less than 53 minutes travel-
               ing at a minimum  speed of 5 nautical miles  (9260 m)
               per  hour.  Under  these conditions,  the  barge  would
               enter the site, discharge the  sludge over 8180 m and
                             3-18

-------
     exit  the site.    Sludge barge-  with  capacities  of
     1600 mt WW would  be required* tc  discharge  a load in
     no less than 32 minutes  travel!:?^ at a minimum speed
     of  8  nautical  miles  (14,816 m)  per  hour.   Under
     these  conditions,  the  barge would  enter  the  site,
     discharge the  sludge  over 7902 m  and  exit  the site.
     The mean path length for the large and small tankers
     is 8041 m  or approximately  8000  m.   Path  length is
     assumed  to   lie  perpendicular  to  the  direction  of
     prevailing current flow.  For  the  typical  disposal
     rate (SS) of 825  mt DW/day, it is  assumed  that this
     would  be  accomplished  by a  mixture of  four 3400 mt
     WW and four  1600 mt WW  capacity barges.  The overall
     daily  disposal  operation  wot,:Id  last  from  8  to  12
     hours.   For  the  worst-case disposal  rate  (SS)  of
     1650 mt DW/day,  eight  3400  mt  WW and  eight  1600  mt
     WW capacity  barges would be utilized.    The overall
     daily  disposal  operation  would  last  from  8  to  12
     hours.    For both disposal rate  scenarios,  there
     would be a 12 to 16 hour period at night  in which no
     sludge would  be dumped.   It  is  assumed that  under
     the  above   described   disposal   operation,   sludge
     dumping would occur every day of the year.

     The  assumed  disposal  practice   at  the  model  site
     representative of  the  worst case  is  as stated  for
     the typical site,  except  that  barges  would  dump half
     their  load   along   a  track, then  turn  around  and
     dispose of the balance along the  same  track in order
     to prevent a barge  from  dumping outside of  the site.
     This  practice  would  effectively   halve  the   path
     length compared to the  typical site.

b.   Sludge concentration of pollutant  (SC)

     Typical    0.677 mg/kg  DW
     Worst      4.798 mg/kg  DW

     See Section 3,  p.  3-1.

c.   Disposal site characteristics

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

     Typical      20 m             9500 m/day
     Worst         5  m             4320 m/day
     Typical site  values  are  representative  of a  large,
     deep-water  site  with  an  area  of  about  1500  km^
     located beyond the continental shelf in  the New York
                   3-19

-------
          Bight.   The pycnocLine  value of 20 m  chosen is the
          average  of the  10  to  30 m  pycnocline  depth range
          occurring  in  the  summer  and fall;  the  winter and
          spring disappearance of  the  pycnocline  is not consi-
          dered  and  so represents a conservative  approach in
          evaluating  annual  or long-term  impact.   The current
          velocity of 11  cm/sec  (9500 m/day) chosen  is based
          on  the average current  velocity in this  area (COM,
          1984b).

          Worst-case values  are  representative  of a near-shore
          New  York Bight  site with an  area  of  about  20  km^.
          The  pycnocline  value  of 5 m  chosen  is  the  minimum
          value  of the  5  to 23 m  depth range  of  the  surface
          mixed  layer and  is  therefore  a worst-case  value.
          Current  velocities  in  this   area  vary   from  0  to
          30 cm/sec.    A   value  of  5 cm/sec (4320 m/day)  is
          arbitrarily chosen to represent a worst-case  value
          (CDM, 1984c).

4.   Factors Considered in Initial Nixing

     When a load  of  sludge is dumped from a  moving tanker, an
     immediate  mixing occurs  in  the  turbulent  wake  of  the
     vessel, followed by  more gradual  spreading  of the plume.
     The  entire plume,  which initially  constitutes a  narrow
     band the  length  of the  tanker path, moves  more-or-less as
     a  unit with  the prevailing  surface  current   and,  under
     calm conditions, is  not further dispersed by  the  current
     itself. •  However, the current acts to separate successive
     tanker loads, moving each out  of  the  immediate  disposal
     path before the next load is dumped.

     Immediate   mixing    volume    after   barge   disposal    is
     approximately equal  to  the  length of the  dumping  track
     with a cross-sectional  area about  four times that  defined
     by  the   draft   and   width  of  the   discharging   vessel
     (Csanady,  1981,  as  cited in  NOAA, 1983).    The resulting
     plume  is  initially  10 m  deep by  40 m wide  (O'Connor  and
     Park,  1982,  as  cited  in  NOAA,   1983).     Subsequent
     spreading  of  plume  band width  occurs at an average  rate
     of approximately 1 cm/sec (Csanady et al., 1979,  as cited
     in NOAA,  1983).  Vertical mixing  is  limited by the depth
     of the pycnocline or  ocean  floor,  whichever  is shallower.
     Four hours after disposal,  therefore, average  plume width
     (W) may be computed  as follows:

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

     Thus  the  volume  of  initial   mixing   is  defined  by   the
     tanker path,  a   200 m width,  and  a depth  appropriate  to
     the site.   For  the  typical  (deep water) site,  this depth
     is chosen as  the pycnocline value  of  20 m.   For the worst
                        3-20

-------
          (shallow water)  site,  a  value  of 10 m  was  chc-en.   At
          times the pycnocline  may  be as  shallow as  5  IF,  hue since
          the  barge  wake causes  initial  mixing  to at  l-L9.it 10 m,
          the greater value was used.
     5.   Index 1 Values (ug/L)
Disposal
Conditions and
Site Charac-     Sludge
teristics    Concentration
                                                Sludge Disposal
                                                Rate (mt DW/day)
 825
                                                              1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
O.£014
0.04*96
0.0014
0.0096
Worst
Typical
Worst
                               0.0
                               0.0
0.012
0.082
                                                              0.012
                                                              0.082
     6.   Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected increase
          in BaA  concentration in  seawater  around a  disposal  site
          as a result of sludge disposal after initial mixing.

     7.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  Slight to moderate  increases  of
          the  seawater  concentration of  BaA are evident  under  all
          the scenarios evaluated.

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

     1.   Explanation  - Calculates  increased effective  concentra-
          tions in  Ug/L of  pollutant in  seawater around  an  ocean
          disposal  site utilizing  a  time  weighted  average  (TWA)
          concentration.  The TWA concentration  is that  which would
          be experienced by  an organism  remaining stationary  (with
          respect to the ocean floor) or  moving  randomly within  the
          disposal vicinity.   The dilution volume is  determined  by
          the  tanker  path  length  and depth  to  pycnocline or,  for
          the  shallow water  site,  the 10 m  effective  mixing  depth,
          as before,  but  the effective width is now  determined  by
          current movement  perpendicular  to  the  tanker path over  24
          hours.

     2.   Assumptions/Limitations -  Incorporates all of  the assump-
          tions used  to calculate   Index  1.   In addition,  it  is
          assumed  that  organisms   would   experience   high-pulsed
          sludge concentrations for  8 to  12  hours per day  and  then
          experience recovery (no exposure to sludge)  for  12 to  16
          hours per  day.   This  situation can be  expressed by  the
          use of a TWA concentration of  sludge constituent.
                             3-21

-------
     3.   Hata Used and Rationale
     4.
     5.
see Section 3, pp. 3-18 to 3-20.

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

See Section 3, p. 3-21.

Index 2 Values (llg/L)
               Disposal
               Conditions and
               Site Charac-    Sludge
               teristics    Concentration
                                      Sludge Disposal
                                      Rate (mt DW/day)
                                            825
                1650
               Typical
               Worst
                    Typical
                    Worst

                    Typical
                    Worst
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.00037  0.00073
0.0026   0.0052
0.0032
0.023
0.0064
0.046
     6.
     7.
Value   Interpretation  -   Value,  equals   the   effective
increase in  BaA  concentration expressed as  a  TWA concen-
tration in seawater around  a  disposal  site experienced by
an organism over a 24-hour period.

Preliminary  Conclusion  -  Slight to moderate  increases in
the seawater concentration  of  BaA  are  apparent  over a 24-
hour dumping eye I.e.
C.   Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)

     1.   Explanation - Compares  the  effective  increased  concentra-
          tion of  pollutant  in  seawater around  the disposal  site
          resulting  from  the  initial mixing  of  sludge  (Index  1)
          with the  marine  ambient  water quality  criterion of  the
          pollutant,  or  with  another  value judged  protective  of
          marine  aquatic  life.

          Wherever a  short-term,  "pulse" exposure  may  occur as  it
          would from  initial  mixing,  it is  usually  evaluated  using
                          criteria  values  of  EPA's  ambient  water
the
                maximum
          quality  criteria  methodology.     However,  under   this
          scenario,  because  the  pulse  is  repeated  several  times
          daily on a  long-term basis,  potentially  resulting  in  an
          accumulation of injury,  it  seems  more appropriate to  use
          values   designed   to   be   protective   against   chronic
          toxicity.     Therefore,   to   evaluate   the   potential  for
          adverse effects  on  marine   life  resulting  from  initial
          mixing   concentrations,   as   quantified  by  Index  1,  the
          chronically  derived criteria values  are used.
                             3-22

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

Data Used and Rationale

a.   Concentration of pollutant in  seawater around a
     disposal site (Index 1)

     See Section 3,  p. 3-21.

b.   Ambient water quality criterion (AWQC) = 300 Ug/L

     Water  quality  criteria  for  the  toxic  pollutants
     listed  under  Section  307(a)(l)  of  the  Clean  Water
     Act  of 1977 were  developed  by the  U.S.  EPA  under
     Section 304(a)(l)  of  the  Act.   These  criteria  were
     derived  by  utilization   of  data   reflecting   the
     resultant  environmental  impacts  and  human  health
     effects of  these pollutants  if  present  in  any  body
     of  water.    The criteria  values  presented in  this
     assessment  are  excerpted  from  the  ambient  water
     quality  criteria  document  for polynuclear  aromatic
     hydrocarbons (PAUs).

     As no  BaA-specific values are  immediately available,
     the criterion to protect marine  aquatic organisms is
     based  on  acute  toxicity  tests  of polychaete  worms
     exposed to crude oil fractions (U.S.  EPA, 1980).   No
     chronic  toxicity data  are   presently available  for
     any  PAHs.    A  criterion  value  based  on  chronic
     toxicity  data  or  on  more  sensitive  test  organisms
     would be expected to  be lower.

Index 3 Values
     Disposal
     Conditions and
     Site Charac-    Sludge
     teristics    Concentration
               Sludge Disposal
               Rate (mt DW/day)

               0     825
                   1650
     Typical
     Worst
Typical
Worst

Typical
Worst
0.0  0.0000045  0.0000045
0.0  0.000032   0.000032
0.0  0.000038
0.0  0.00027
0.000038
0.00027
                   3-23

-------
     5.   Value Interpretation  - Value  equals  the factor  by which
          the  expected  seawater  concentration   increase   in  BaA
          exceeds  the protective value.  A value  > 1  indicates that
          acute or  chronic conditions  may exist  for organisms  at
          the site.

     6.   Preliminary Conclusion - Only  a  slight  increase of hazard
          to aquatic life is apparent for all  scenarios evaluated.

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

     1.   Explanation -  Estimates the  expected  increase  in  human
          pollutant   intake  associated  with  the consumption  of
          seafood,  a fraction of which originates  from the  disposal
          site vicinity, and  compares  the total  expected pollutant
          intake with the  cancer risk-specific  intake (RSI)  of the
          pollutant.

     2.   Assumptions/Limitations -  In  addition  to the  assumptions
          listed for  Indices  1 and 2,  assumes   that  the  seafood
          tissue concentration  increase  can be  estimated  from the
          increased   water  concentration   by  a   bioconcentration
          factor.    It  also assumes  that,  over the  long term,  the
          seafood  catch  from  the  disposal  site   vicinity  will  be
          diluted  to some  extent by the catch  from  uncontaminated
          areas.

     3.   Data Used  and Rationale

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

               See Section  3,  p. 3-22.

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

          b.   Dietary  consumption of seafood  (QF)

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

               Typical  and worst-case  values  are  the  mean  and the
               95th   percentile,  respectively,   for   all   seafood
               consumption  in the United States  (Stanford  Research
               Institute  (SRI)  International, 1980).
                             3-24

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

For  a typical  harvesting  scenario,  it  was assumed
that  the  total  catch over a wide  region is mixed by
harvesting, marketing  and consumption practices, and
that  exposure  is  thereby  diluted.   Coastal  areas
have  been  divided  by  the  National  Marine Fishery
Service (NMFS)  into  reporting  areas for reporting on
data  on  seafood landings.   Therefore  it was conven-
ient  to  express  the total  area affected  by sludge
disposal  as a  fraction  of  an NMFS  reporting  area^..
The  area  used to represent  the  disposal impact area
should be  an approximation  of the total  ocean area
over  which  the  average  concentration  defined  by
Index 2  is  roughly  applicable.  The  average rate of
plume  spreading  of  1 cm/sec  referred  to  earlier
amounts to  approximately  0.9 km/day.   Therefore, the
combined  plume  of  all  sludge  dumped  during  one
working day will  gradually  spread, both parallel to
and  perpendicular  to current  direction, as  it  pro-
ceeds  down-current.    Since  the  concentration  has
been  averaged over  the  direction  of current  flow,
spreading in  this  dimension will  not  further reduce
average concentration; only  spreading  in the perpen-
dicular dimension will  reduce  the average.   If sta-
ble  conditions are assumed  over  a  period of days, at
least 9 days  would be  required to  reduce the average
concentration by one-half.   At  that  time,  the origi-
nal  plume length of  approximately  8 km (8000 m) will
have   doubled   to   approximately  16  km   due   to
spreading.

It   is  probably  unnecessary  to  follow  the  plume
further  since  storms,  which  would result  in  much
more  rapid  dispersion  of  pollutants  to  background
concentrations  are   expected on  at least  a  10-day
frequency   (NOAA,   1983).     Therefore,   the   area
impacted  by  sludge  disposal  (AI,  in  km2)  at  each
disposal  site will   be  considered  to  be defined  by
the  tanker  path  length   (L) times  the  distance  of
current movement (V) during  10 days,  and is computed
as follows:

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

To be consistent with a conservative  approach,  plume
dilution  due  to  spreading  in   the   perpendicular
direction  to  current  flow  is  disregarded.    More
likely, organisms exposed to  the  plume  in  the  area
defined by equation  1 would  experience a TWA concen-
tration  lower than  the   concentration  expressed  by
Index 2.
              3-25

-------
      Next,  the  value  of  AI  must  be  expressed  as  a
      fraction of an NMF.1 reporting  area.   In  the New York
      Bight, which  includes  NMFS areas  612-616 and  621-
      623,   deep-water'   area   623   has   an   area   of
      approximately 7200 km2  and  constitutes  approximately
      0.02 percent of  the total  seafood landings  for  the
      Bight (CDM, 1984b).  Near-shore  area  612  has  an area
      of   approximately    4300   km2    and    constitutes
      approximately  24 percent   of   the  total   seafood
      landings  (CDM,  1984c).   Therefore  the  fraction  of
      all  seafood  landings   (FSt)   from the  Bight  which
      could originate  from  the  area  of impact  of  either
      the  typical  (deep-water)  or worst  (near-shore)  site
      can  be   calculated   for   this   typical   harvesting
      scenario as follows:

      For the typical  (deep water) site:

      _.  _ AI x 0.022 =                                (2)
      FSt ~ 7200
flO x 8000 m x 9500 m x  10~6  km2/m2l  x 0.0002  = 2 1  x 10~5
                   7200  km2

      For the worst (near shore) site:

      FSt = AI * 24Z =                                  (3)
            4300  km2

  riO x 4000 m x 4320 m  x  10~6  km2/m21 x 0.24  _   fi  ^ 1Q_3
                  4300 km2

      To  construct  a worst-case harvesting  scenario,  it
      was assumed  that  the total  seafood consumption  for
      an  individual could  originate  from  an  area  more
      limited  than  the  entire  New  York  Bight.     For
      example,  a  particular fisherman  providing  the  entire
      seafood  diet  for  himself  or  others   could   fish
      habitually  within  a single NMFS  reporting  area.   Or,
      an  individual  could   have  a   preference  for   a
      particular  species which  is taken  only  over a  more
      limited area, here assumed arbitrarily  to equal  an
      NMFS  reporting  area.     The   fraction   of  consumed
      seafood (FSW) that could  originate from  the area  of
      impact under  this  worst-case  scenario is  calculated
      as follows:

      For the typical  (deep water)  site:

      FSW = - AI  ,  =  0.11                        (4)
            7200  km2

      For the worst (near shore) site:
                    3-26

-------
          FSW = 	—- =  0.040                        (5)
                4300 km2

     d.   Bioconcentration   factor   of   pollutant   (BCP)   =
          4620 L/kg

          The value  chosen  is the weighted  average BCF of BaA
          for  the   edible   portion  of   all   freshwater  and
          estuarine  aquatic organisms  consumed by  U.S.  citi-
          zens (U.S.  EPA,  1980).   The  weighted average BCF is
          derived as part of  the  water quality criteria devel-
          oped by the  U.S.  EPA  to  protect human  health from
          the potential carcinogenic  effects of BaA induced by
          ingestion  of contaminated  water and  aquatic organ-
          isms.   Although no  measured steady-state BCF for BaA
          is available, a BCF for aquatic organisms containing
          about   7.62   lipids   has   been   estimated  from  the
          octanol-water  partition coefficient.    The  weighted
          average  BCF  is  derived  by  applying an  adjustment
          factor  to  the  BCF   estimate  to  correct  for the  3%
          lipid content of consumed  fish  and  shellfish.   It
          should  be  noted,  however,  that the  resulting  esti-
          mated weighted average  BCF  of 4620 L/kg  represents a
          worst-case situation.   Although data  concerning the
          environmental  impacts  of  PAHs  are  incomplete,  the
          results  of numerous  studies show that   PAHs  demon-
          strate  little tendency for  bioaccumulation due  to
          their rapid metabolism.  A  BCF  of  30  obtained from a
          study of mosquitofish may  represent  a more realistic
          value  (U.S.   EPA,  1980).    It  should  be  noted  that
          lipids  of  marine  species  differ  in  both structure
          and  quantity  from   those   of   freshwater  species.
          Although a BCF value calculated entirely from marine
          data would be more   appropriate  for  this assessment,
          no such data are presently available.

     e.   Average daily human  dietary  intake of pollutant (DI)
          - Data not immediately available.

     f.   Cancer potency - Data not immediately available.

     g.   Cancer   risk-specific   intake   (RSI)   -  Data   not
          immediately available.

          The RSI  is  the  pollutant intake value which results
          in  an  increase  in  cancer  risk  of  10~"   (1  per
          1,000,000).   The  RSI is  calculated from  the  cancer
          potency using the  following formula:

          RSI = 10"6 x  70 kg x 103 Ug/mg
                        Cancer potency

4.   Index 4 Values  - Values  were not  calculated  due  to  lack
     of data.
                        3-27

-------
5.   Value  Interpretation  - Value  equals  f^r-tor by  which the
     expected intake  exceeds  the RSI.  A  ^lue  >1  indicates a
     possible human  health threat.   Comparison with  the  null
     index value at 0 mt/day  indicates  the degree  to which any
     hazard   is   due  to   sludge  disposal,  as   opposed  to
     preexisting dietary sources.

6.   Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn because
     index values could not be calculated.
                        3-28

-------
                   SECTION 4

PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
           IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE

   A.  Sludge

       1.  Frequency of Detection

           1,2 BaA detected in 116 out of 437 sludge
           samples (27Z) from 40 POTWs.

       2.  Concentration

           1,2 BaA detected in 116 out of 437
           samples from 40 POTWs at levels ranging
           from 1 to 1,500 Ug/L WW

           1,2 BaA detected in 12 out of 42 sludge
           samples from 10 POTWs at levels ranging
           from 200 to 15,000 Ug/L WW

           Median = 0.677 ug/g DW
           95th percentile = 4.798 Ug/g DW
   B.  Soil - Unpolluted

       1.  Frequency of Detection

           Three cultivated soils and one roadside
           soil  in Ontario, Canada,  contained BaA.


       2.  Concentration
                                           U.S. EPA, 1982
                                           (p. 41)
                                           U.S. EPA, 1982
                                           (p. 41)
                                           U.S. EPA, 1982
                                           (p. 49)
                                           Values statis-
                                           tically derived
                                           from sludge con-
                                           centration data
                                           presented in  •
                                           U.S. EPA, 1982
                                           Mathur and
                                           Sirois, 1976
                                           (p. 265)
Three cultivated soils in Ontario, Canada, Mathur and
contained <0.001 to 0.0080 Ug/g of BaA,    Sirois, 1976
and one roadside sample contained          (p. 267)
0.0680 Ug/g (8.0, 7.2, <1 - cultivated
soils, and 68.0 ppb - roadside).
Plants and microorganisms are known to
synthesize at least some of the PAHs and
may thus contribute to the PAH in soil.
Soils may receive PAH from forest fires
and from burning of crop residue.
                                                      Mathur  and
                                                      Sirois,  1976
                                                      (p.  266)
                      4-1

-------
C.  Water - Unpolluted

    1.  Frequency of Detection

        Data not immediately available.

    2.  Concentration

        a.  Freshwater

            0.061 Ug/L from an unnamed river
         •**.•***

        b.  Seawater

            Data not immediately available.

        c.  Drinking Water

            0.0033 to <0.0081 Ug/L  from Ottawa,
            Canada.

D.  Air

    1.  Frequency of Detection

        Data not immediately available.

    2.  Concentration
Ogan et  al.,
1979 (p.  1318)
Benoit et al.,
1979  (p. 284)
        BaA.in U.S. cities ranges from
        0.00018 to O.OOA6 Ug/m3.

        Combined value for'BaA and chrysene in
        Antwerp, Belgium (residential city area)
        0.0022 to 0.013 Ug/m3
        Combined value for BaA and chrysene in
        Chacaltaya, Bolivia (remote area),
        0.000040 and 0.000065 yg/m3
    Pood

    1.  Total Average Intake

        Data not immediately available.

    2.  Concentration

        BaA concentrations  in ppb in a variety of
        baker's yeast:   French - 9.8 to  23.3,
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-35)

Cautreels and
Van Cauwen-
berghe, 1977
(p. 82)

Cautreels and
Van Cauwen-
berghe, 1977
(p. 82)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-29)
                              4-2

-------
            German - 2.5 to 15.8, Scottish - 203,
            and k'issian - 10.8

            A suu^ary table of BaA concentrations in   U.S. EPA, 1980
            smoked fish showed values of trace to      (p. C-1A)
            0.0017 yg/g.

            A summary table of BaA concentrations      U.S. EPA, 1980
            in vegetable oils and margarine showed     (p. C-13)
            values ranging from 0.0008 to
            0.0295 Ug/g.

            A summary table of BaA concentrations in   U.S. EPA, 1980
            fmoked meats showed values ranging from    (p. C-21)
            0.00004 to 0.029 Ug/g.

            BaA concentrations in ppb in a few         U.S. EPA, 1980
            vegetable oils and margarine               (p. C-13)

            Corn        0.8
            Coconut     2.0
            Margarine   1.4 to 29.5
            Sunflower  13
            Soybean     0.9
            Olive       1.0
            Peanut      1.1

            BaA concentrations in ppb in smoked and    U.S. EPA, 1980
            non-smoked fish                            (p. C-14)

            Smoked lumpfish           trace
            Smoked herring (dried)     1.7
            Smoked salmon              0.5
            Electric smoked mackerel    1.2
            Gas smoked mackerel        0.6
            Smoked oysters            19

II. HUMAN EFFECTS

    A.  Ingestion

        1.  Carcinogenicity

            a.  Qualitative Assessment

                Increased incidences  of lung  adenomas   Klein,  1963  in
                and liver hepatomas were observed  in    U.S.  EPA,  1984a
                mice given BaA by gavage.               (p.  11-16)

            b.  Potency

                Data not immediately  available.
                                 4-3

-------
             c.  Effects

                 Lung adenomas and liver hepatomas



         2.  Chronic Toxicity

             Data not immediately available.

         3.  Absorption Factor

             BaA intestinal transport readily occurs
             primarily by passive diffusion.

         4.  Existing Regulations

             A drinking water standard exists for
             PAHs as a class.  The recommended
             concentration of PAH is  not to
             exceed 0.2 Ug/L.

     B.  Inhalation

         Data not immediately available.

III. PLANT EFFECTS

     A. .  Phytotoxicity

         Plants are known to synthesize at least  some
         of the PAHs in soil.


     B.  Uptake

         PAHs in soils have been  shown to be  trans-
         located into plants.


         See Table 4-1.

 IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS

     A.  Toxicity

         1,2 BaA is highly carcinogenic.



         See Table 4-2.
 Klein,  1963 in
 U.S.  EPA,  1984a
 (p.  11-16)
U.S.  EPA,  1980
(p. C-37)
U.S. EPA,  1980
(p. C-108)
Mathur and
Sirois, 1976
(p. 266)
Mathur and
Sirois, 1976
(p. 266)
Mathur and
Sirois, 1976
(p. 265)
                                  4-4

-------
    B.  Uptake

        Data not immediately available.

 V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS

    A.  Toxicity

        1.  Freshwater

            Data not immediately available.

        2.  Saltwater

            a.  Acute

                Acute toxicity occurred at concen-
                trations as low as 300 Ug/L in tests
                of polychaete worms exposed to crude
                oil fractions.

            b.  Chronic

                Data not immediately available.

    B.  Uptake

        The estimated weighted average BCF for the
        edible portion of all freshwater and
        estaurine aquatic organisms consumed by U.S.
        citizens is 4,620.

VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS

    A.  Toxicity

        Microorganisms are known to synthesize at
        least some of the PAHs in soil.


    B.  Uptake

        PAHs in soils can be accumulated,
        degraded, or both by soil microorganisms.
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B-l, 2)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. 017, 19)
Mathur and
Sirois, 1976
(p. 266)
Mathur and
Sirois, 1976
(p. 266)
                                  4-5

-------
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING PATE AND TRANSPORT

     Molecular weight:  228.28                          U.S. EPA, 1980
     Melting point:     155 to 157°C                    (p. A-4)
     Vapor pressure:    5 x 10~9 torr
     Solubility in water:  0.009 to 0.014 mg/L at
         25°C
     Log octanol/partition coefficient:  5.61

     BCF values estimated from the equation of Veith    U.S. EPA, 1984a
     et al., 1979                                       (p. 2)
                                  4-6

-------
                                                 TABLE 4-1.  UPTAKE OP BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE BY PUNTS
Plant/Tissue
Flax/seed
Chemical
Form Applied
BaA
Range of
Soil Concentration
Soil Type (pg/g)
agricultural <0. 001-0. 095
Range of
Tissue
Concentration
(pg/g DU)
0.0087-0.087
Uptake
Factor*
0.91-8.7
References
Hathur and
Sirois, 1976
(p. 269) '
a Uptake factor = tissue concentration/soil  concentration.

-------
                                   TABLE 4-2.   TOX1CITV Of  BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species (N)a
Mouse
Mouse
Chemical Form
Fed
BaA
BaA
Feed
Concentration
(pg/g DW)
NRb
NR
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
30,000
30,000
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
0.5
0.5
Duration
of Study
444 days
547 days
Effects
Increased incidences of
liver and lung tumors
Increased incidences of
liver and lung tumors
References
Klein, 1963 in
U.S. EPA, 1984a (p.
Klein, 1963 in
U.S. EPA, 19B4a (p.

16)
16)
8 N = Number of test animals.
b NR - Not reported.

-------
                                SECTION 5

                                REFERENCES
Benoit, F., G.  L.  Lebel, and D.  T.  Williams.  1979.   The Determination
     of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons at  the ng/L Level in Ottawa Tap
     Water.  J. Env. Anal. Chem.  5:277-287.

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

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

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

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

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

Cautreels, W.,  and  K.  Van Cauwenberghe.   1977.   Comparison  Between the
     Organic  Fraction  of  Suspended Matter at  a  Background and  an  Urban
     Station.   Sci.  Total Environ.  8:78-88.

Chaney,  R.  L.,  and C.  A.  Lloyd.    1979.    Adherence of  Spray-Applied
     Liquid Digested  Sewage Sludge  to Tall Fescue.   J.  Environ.  Qual.
     8(3):407-411.

City of New  York Department  of  Environmental  Protection.    1983.    A
     Special  Permit Application for  the Disposal  of Sewage  Sludge from
     Twelve New  York City Water Pollution  Control Plants  at  the 12-Mile
     Site.  New York,  NY.  December.

Parrel1,  J.   B.    1984.    Personal   Communication.    Water  Engineering
     Research   Laboratory.    U.S.     Environmental   Protection  Agency,
     Cincinnati, OH.  December.


Klein,  M.  1963.  Susceptibility of  Strain  B6AFi/J Hybrid Infant Mice to
     Tumorigenesis  with   1,2-Benzanthracene,  Deoxycholic  Acid,   and
     3-Methylcholanthrene.  Cancer Res. 23:1701.  (As  cited in  U.S. EPA,
     1984a).

Mathur,  S.,  and  J.  Sirois.    1976.   1,2-Benzanthracene  in Soil.   J.
     Environ.  Sci. Health.  Bll(3):265-270.
                                   5-1

-------
National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric  Administration.    1983.    Northeast
     Monitoring  Program  106-Mile  Site  Characterization  Update.   NOAA
     •.technical  Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-26.    U.S.  Department  of  Commerce
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  August.

Ogan, K. E.,  E.  Katz,  and W. Savin.   1979.   Determination of  Polycyclic
     Aromatic Hydrocarbons  in Aqueous  Samples by  Reversed-Phase Liquid
     Chromatography.  Anal. Chem.  51(8):1315-1320.

Pennington, J. A. T.   1983.   Revision  of the Total Diet Study  Food Lists
     and Diets.  J. Am. Diet. Assoc.  82:166-173.

Ryan, J. A.,  H.  R.  Pahren,  and J.  B. Lucas.   1982.  Controlling Cadmium
     in the  Human Food Chain:   A Review  and Rationale Based  on Health
     Effects.  Environ. Res.  28:251-302.

Stanford Research  Institute International.   1980.   Seafood  Consumption
     Data  Analysis.    Final  Report.   Task  11.    Prepared for  U.S.  EPA
     under Contract No. 68-01-3887.  Menlo Park, CA.  September.

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.  Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency.   1979.   Industrial  Source Complex
     (ISC)  Dispersion  Model  User  Guide.    EPA  450/4-79-30.    Vol.  1.
     Office  of  Air  Quality  Planning  and  Standards, Research Triangle
     Park, NC.  December.

U.S.  Environmental   Protection  Agency.   1980.    Ambient  Water  Quality
     Criteria for Polynuclear  Aromatic Hydrocarbons.   EPA 440/5-80-069.
     U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,  Washington, D.C.

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

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   1984a.   Health Effects Assessment
     for Polycyclic  Aromatic  Hydrocarbons  (PAHs).   Final  Draft.   ECAO-
     CIN-H013.   Environmental  Criteria Assessment  Office,  Cincinnati,
     OH.  September.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,  1984b.   Air Quality Criteria for
     Lead.    External Review  Draft.   EPA  600/8-83-0288.    Environmental
     Criteria  and   Assessment   Office,   Research  Triangle  Park,  NC.
     September.

                                   5-2

-------
                              APPENDIX

    PRELIMINARY HAZARD  INDEX  CALCULATIONS  FOR BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
                      IN MUNICIPAL  SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

   A.  Effect on Soil Concentration of Benzo(a)anthracene

       1.  Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)

           a.  Formula

               „    (SC x AR) + (BS * MS)
               CSs "        AR + MS
               CSr = CSg [1 +

               where :

                    CSg = Soil  concentration  of  pollutant   after   a.
                          single   year's    application   of    sludge
                          (Mg/g DW)
                    CSr = Soil  concentration of  pollutant  after  the
                          yearly  application   of   sludge   has   been
                          repeated for n +• 1 years (ug/g DW)
                    SC  = Sludge concentration of  pollutant  (Mg/g DW)
                    AR  = Sludge application rate  (me /ha)
                    MS  = iOOO -rat  ha/DW  =  assumed  mass  of  soil  in
                          upper 15 cm
                    BS . = Background   concentration  of  pollutant  .in
                          soil (ug/g  DW)
                    t|  = Soil half-life of pollutant (years)
                    n    =99 years

           b.  Sample  calculation

               CSS is  calculated for AR  =  0, 5,  and  50 mt/ha  (and  for
               AR = 500 mt/ha  when t£ is not available, since  CSr  can
               not be  calculated)


   n nn7i  „»/. nu - (0*677 Ug/g DW x  5 mt/ha) + (0.0054 Ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
   0.0071  -yg/g DW --           (5  mt/ha DW  + 2000 mt/ha  DW) -
                                A-l

-------
B.  Effect OP Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota

    1.  Inar* of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)

        a.  Formula

                      II
            Index 2 = —


            where:

                 11  = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
                       sludge-amended soil (yg/g DW)
                 TB  = Soil  concentration   toxic   to   soil   biota
                       (Ug/g DW)

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

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

        a.  Formula

            T ,   ,   rl x UB
            Index 3 = -^	


            where:

                 1}  = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
                       sludge-amended soil (pg/g DW)
                 UB  = Uptake  factor  of  pollutant  in  soil  biota
                       (pg/g tissue DW [pg/g  soil DW]"1)
                 TR  = Feed  concentration  toxic to  predator  (ug/g
                       DW)

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

C.  Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

    1.  Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index  4)

        a.  Formula


            Index 4 =
            where:
                 Ij  = Index 1 = Concentration of  pollutant  in
                       sludge-amended soil  (ug/g DW) .
                 TP  = Soil concentration toxic to plants  (ug/g DW)
                              A-2

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

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

        a.  Formula

            Index 5 = Ij x UP

            where:

               II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
                   sludge - amended soil (ug/g DW)
               UP = Uptake factor of pollutant in plant  tissue
                     (Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g soil  DW]'1)

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

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

        a.  Formula

            Index 6 = PP

            where:

                 PP  = Maximum  plant  tissue  concentration associ-
                       ated with phytotoxicity (yg/g DW)

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

D.  Effect on Herbivorous Animals

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

        a.  Formula


            Index 7 = £


            where:

                 15  = Index   5  =  Concentration  of  pollutant   in
                       plant  grown in sludge-amended soil (yg/g DW)
                 TA  = Feed  concentration   toxic   to   herbivorous
                       animal (Ug/g DW)

        b.  Sample calculation  -  Values were not calculated due  to
            lack of data.
                              A-3

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

        a.  Formula

            If AR * 0; Index 8=0


            If AR * 0; Index 8 =  'SC  x  GS
                                     TA
            where:
                 AR  = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
                 SC  = Sludge concentration of pollutant (wg/g DW)
                 GS  = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
                 TA  = Feed   concentration   toxic   to   herbivorous
                       animal (ug/g DW)

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

B.  Effect on Humans

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

        a.  Formula

                      (I5  x  DT)   + DI
            Index 9 =


            where:

                 15  = Index  5   =  Concentration  of  pollutant   in
                       plant grown in  sludge-amended  soil (ug/g DW)
                 DT  = Daily human dietary intake of  affected plant
                       tissue (g/day DW)
                 DI  = Average daily human dietary intake of
                       pollutant  (ug/day)
                 RSI = Cancer risk-specific  intake (ug/day)

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

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

        a.  Formula

                       (15 x UA x DA) +  DI
            Index 10 =
                               RSI
                              A-4

-------
        where:

             15  = Index  5  =  Concentration  of  pollutant  in
                   plant grown in sludge-amended soil (yg/g DW)
             UA  - Uptake factor  of pollutant in  animal tissue
                   (yg/g tissue DW  [yg/g  feed DW]"1)
             DA  = Daily  human   dietary  intake   of   affected
                   animal tissue  (g/day DW) (milk  products  and
                   meat, poultry, eggs, fish)
             DI  = Average daily human dietary intake of
                   pollutant (yg/day)
             RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (jag/day)

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

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

    a.  Formula
        _, ._    .  _  ,    ,.       (BS x GS x  UA x DA) •*•  DI
        If AR =  0; Index  11  =	—	

        rr An J.  n  r  J    11       (SC X GS X  UA X DA) *  DI
        If AR ^  0; Index  11  =  	—	


        where:

             AR  = Sludge application rate (mt  DW/ha)
             BS  = Background  concentration  of   pollutant   in
                   soil (yg/g DW)
             SC  = Sludge concentration of pollutant (yg/g DW)
             GS  = Fraction of animal diet assumed  to be soil
             UA  = Uptake factor  of pollutant  in animal  tissue
                   (Ug/g tissue DW  [yg/g  feed DW]"1)
             DA  = Daily  human   dietary   intake  of   affected
                   animal tissue  (g/day DW) (milk  products  and
                   meat only)
             DI  = Average daily human  dietary  intake of
                   pollutant (yg/day)
             RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake  (ug/day)

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

4.  Index  of  Human  Cancer  Risk  Resulting  from Soil  Ingestion
    (Index 12)

    a.  Formula

                   (Ii x DS) + DI
        Index 12 = 	—	
                          A-5

-------
                 where :

                      ll  = Index 1 = Concentration   of   pollutant   in
                            sludge-amended soil (ug/g OW)
                      OS  = Assumed amount of soil in human diet (g/day)
                      DI  = Average daily human dietary intake of
                            pollutant (lag/day)
                      RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (yg/day)

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

         S.  Index of Aggregate Human Cancer Risk (Index 13)

             a.  Formula
                 Index 13 = I9 + I10  +  In  * Il2 ~ 

                 where:

                      Ig  = Index   9 =   Index  of  human   cancer   risk
                            resulting from plant consumption (unitless)
                      1 10 = Index  10 =   Index  of  human   cancer   risk
                            resulting   from    consumption    of    animal
                            products   derived  from  animals  feeding  on
                            plants  (unitless)
                      '111 = Index 11   =   Index  of  human   cancer   risk
                            resulting   from    consumption    of    animal
                            products  derived from  animals  ingesting  soil
                            (unitless)
                      Il2 = Index 12  =  Index   of   human   cancer   risk
                            resulting from soil ingestion  (unitless)
                      DI  = Average   daily   human   dietary  intake   of
                            pollutant (lig/day)
                      RSI = Cancer  risk-specific intake (pg/day)

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

II.  LANDPILLING

     Based on  the  recommendations  of  the experts  at  the  OWRS  meetings
     (April-May, 1984),  an  assessment of  this reuse/disposal option  is
     not being conducted  at this time.   The U.S.  EPA  reserves the right
     to conduct such an assessment  for this  option in the future.
                                   A-6

-------
III. INCINERATION


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

         1.  Formula

             _ ,    .   (C x PS x SC x FM x DP) + BA
             Index 1 = 	—	


         where:

             C =  Coefficient to correct for mass and time units
                 (hr/sec x g/mg)
            DS =  Sludge  feed rate (kg/hr DW)
            SC =  Sludge  concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
            FM -  Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (unitless)
            DP =  Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum
                 annual  ground level  concentration (yg/m3)
            BA =  Background concentration of pollutant in urban
                 air (yg/m3)

          2.   Sample Calculation

     1.0 = [(2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW x 0.677  mg/kg DW x 0.05

            x 3.4 yg/m3) + 0.00239 yg/m3] * 0.00239 yg/m3

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

         1.  Formula

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

             where:

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

         2.   Sample  Calculation - Values were not calculated due to  lack
             of data.
                                  A-7

-------
   IV.  OCEAN DISPOSAL

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

             1.   Formula

                             SC x ST x PS
                  Index 1 =
                              W x D x L

                  where:

                       SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
                       ST = Sludge mass dumped by a single tanker (kg WW)
                       PS = Percent solids in sludge (kg DW/kg WW)
                       W  = Width of initial plume dilution (m)
                       D  = Depth  to  pycnocline   or   effective  depth  of
                            mixing for shallow water site (m)
                       L  = Length of tanker path (m)

             2.   Sample Calculation


0.0014 Ug/L = 0.677 mg/kg DW x 1600000 kg WW x 0.04 kg DW/kg WW x 103Ug/mg
                              200 m  x  20 m  x  8000  m x  103 L/m3


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

             1.   Formula

                             SS x SC
                  Index 2 -
                             V x D x L

                  where:

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

             2.    Sample  Calculation

        0.00037  yg/L - 825000 kg  DW/day  x 0.677 mg/kg DW  x 103 Ug/mg
                           9500 m/day x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/m3
                                     A-8

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

     1.   Formula

                     II
          Index 3 = AWQC

          where:

            Ij =  Index   1   =   Index   of   seawater   concentration
                  resulting   from   initial   mixing   after   sludge
                  disposal (ug/L)
          AWQC =  Criterion or other  value expressed as  an  average
                  concentration  to  protect  marine  organisms  from
                  acute and chronic  toxic effects (ug/L)

     2.   Sample Calculation


     0.0000045 =
                   300 ug/L

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

     1.   Formula

                     (12 x BCF x 10~3  kg/g x FS  x QF) + DI
          Index 4 =  	—	


          where:

          12 =  Index   2  =   Index   of   seawater    concentration
                representing  a 24-hour dumping cycle  (ug/L)
          QF =  Dietary consumption  of seafood (g WW/day)
          FS =  Fraction of  consumed   seafood  originating from  the
                disposal site  (unitless)
          BCF = Bioconcentration  factor of pollutant  (L/kg)
          DI =  Average  daily human   dietary  intake  of   pollutant
                (yg/day)
          RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (yg/day)

     2.   Sample Calculation  - Values were  not  calculated  due  to.
     lack of data.
                              A-9

-------