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
------- |