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.

-------