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:
Phenanthrene
-------
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
PREFACE i
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR PHENANTHRENE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE ; 2-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landfilling 2-1
Incineration 2-1
Ocean Disposal 2-1
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR PHENANTHRENE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE. 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Landf illing 3-1
Index of groundwater concentration resulting
from landfilled sludge (Index 1) 3-1
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
groundwater contamination (Index 2) 3-8
Incineration 3-10
Index of air concentration increment resulting
from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 3-10
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
inhalation of incinerator emissions
(Index 2) 3-12
Ocean Disposal 3-13
Index of seawater concentration resulting from
initial mixing of sludge (Index 1) 3-14
Index of seawater concentration representing a
24-hour dumping cycle (Index 2) 3-17
Index of toxicity to aquatic life (Index 3) 3-18
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
seafood consumption (Index 4) 3-20
11
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR PHENANTHRENE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-2
Water - Unpolluted 4-2
Air 4-2
Food 4-2
Human Effects 4-3
Ingestion 4-3
Inhalation 4-4
Plant Effects 4-4
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-5
Toxicity 4-5
Uptake 4-5
Aquatic Life Effects 4-5
Toxicity 4-5
Uptake 4-5
Soil Biota Effects 4-5
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-5
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
PHENANTHRENE 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. Phenanthrene (PA) was initially identified as being of
potential concern when sludge is placed in a landfill, incinerated or
ocean disposed.* This profile is a compilation of information that may
be useful in determining whether PA 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 * groundwater * human toxicity). The values and assump-
tions 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 landfilling, incineration and ocean disposal practices are
included in this profile. The calculation formulae for these indices
are shown in the Appendix. The indices are rounded to two significant
figures.
* Listings were determined by a series of expert workshops convened
during March-May, 1984 by the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (OWES) to discuss landspreading, landfilling, incineration,
and ocean disposal, respectively, of municipal sewage sludge.
1-1
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR PHENANTHRENE 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
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.
II. LANDFILLING
Landfilled sludge may slightly increase the grouhdwater concentra-
tion of PA at the well; this increase may be substantial when all
worst-case conditions prevail at a disposal site (see Index 1).
The human cancer risk due to PA resulting from groundwater
contamination could not be determined due to lack of data (see
Index 2).
III. INCINERATION
Incineration of sludge may cause substantial increases in the
concentration of PA in air (see Index 1). The human cancer risk
due to PA resulting from inhalation of incinerator emissions could
not be evaluated due to lack of data (see Index 2).
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Slight increases in seawater concentration of PA occur when sludges
are disposed at the typical site, but greater increases occur when
sludges are dumped at the worst site (see Index 1). After a 24-
hour dumping cycle, increases occur in the seawater concentration
of PA for all scenarios evaluated (see Index 2). Only slight
increases of incremental hazard to aquatic life occur for all of
the scenarios evaluated (see Index 3). A conclusion was not drawn
as to the cancer risk resulting from seafood consumption because
the index values were not calculated due to lack of data (see Index
4).
2-1
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR PHENANTHRENE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AMD-MARKETING
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.
II. LANDPILLING
A. Index of Groundwater Concentration Resulting from Landfilled
Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates groundwater contamination which
could occur in a potable aquifer in the landfill vicin-
ity. Uses U.S. EPA's Exposure Assessment Group (EAG)
model, "Rapid Assessment of Potential Groundwater Contam-
ination Under Emergency Response Conditions" (U.S. EPA,
1983a). Treats landfill leachate as a pulse input, i.e.,
the application of a constant source concentration for a
short time period relative to the time frame of the anal-
ysis. In order to predict pollutant movement in soils
and groundwater, parameters regarding transport and fate,
and boundary or source conditions are evaluated. Trans-
port parameters. include the interstitial pore water
velocity and dispersion coefficient. Pollutant fate
parameters include the degradation/decay coefficient and
retardation factor. Retardation is primarily a function
of the adsorption process, which is characterized by a
linear,- equilibrium partition coefficient representing
the ratio of adsorbed and solution pollutant concentra-
tions. This partition coefficient, along with soil bulk
density and volumetric water content, are used to calcu-
late the retardation factor. A computer program (in
FORTRAN) was developed to facilitate computation of the
analytical solution. The program predicts pollutant con-
centration as a function of time and location in both the
unsaturated and saturated zone. Separate computations
and parameter estimates are required for each zone. The
prediction requires evaluations of four dimensionless
input values and subsequent evaluation of the result,
through use of the computer program.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Conservatively assumes that the
pollutant is 100 percent mobilized in the leachate and
that all leachate leaks out of the. landfill in a finite
period and undiluted by precipitation. Assumes that all
soil and aquifer properties are homogeneous and isotropic
throughout each zone; steady, uniform flow occurs only in
3-1
-------
the vertical direction throughout the unsaturated zone,
and only in the horizontal (longitudinal) plane in the
saturated zone; pollutant movement is considered only in
direction of groundwater flow for the saturated zone; all
pollutants exist in concentrations that do not signifi-
cantly affect water movement; for organic chemicals, the
background concentration in the soil profile or aquifer
prior to release from the source is assumed to be zero;
the pollutant source is a pulse input; no dilution of the
plume occurs by recharge from outside the source area;
the leachate is undiluted by aquifer flow within the
saturated zone; concentration in the saturated zone is
attenuated only by dispersion.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Unsaturated zone
i. Soil type and characteristics
(a) Soil type
Typical Sandy loam
Worst Sandy
These two soil types were used by Gerritse et
al. (1982) to measure partitioning of elements
between soil and a sewage sludge solution
phase. They are used here since these parti-
tioning measurements (i.e., K^ values) are con-
sidered the best available for analysis of
metal transport from landfilled sludge. The
same soil types are also used for nonmetals for
convenience and consistency of analysis.
(b) Dry bulk density
Typical 1.53 g/mL
Worst 1.925 g/mL
Bulk density is the dry mass per unit vol'ume of
the medium (soil), i.e., neglecting the mass of
the water (Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. (CDM),
1984a).
(c) Volumetric water content (9)
Typical 0.195 (unitless)
Worst 0.133 (unitless)
The volumetric water content is the volume of
water in a given volume of media, usually
expressed as a fraction or percent. It depends
on properties of the media and the water flux
estimated by infiltration or net recharge. The
3-2
-------
volumetric water content is used in calculating
the water movement through the unsaturated zone
(pore water velocity) and the retardation
coefficient. Values obtained from CDM, 1984a.
(d) Fraction of organic carbon (foc)
Typical 0.005 (unitless)
Worst 0.0001 (unitless)
Organic content of soils is described in terms
of percent organic carbon, which is required in
the estimation of partition coefficient, K^.
Values, obtained from R. Griffin (1984) are
representative values for subsurface soils.
ii. Site parameters
(a) Landfill leaching time (LT) = 5 years
Sikora et al. (1982) monitored several sludge
entrenchment sites throughout the United States
and estimated time of landfill leaching to be 4
or 5 years. Other types of landfills may leach
for longer periods of time; however, the use of
a value for entrenchment sites is conservative
because it results in a higher leachate
generation rate.
(b) Leachate generation rate (Q)
Typical 0.8 m/year
Worst 1.6 m/year
It 'is conservatively assumed that sludge
leachate enters the unsaturated zone undiluted
by precipitation or other recharge, that the
total volume of liquid in the sludge leaches
out of the landfill, and that leaching is com-
plete in 5 years. Landfilled sludge is assumed
to be 20 percent solids by volume, and depth of
sludge in the landfill is 5 m in the typical
case and 10 m in the worst case. Thus, the
initial depth of liquid is 4 and 8 m, and
average yearly leachate generation is 0.8 and
1.6 m, respectively.
(c) Depth to groundwater (h)
'Typical 5 m
Worst 0 m
Eight landfills were monitored throughout the
United States and depths to groundwater below
3-3
-------
them were Listed. A typical depth to ground-
water of 5 m was observed (U.S. EPA, 1977).
For the worst case, a value of 0 m is used to
represent the situation where the bottom of the
landfill is occasionally or regularly below the
water table. The depth to groundwater must be
estimated in order to evaluate the likelihood
that pollutants moving through the unsaturated
soil will reach the groundwater.
(d) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 0.5 m
Worst Not applicable
The dispersion process is exceedingly complex
and difficult to quantify, especially for the
unsaturated zone. It is sometimes ignored in
the unsaturated zone, with the reasoning that
pore water velocities are usually large enough
so that pollutant transport by convection,
i.e., water movement, is paramount. As a rule
of thumb, dispersivity may be set equal to
10 percent of the distance measurement of the
analysis (Gelhar and Axness, 1981). Thus,
based on depth to groundwater listed above, the
value for the typical case is 0.5 and that for
the worst case does not apply since leachate
moves directly to the unsaturated zone.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 3.709 mg/kg DW
Worst 20.69 mg/kg DW
The typical and worst sludge concentrations
were statistically derived from data presented
in a survey of sludges from publicly-owned
treatment works (POTWs) throughout the United
States (U.S. EPA, 1982) and represent the 50th
and 95th percentiles, respectively. (See
Section 4, p. 4-1.)
(b) Soil half-Life of pollutant (tŁ.) - Data not
immediately available.
PA belongs to a class of compounds referred to
as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Soil half-lives of PAHs may range from less
than one day to several years (U.S. EPA,
1984a). (See Section 4, p. 4-2.)
3-4
-------
(c) Degradation rate (y) =0 day"*
The unsaturated zone can serve as an effective
medium for reducing pollutant concentration
through a variety of chemical and biological
decay mechanisms which transform or attenuate
the pollutant. While these decay processes are
usually complex, they are approximated here by
a first-order rate constant. The degradation
rate is calculated using the following formula:
Since data is not available for the half-life
of the pollutant, the degradation rate is
conservatively assumed to be zero.
(d) Organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc) =
23,000 mL/g
The organic carbon partition coefficient is
multiplied by the percent organic carbon
content of soil (fOc^ to dei"ive a partition
coefficient (K,j), which represents the ratio of
absorbed pollutant concentration to the
dissolved (or solution) concentration. The
equation (Koc x foc) assumes that organic
carbon in the soil is the primary means of
adsorbing organic compounds onto soils. This
concept serves to reduce much of the variation
in K^ values for' different soil types. The
value of Koc is from Hassett et al. (1983).
(See Section 4, p. 4-5.)
b. Saturated zone
i. Soil type and characteristics
(a) Soil type
Typical Silty sand
Worst Sand
A silty sand having the values of aquifer por-
osity and hydraulic conductivity defined below
represents a typical aquifer material. A more
conductive medium such as sand transports the
plume more readily and with less dispersion and
therefore represents a reasonable worst case.
3-5
-------
(b) Aquifer porosity (0)
Typical 0.44 (unitless)
Worst 0.389 (unitless)
Porosity is that portion of the total volume of
soil that is made up of voids (air) and water.
Values corresponding to the above soil types
are from Pettyjohn et al. (1982) as presented
in U.S. EPA (1983a).
(c) Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K)
Typical 0.86 m/day
Worst 4.04 m/day
The hydraulic conductivity (or permeability) of
the aquifer is needed to estimate flow velocity
based on Darcy's Equation. It is a measure of
the volume of liquid that can flow through a
unit area or media with time; values can range
over nine orders of magnitude depending on the
nature of the media. Ueterogenous conditions
produce large spatial variation in hydraulic
conductivity, making estimation of a single
effective value extremely difficult. Values
used are from Freeze and Cherry (1979) as
presented in U.S. EPA (1983a).
(d) Fraction of organic carbon (foc) =
0.0 (unitless)
Organic carbon content, and therefore adsorp-
tion, is assumed to be 0 in the saturated zone.
ii. Site parameters
(a) Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and
well (i)
Typical 0.001 (unitless)
Worst 0.02 (unitless)
The hydraulic gradient is the slope of the
water table in an unconfined aquifer, or the
piezometric surface for a confined aquifer.
The hydraulic gradient must be known to
determine the magnitude and direction of
groundwater flow. As gradient increases, dis-
persion is reduced. Estimates of typical and
high gradient values were provided by Donigian
(1985).
3-6
-------
(b) Distance from well to landfill (A&)
Typical 100 m
Worst 50 m
This distance is the distance between a
landfill and. any functioning public or private
water supply or livestock water supply.
(c) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 10 m
Worst 5 m
These values are 10 percent of the distance
from well to landfill (AH), which is 100 and
50 m, respectively, for typical and worst
conditions.
(d) Minimum thickness of saturated zone (B) = 2 m
The minimum aquifer thickness represents the
assumed thickness due to preexisting flow;
i.e., in the absence of leachate. It is termed
the minimum thickness because in the vicinity
of the site it may be increased by leachate
infiltration from the site. A value of 2 m
represents a worst case assumption that
preexisting flow is very limited and therefore
dilution of the plume entering the saturated
zone is negligible.
(e) Width of landfill (W) = 112.8 m
The landfill is arbitrarily assumed to be
circular with an area of 10,000 m^.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Degradation rate (u) = 0 day"1
Degradation is assumed not to occur in the
saturated zone.
(b) Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (BC) = 0 Ug/L
It is assumed that no pollutant exists in the
soil profile or aquifer prior to release from
the source.
4. Index Values - See Table 3-1.
3-7
-------
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals the maximum expected
groundwater concentration of pollutant, in ug/L, at the
well.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Landfilled sludge may slightly
increase the groundwater concentration of PA at the well;
this increase may be substantial when all worst-case
conditions prevail at a disposal site.
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Groundwater
Contamination (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calculates human exposure which could
result from groundwater contamination. Compares exposure
with cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of pollutant.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes long-term exposure Co
maximum concentration at well at a rate of 2 L/day.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of groundwater concentration resulting from
landfilled sludge (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-9.
b. Average human consumption of drinking water (AC) =
2 L/day
The value of 2 L/day is a standard value used by
U.S. EPA in most risk assessment studies.
c. Average daily human dietary intake of . pollutant
(DI) - Data not immediately available.
d. Cancer potency - Data not immediately available.
e. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) - . Data not
immediately available. "
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 in 1,000,000) due only
to groundwater contaminated by landfill. The value does
not account for the possible increase in risk resulting
from daily dietary intake of pollutant since DI data were
not immediately available.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn because
index values could not be calculated.
3-8
-------
TABLE 3-1. INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
(INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil, type and charac-
teristics*
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
0.101
NCh
2
U
T
T
T
T
0.563
NC
3
T
W
T
T
T
0.101
NC
Condition of
A
T
NA
W
T
T
0.101
NC
Analysis3'"'0
5
T
T
T
W
T
0.532
NC
6
T
T
T
T
W
3.29
NC
7
U
NA
W
U
U
120.0
NC
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
NC
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
"Dry bulk density (Pdry)ť volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AH), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
hNC = Not calculated due to lack of data.
-------
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from
Incinerator Emissions (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Shows the degree of elevation of the
pollutant concentration in the air due to the incinera-
tion of sludge. An input sludge with thermal properties
defined by the energy parameter (EP) was analyzed using
the BURN model (CDM, 1984a). This model uses the thermo-
dynamic and mass balance relationships appropriate for
multiple hearth incinerators to relate the input sludge
characteristics to the stack gas parameters. Dilution
and dispersion of these stack gas releases were described
by the U.S. EPA's Industrial Source Complex Long-Term
(ISCLT) dispersion model from which normalized annual
ground level concentrations were predicted (U.S. EPA,
1979). The predicted pollutant concentration can then be
compared to a ground level concentration used to assess
risk.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - The fluidized bed incinerator
was not chosen due to a paucity of available data.
Gradual plume rise, stack tip downwash, and building wake
effects are appropriate for describing plume behavior.
Maximum hourly impact values can be translated into
annual average values.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Coefficient to correct for mass and time units (C) =
2.78 x 10~7. hr/sec x g/mg
b. Sludge feed rate (DS)
i. Typical = 2660 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 2660 kg/hr DW represents an
average dewatered sludge feed rate into the
furnace. This feed rate would serve a commun-
ity of approximately 400,000 people. This rate
was incorporated into the U.S. EPA-ISCLT model
based on the following input data:
EP = 360 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 28%
Stack height - 20 m
Exit gas velocity - 20 m/s
Exit gas temperature - 356.9°K (183°F)
Stack diameter - 0.60 m
3-10
-------
ii. Worst = 10,000 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 10,000 kg/hr DW represents a
higher feed rate and would serve a major U.S.
city. This rate was incorporated into the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT model based on the following input
data:
EP = 392 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 26.62
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 3.709 mg/kg DW
Worst 20.69 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-4.
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 casting
incinerators for organic emissions.
e. Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum annual
ground level concentration (DP)
Typical 3.4
Worst 16.0
The dispersion parameter is derived from the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT short-stack model.
f. Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air (BA) = 0.000061 Ug/m3
The atmospheric range of PA in a number of U.S.
cities was reported to be 0.011 to 0.340 ng/m3 (U.S.
EPA, 1980). The geometric 'mean of the reported
range is used as the background concentration. (See
Section 4, p. 4-2.)
3-11
-------
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
1
8.64
43.6
136
755
Worst Typical 1 31.6 542
Worst 1 172 3020
a The typical (3.4 yg/m^) and worst (16.0 ug/m^) disper-
sion parameters will always correspond, respectively,
to the typical (2660 kg/hr DW) and worst (10,000 kg/hr
DW) sludge feed rates.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected air concentration exceeds background levels due
to incinerator emissions.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Incineration of sludge may
cause substantial increases in the concentration of PA in
air.
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~°. For non-
carcinogens, levels typically were derived from the Amer-
ican Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) threshold limit values (TLVs) for the workplace.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - The exposed population is
assumed to reside within the impacted area for 24
hours/day. A respiratory volume of 20 m-Vday is assumed
over a 70-year lifetime.
3-12
-------
Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of air concentration increment resulting from
incinerator emissions (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
b. Background concentration of pollutant in urban air
(BA) = 0.000061 Ug/m3
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
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
concentration 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
concentration of Che carcinogenic agent. The
exposure criterion is calculated using the following
formula:
_ 1Q"6 x 103 Ug/mg x 70 kg
t.C - r
Cancer potency x 20 m-Vday
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-
3-13
-------
tional degree of mixing can be expressed by a further dilution.
This is defined as the average dilution occurring when a day's
worth of sludge is dispersed by 24 hours of current movement and
represents the time-weighted average exposure concentration for
organisms in the disposal area. This dilution accounts for 8 to 12
hours of the high pulse concentration encountered by the organisms
during daylight disposal operations and 12 to 16 hours of recovery
(ambient water concentration) during the night when disposal
operations are suspended.
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing
of Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates increased concentrations in yg/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
3-14
-------
discharge a load in no less Chan 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
exit the site. Sludge barges with capacities of
1600 mt WW would be required to discharge a load in
no less than 32 minutes traveling at a minimum speed
of 8 nautical miles (14,816 m) per hour. Under
these conditions, the barge would enter the site,
discharge the sludge over 7902 m and exit the site.
The mean path length for the large and small tankers
is 8041 m or approximately 8000 m. Path length is
assumed to lie perpendicular to the direction of
prevailing current flow. For the typical disposal
rate (SS) of 825 mt DW/day, it is assumed that this
would be accomplished by a mixture of four 3400 mt
WW and four 1600 mt WW capacity barges. The overall
daily disposal operation would last from 8 to 12
hours. For the worst-case disposal rate (SS) of
1650 mt DW/day, eight 3400 mt WW and eight 1600 mt
WW capacity barges would be utilized. The overall
daily disposal operation would last from 8 to 12
hours. For both disposal rate scenarios, there
would be a 12 to 16 hour period at night in which no
sludge would be dumped. It is assumed that under
the above described disposal operation, sludge
dumping would occur every day of the year.
The assumed disposal practice at the model site
representative of the worst .case is as stated for
Che typical sice, excepc Chac barges would dump half
cheir load along a Crack, chen 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 3.709 mg/kg DW
Worst 20.69 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-4.
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
3-15
-------
Typical site values are representative of a large,
deep-water site with an area of about 1500 km*
located beyond the continental shelf in the New York
Bight. The pycnocline value of 20 m chosen is the
average of the 10 to 30 m pycnocline depth range
occurring in the summer and fall; the winter and
spring disappearance of the pycnocline is not consi-
dered and so represents a conservative approach in
evaluating annual or long-term impact. The current
velocity of 11 cm/sec (9500 m/day) chosen is based
on the average current velocity in this area (CDM,
1984b).
Worst-case values are representative of a near-shore
New York Bight site with an area of about 20 km2.
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 Mixing
When a load of sludge is dumped from a moving tanker, an
immediate mixing occurs in the turbulent wake of the
vessel, followed by more gradual spreading of the plume.
The entire plume, which initially constitutes a narrow
band the length of the tanker path, moves more-or-less as
a unit with the prevailing surface current and, under
calm conditions, is not further dispersed by the current
itself. However, the current acts to separate successive
tanker loads, moving each out of the immediate disposal
path before the next load is dumped.
Immediate mixing volume after barge disposal is
approximately equal to the length of the dumping track
with a cross-sectional area about four times that defined
by the draft and width of the discharging vessel
(Csanady, 1981, as cited in NOAA, 1983). The resulting
plume is initially 10 m deep by 40 m wide (O'Connor and
Park, 1982, as cited in NOAA, 1983). Subsequent
spreading of plume band width occurs at an average rate
of approximately 1 cm/sec (Csanady et al., 1979, as cited
in NOAA, 1983). Vertical mixing is limited by the depth
of the pycnocline or ocean floor, whichever is shallower.
Four hours after disposal, therefore, average plume width
(W) may be computed as follows:
W = 40 m + 1 cm/sec x 4 hours x 3600 sec/hour x 0.01 m/cm
= 184 m = approximately 200 m
3-16
-------
Thus the volume of initial mixing is defined by the
tanker path, a 200 m width, and a depth appropriate to
the site. For the typical (deep water) site, this depth
is chosen as the pycnocline value of 20 m. For the worst
(shallow water) site, a value of 10 m was chosen. At
times the pycnocline may be as shallow as 5 m, but since
the barge wake causes initial mixing to at least 10 m,
the greater value was used.
5. Index 1 Values (pg/L)
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical Typical 0.0 0.0074 0.0074
Worst 0.0 0.041 0.041
Worst Typical 0.0 0.063 0.063
Worst 0.0 0.35 0.35
6. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected increase
in PA concentration in seawater around a disposal site as
a result of sludge disposal after initial mixing.
7. Preliminary Conclusion - Slight increases in seawater
concentration of PA occur when sludges are disposed at
the typical site, but greater increases occur when
sludges are dumped at the worst site.
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
3-17
-------
hours per day. This situation can be expressed by the
use of a TWA concentration of sludge constituent.
3. Data Used and Rationale
See Section 3, pp. 3-14 to 3-16.
4. Factors Considered in Determining Subsequent Additional
Degree of Mixing (Determination of TWA Concentrations)
See Section 3, p. 3-17.
5. Index 2 Values (yg/L)
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical Typical 0.0 0.0020 0.0040
Worst 0.0 0.011 0.022
Worst Typical 0.0 0.018 0.035
Worst 0.0 0.099 0.20
6. Value Interpretation - Value equals the effective
increase in PA concentration expressed as a TWA
. concentration in seawater around a disposal site
experienced by an organism over a 24-hour period.
7. Preliminary Conclusion - After a 24-hour dumping cycle,
increases occur in the seawater concentration of PA for
all scenarios evaluated.
C. Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Explanation - Compares the effective increased concentra-
tion of pollutant in seawater around the disposal site
resulting from the initial mixing of sludge (Index 1)
with the marine ambient water quality criterion of the
pollutant, or with another value judged protective of
marine aquatic life. For PA, this value is the criterion
that will protect marine aquatic organisms from both
acute and chronic toxic effects.
Wherever a short-term, "pulse" exposure may occur as it
would from initial mixing, it is usually evaluated using
the "maximum" criteria values of EPA's ambient water
quality- criteria methodology. However, under this
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
3-18
-------
values designed Co 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.
Assumptions/Limitations - In addition to the assumptions
stated for Indices 1 and 2, assumes that all of the
released pollutant is available in the water column to
move through predicted pathways (i.e., sludge to seawater
to aquatic organism to man). The possibility of effects
arising from accumulation in the sediments is neglected
since the U.S. EPA presently lacks a satisfactory method
for deriving sediment criteria.
Data Used and Rationale
a. Concentration of pollutant in seawater around a
disposal site (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-17.
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 PAHs.
No PA-specific criteria values are immediately
available. The 300 Wg/L value chosen as the
criterion to protect saltwater organisms is an acute
toxicity value based on tests of polychaete worms
exposed to crude oil fractions. No data are
presently available regarding" the chronic effects of
PAHs on more sensitive marine aquatic life (U.S.
EPA, 1980).
3-19
-------
4. Index 3 Values
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical Typical 0.0 0.000025 0.000025
Worst 0.0 0.00014 0.00014
Worst Typical 0.0 0.00021 0.00021
Worst 0.0 0.0012 0.0012
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals the factor by which
the expected seawater concentration increase in PA
exceeds the protective value. A value > 1 indicates that
acute or chronic toxic' conditions may exist for organisms
at the site.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Only slight increases of
incremental hazard to aquatic life occur for all of the
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. 3-18.
Since bioconcentration is a dynamic and reversible
process, it is expected that uptake of sludge
pollutants by marine organisms at the disposal site
3-20
-------
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).
c. 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 km^) at each
disposal site will be considered to be defined by
the tanker path length (L) times the distance of
3-21
-------
current movement (V) during 10 days, and is computed
as follows:
AI = 10 x L x V x 10~6 km2/m2 (1)
To be consistent with a conservative approach, plume
dilution due to spreading in the perpendicular
direction to current flow is disregarded. More
likely, organisms exposed to the plume in the area
defined by equation 1 would experience a TWA concen-
tration lower than the concentration expressed by
Index 2.
Next, the value of AI must be expressed as a
fraction of an NMFS reporting area. In the New York
Bight, which includes NMFS areas 612-616 and 621-
623, deep-water area 623 has an area of
approximately 7200 km2 and constitutes approximately
0.02 percent of the total seafood landings for the
Bight (COM, 1984b). Near-shore area 612 has'an area
of approximately 4300 km2 and constitutes
approximately 24 percent of the total seafood
landings (COM, 1984c). Therefore the fraction of
all seafood landings (FSt) from the Bight which
could originate from the area of impact of either
the typical (deep-water) or worst (near-shore) site
can be calculated for this typical harvesting
scenario as follows:
For the typical (deep water) site:
_ AI x 0.02% = (2)
t ~ 7200 km2
[10 x 8000 m x .9500 m x 10"6 km2/m2] x 0.0002 n_5
_ Ł. i x lu
7200 km2
For the worst (near shore) site:
"t - ,
4300 km2
[10 x 4000 m x 4320 m x 10~6 km2/m2] x 0.24 _ , in_3
0 y.o x iu j
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
3-22
-------
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:
AI
4300 km2
FSW = = 0.040 (5)
d. Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (BCP) =
486 L/kg
The value chosen is the weighted average BCF of PA
for the edible portion of all freshwater and
estuarine aquatic organisms consumed by U.S.
citizens (U.S. EPA, 1980). The weighted average BCF
is derived as part of the water quality criteria
developed by the U.S. EPA to protect human health
from the potential carcinogenic effects of PA
induced by ingestion of contaminated water and
aquatic organisms. Although no measured steady-
state BCF for PA is available, a BCF value for
aquatic organisms containing about 7.6 percent
lipids can be 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 percent lipid content
of consumed fish and shellfish. It should be noted,
however, that the resulting estimated weighted
average BCF of 486 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
demonstrate 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.
3-23
-------
g. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) - Data not
immediately available.
4. Index 4 Values - Values were not calculated due to lack.
of data.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which the
expected intake exceeds the RSI. A value >1 indicates a
possible human health threat. Comparison with the null
index value at 0 mt/day indicates the degree to which any
hazard is due to sludge disposal, as opposed to
preexisting dietary sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn because
index values could not be calculated.
3-24
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR PHENANTHRENE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
Detected in 53% of 437 samples from 40
POTWs
Detected in 43% of 42 samples from 10
POTWs
Detected in sludges of 12 and 13 POTWs
2. Concentration
1 to 10,100 Ug/L range for 232 samples
from 40 POTWs
27 to 35,000 Ug/L range for 18 samples
from 10 POTWs
7.4 Ug/g (DW) median, 0.89 to 44 Ug/g
range for 12 POTWs
278 Ug/L median, 34 to 1,565 range for
12 POTWs
Percent occurrence of PA at indicated
concentrations in 25 U.S. cities (DW)
Ug/g
Ug/g >50 ug/g
60
20
8
Dry-weight concentration of PA in sludge
POTWs analyzed
Minimum concentration
Maximum concentration
Average concentration
50th percentile
95th percentile
39
0.201 Ug/g DW
30.128 Ug/g DW
5.98 Ug/g DW
3.709 Ug/g DW
20.69 Ug/g DW
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 41)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 49)
Naylor and
Loehr, 1982
(p. 20)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 41)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 49)
Naylor and
Loehr, 1982
(p. 20)
U.S. EPA, 1983b
(p. A-13)
Statistically
derived from
data presented
in a survey
of POTWs
throughout the
United States
(U.S. EPA, 1982)
4-1
-------
B. Soil - Unpolluted
Data not immediately available.
Soil half-lives of PAHs may range from U.S. EPA, 1984a
<1 day to several years depending on a (p. 1-4)
variety of factors including volatility,
photoliability, and microbial degradation.
C. Hater - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
River water: 1280 + 320 ng/L Ogan et al.,
1979 (p. 1318)
D. Air
1. Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
Range in U.S. cities in "recent" years: U.S. EPA, 1980
0.011 to 0.340 ng/m3 (p. C-35)
E. Pood
1. Total Average Intake
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
Coconut oil - 51 pg/L U.S. EPA, 1980
Charcoal broiled steaks - 0.21 Ug/g (p. C-13)
Barbequed ribs - 0.58 Ug/g
Smoked mutton - 0.104 Ug/g
Smoked mutton sausages - 0.017 Ug/g
4-2
-------
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogen!city
a. Qualitative Assessment
There is no evidence of the U.S. EPA, 1984b
carcinogenicity of PA to humans (p. 5, 6)
exposed by the oral or inhalation
routes, and this compound has not
been tested for carcinogenicity in
experimental animals by oral or
inhalation exposure. Administration
of PA in three intraperitoneal
injections on days 1, 8, and IS of
life at levels of 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8
Umol did not result in an increased
incidence of tumors in 100 Swiss-
Webster mice (Buening et al., 1979).
IARC (1983) reported that there was
insufficient evidence of carcinogenic
risk to humans and experimental
animals associated with oral or in-
halation exposure to PA. Using
the IARC criteria for evaluating the
overall weight of evidence of carcin-
ogenicity to humans, PA*is most appro-
priately classified as a Group 3
chemical, i.e., "cannot be classified
as to its carcinogenic potential for
humans."
b. Potency
Not derived due to lack of evidence.
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. ADI
Data not immediately available.
b. Effects
PAHs have been demonstrated to U.S. EPA, 1980
decrease body growth in rats and (p. C-51)
mice. Damage to hemopoetic and
lymphatic tissue is common.
4-3
-------
3. Absorption Factor
PAHs have been shown to cross intestinal
tissues.
4. Existing Regulations
1970 drinking water standard set by the
World Health Organization recommends that
PAH concentration not exceed 0.2 Ug/L.
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
IARC Group 3: "cannot be classified
to its carcinogenic potential for
humans."
b. Potency
Not derived due to lack, of evidence.
2. Chronic Toxicity
Data not immediately available concerning
non-tumor related chronic toxicity of
PAHs due to inhalation.
3. Absorption Factor
Data not immediately available.
4. Existing Regulations
Regulations concerning exposure to
individual PAHs do not exist. However,
a number of standards concerning work-
place exposure limits for benzene-
cyclohexane extractable mixtures of PAHs
have been recommended by various U.S.
agencies.
III. PLANT EFFECTS
Data not immediately available.
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-37)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-108)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 6)
U.S. EPA, 1984a
(p. 8)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-108)
4-4
-------
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
Redwinged blackbird:
B. Uptake
mg/kg
In a laboratory microcosm study with 135
rag/cm-* of PA being applied to wood posts
resulting in soil concentration of <0.02
to 0.73 Ug/g PA, a vole placed in a micro-
cosm accumulated 7.20 pg PA in its whole
body. This resulted in a biomagnif ication
from soil of 9.86.
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1 . Freshwater
Data not immediately available.
2. Saltwater
Acute toxicity value of 300 ug/L is
based on tests of polychaete worms
exposed to crude oil fractions.
B. Uptake
The estimated weighted average BCF of PA for
the edible portion of all freshwater and
estuarine aquatic organisms consumed by U.S.
citizens is 486.
Schafer et al.,
1983 (p. 360)
Gile et al.,
1982 (p. 297-
299)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B-l, 2)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-17)
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
See Table 4-1.
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING PATE AND TRANSPORT
Water solubility at 25°C: 1.29 mg/L
Henry's Law constant (H): 3.93 x 10~5
Molecular weight: 178.23
Melting point: 101°C
Vapor pressure: 6.8 x 10"^ torr
Koc for PA has been estimated to be 23,000
based on octanol:water partition coefficient
data.
Mackay et al.,
1979 (p. 336)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. A-3) '
Hassett et al.,
1983
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-1. UPTAKE OP PHENANTHRENE BY SOIL BIOTA
Species
Cricket
Snail
Pill bug
t
Tenebrio
Worm
Chemical Form
Applied
PA in wood
post at 135
ing /cm-'
PA in wood
post at 135
rag/cm-'
PA in wood
post at 135
mg/m3
PA in wood
post at 135
rag/cm3
PA in wood
post at 135
1 rag/cm'
Range of
Soil Concentration
Soil Type
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun. 1972. Handbook of Mathematical
Functions. Dover Publications, New York, NY.
Buening, M. K., W. Levin, J. M. Karle, H. Yagi, D. M. Jerma and A. H.
Conney. 1979. Tumorigenic Activity of Bay-Region Epoxides of
Chrysene and Phenanthrene in Newborn Mice. Cancer Res. 39:5063-
5068.
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.
City of New York Department of Environmental Protection. 1983. A
Special Permit Application for the Disposal of Sewage Sludge from
Twelve New York City Water Pollution Control Plants at the 12-Mile
Site. New York, NY. December.
Donigian, A. S. 1985. Personal Communication. Anderson-Nichols & Co.,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA. May.
Farrell, J. B. 1984. Personal Communication. Water Engineering
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH. December.
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gelhar, L. W., and G. J. Axness. 1981. Stochastic Analysis of
Macrodispersion in 3-Dimensionally Heterogenous Aquifers. Report
No. H-8. Hydrologic Research Program, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, Soccorro, NM.
Gerritse, R. G., R. Vriesema, J. W. Dalenberg, and H. P. DeRoos. 1982.
Effect of Sewage Sludge on Trace Element Mobility in Soils. J.
Environ. Qual. 2:359-363.
Gile, J. D., J. C. Collins, and J. W. Gillet. 1982. Fate and Transport
of Wood .Preservatives in a Terrestrial Microcosm. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 30:295-301.
5-1
-------
Griffin, R. A. 198A. Personal Communication Co U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ECAO - Cincinnati, OH. Illinois State
Geological Survey.
Uassett, J. J., W. L. Banwart, and R. A. Griffin. 1983. Correlation of
Compounds Properties with Sorption Characteristics of Non-Polar
Compounds by Soils and Sediments: Concepts and Limitations.
Chapter 15. In; Francis, C. W., and I. Auerbach (eds.). The
Environment and Solid Waste Characterization, Treatment and
Disposal. 4th Oak Ridge National Laboratory Life Science
Symposium, October 4, 1981. Gatlinburg, TN. Ann Arbor Science
Publ., Ann Arbor, MI.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1983. Polynuclear
Aromatic Compounds, Part I, Chemical, Environmental and
Experimental Data. In; IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the
Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans. World Health
Organization, IARC, Lyon, France. Vol. 32.
Mackay, D., W. Y. Shiu, and R. P. Sutherland. 1979. Determination of
Air-Water Henry's Law Constants for Hydrophobic Compounds. Env.
Sci. and Techn. 13(3):333-337.
Naylor, L. M., and R. C. Loehr. 1982. Priority Pollutants in Municipal
Sewage Sludge. BioCycle. July/August:18-22.
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. Katz, and W. Slavin. 1979. Determination of Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Aqueous Samples by Reverse-Phase Liquid
Chromatography. Anal. Chem. 51(8):1315-1320.
Pettyjohn, W. A., D. C. Kent, T. A. Prickett, H. E. LeGrand, and F. E.
Witz. 1982. Methods for the Prediction of Leachate Plume
Migration and Mixing. U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Schafer, E. W., W. A. Bowles, and J. Hurlbut. 1983. The Acute Oral
Toxicity, Repellency, and Hazard Potential of 998 Chemicals to One
or More Species of Wild and Domestic Birds. Arch. Env. Contam.
Toxicol. 12;335-382.
Sikora, L. J., W. D. Burge, and J. E. Jones. 1982. Monitoring of a
Municipal Sludge Entrenchment Site. J. Environ. Qual. 2(2);321-
325.
Stanford Research Institute International. 1980. Seafood Consumption
Data Analysis. Final Report, Task 11. Prepared for U.S. EPA under
Contract No. 68-01-3887. Menlo Park, CA. September.
5-2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Environmental Assessment
of Subsurface Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Sludge:
Interim Report. EPA 530/SW-547. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Industrial Source Complex
(ISC) Dispersion Model User Guide. EPA 450/4-79-30. Vol. 1.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC. December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons. EPA 440/5-80-069.
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly-Owned Treatment Works. Final Report.
Volume 1. EPA 440/1-82-303. Effluent Guidelines. Washington,
D.C. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. Rapid Assessment of
Potential Groundwater Contamination Under Emergency Response
Conditions. EPA 600/8-83-030.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983b. Process Design Manual for
Land Application of Municipal Sludge. . EPA 625/1-83-016. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984a. Health Effects Assessment
for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH). EPA ECAO-CIN-H013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984b. Health Effects Assessment
for Phenanthrene. EPA ECAO-CIN-H029. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
5-3
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR PHENANTHRENE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option i-s
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
II. LANDPILLING
A. Procedure
Using Equation 1, several values of C/CO for the unsaturated
zone are calculated corresponding to -increasing values of t
until equilibrium is reached. Assuming a 5-year pulse input
from the landfill, Equation 3 is employed to estimate the con-
centration vs. time data at the water table. The concentration
vs. time curve is then transformed into a square pulse having a
constant concentration equal to the peak concentration, Cu,
from the unsaturated zone, and a duration, to, chosen so that
the total areas under the curve and the pulse are equal, as
illustrated in Equation 3. This square pulse is then used as
the input to the linkage assessment, Equation 2, which esti-
mates initial dilution in the aquifer to give the initial con-
centration, Co, for the saturated zone assessment. (Conditions
for B, minimum thickness of unsaturated zone, have been set
such that dilution is actually negligible.) The saturated zone
assessment procedure is nearly identical to that for the unsat-
urated zone except for the definition of certain parameters and
choice of parameter values. The maximum concentration at the
well, Cmax, is used to calculate the index values given in
Equations 4 and 5.
B. Equation 1: Transport Assessment
C(y.t) =i [expUi) erfc(A2) + expU].) erfc(B2)] =
Requires evaluations of four dimensionless input values and
subsequent evaluation of the result. Exp(Aj) denotes the
exponential of A\, & , where erfc(A2) denotes the
complimentary error function of A2. Erfc(A2) produces values
between 0.0 and 2.0 (Abfamowitz and Stegun, 1972).
A-l
-------
where:
Al = X_ [V* - (V*2 + 4D* x
Al 2D*
y - t (V*2 + 4D* x u*
A2 ' (4D* x t)ą
Bl = X [V* + (V*2 + 4D*
Dl 2D*
y + t (V*2 + 4D* x
82 " (4D* x t)ą
and where for the unsaturated zone:
Co = SC x CF = Initial leachate concentration (ug/L)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
CF = 250 kg sludge solids/m3 leachate =
PS x 103
1 - PS
PS = Percent solids (by weight) of landfilled sludge
. 20%
t = Time (years)
X = h = Depth to groundwater (m)
D* = a x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
V* = 2 (m/year)
0 x R -
Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
9 = Volumetric water content (unitless)
R = 1 + dfy x Kd = Retardation factor (unitless)
9
pdry = Dry bulk- density (g/mL)
Kd = foc x Koc (mL/g)
foc = Fraction of organic carbon (unitless)
Koc = Organic carbon partition coefficient (mL/g)
( ,-l
i
U = Degradation rate (day"1)
and where for the saturated zone:
Co = Initial concentration of pollutant in aquifer as
determined by Equation 2 (yg/L)
t = Time (years)
X = AH = Distance from well to landfill (m)
D* = Ot x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
A-2
-------
y* = K * i (m/year)
0 x R
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
i = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unitless)
Q.*"*0 and B > 2
K x i x 365
D. Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
C(y>t) = P t(
co
where:
to (for unsaturated zone) = LT = Landfill leaching time
(years)
to (for saturated zone) = Pulse duration at the water
table (x = h) as determined by the following equation:
t0 = [ o/°° C dt] * Cu
C( Y t )
c) = n as determined by Equation 1
A-3
-------
B. Equation 4. Index of Groundwater Concentration Resulting
from Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
Index 1 = Cmax
where:
Cmax = Maximum concentration of pollutant at well =
maximum of C(AŁ,t) calculated in Equation 1
(Ug/L)
2. Sample Calculation
0.101 ug/L = 0.101 Ug/L ,
F. Equation 5. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting
from Groundwater Contamination (Index 2)
1. Formula
(I I x AC) + DI
Index 2 =
where:
II = Index 1 = Index of groundwater concentration
resulting from landfilled sludge (ug/L)
AC = Average human consumption of drinking water
(L/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
2. Sample Calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from Incinerator
Emissions (Index 1)
1. Formula
T j i (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)
A-4
-------
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
8.64 = [(2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW x 3.709 mg/kg DW x 0.05
x 3.4 yg/m3) + 0.000061 yg/m3] * 0.000061 yg/m3
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Formula
[Ui - 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.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from 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)
A-5
-------
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
n nn-,, /, 3.709 mg/kg DW x 1600000 kg WW x 0.04 kg DW/kg WW x 103ug/mg
0.0074 Ug/L ^ , ,
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
n nn9n ,, /T - 825000 kg DW/day x 3.709 mg/kg DW x 103 ug/mg
U.UU/U Ug/L - ; -
9500 m/day x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/m3
C. Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Formula
IndeX 3 = AWQC"
where:
II = Index 1 = Index of seawater concentration
resulting from initial mixing after sludge
disposal (pg/L)
AWQC = Criterion or other value expressed as an average
concentration to protect marine organisms from
ť-"i-° and chronic toxic effects (ug/L)
A-6
-------
Sample Calculation
0.000025 -
D. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Seafood Consumption
(Index 4)
1 . Formula
(I 2 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 (yg/L)
QF = Dietary consumption of seafood (g WW/day)
FS = Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (unitless)
BCF = Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (L/kg)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
2. Sample Calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
A-7
-------
TABLE A-l. INPUT DATA VARYING IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOR EACH CONDITION
Condition of Analysis
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (MB/B DW)
Unsaturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, f^ry (g/mL)
Volumetric water content, 6 (unitless)
Fraction of organic carbon, foc (unitless)
Site parameters
Leachate generation rate, Q (en/year)
Depth to groundwater, h (m)
1 Dispersivity coefficient, Q (m)
Saturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Aquifer porosity, 0 (unitless)
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,
K (m/day)
Site parameters
Hydraulic gradient, i (unitless)
Distance from well to landfill, AH (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
1
3.70.9
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
2
20.69
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
3
3.709
1.925
0.133
0.0001
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
4 5
3.709 3.709
NAb 1.53
NA 0.195
NA 0.005
1.6 0.8
0 5
NA 0.5
0.44 0.389
0.86 4.04
0.001 0.001
100 100
10 10
6
3.709
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.02
50
5
7 8
20.69 Na
NA N
NA N
NA N
1.6 N
0 N
NA N
0.389 N
4.04 N
0.02 N
50 N
5 N
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Condition of Analysis
Results 1
Unsaturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Initial leachate concentration, C0 (pg/L) 927
Peak concentration, Cu (ug/L) 4.69
Pulse duration, to (years) 989
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquifer thickness, B (m) 126
Initial concentration in saturated zone, Co
(Mg/L) 4.69
>.
1 Saturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Maximum well concentration, Cmax (pg/L) 0.101
Index of groundwater concentration resulting
from landfilled sludge, Index 1 (ug/L)
(Equation 4) 0.101
Index of human cancer risk resulting
trom groundwater contamination, Index 2
(unitless) (Equation 5) NCC
2 3 4 5 678
5170 927 927 927 927 5170 N
26.1 178 927 4.69 4.69 5170 N
989 26.0 5.00 989 989 5.00 N
126 126 253 23.8 6.32 2.38 N
26.1 178 927 4.69 4.69 5170 N
0.563 0.101 0.101 0.532 3.29 120.0 N
0.563 0.101 0.101 0.532 3.29 120.0 0
NC NC . NC NC NC NC NC
aN = Null condition, where no landfill exists; no value is used.
DNA = Not applicable for this condition.
CNC = Not calculated due to lack of data.
------- |