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:

-------
                                 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, landfill ing,
incineration and ocean disposal.

     These documents  are intended  to serve as  a  rapid  screening tool to
narrow an initial list  of pollutants to those  of  concern.   If a signifi-
cant hazard  is  indicated by this  preliminary  analysis, a  more detailed
assessment will   be  undertaken to  better  quantify the  risk  from  this
chemical and to  derive  criteria if warranted.   If a hazard  is shown 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 OF CONTENTS


                                                                     Page

PREFACE	   i

1.  INTRODUCTION	  1-1

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

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 	  2-1

    Landfilling 	  2-2

    Incineration	  2-2

    Ocean Disposal 	  2-3

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

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 	  3-1

         Effect on soil concentration of benzo(a)pyrene
           (Index 1) 	  3-1
         Effect on soil biota and predators of soil biota
           (Indices 2-3) 	  3-2
         Effect on plants and plant tissue
           concentration (Indices 4-6) 	  3-4
         Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 	  3-7
         Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 	  3-9

    Landf illing 	.'	  3-16

         Index of groundwater concentration resulting
           from landfilled sludge (Index 1) 	  3-16
         Index of human cancer risk resulting from
           groundwater contamination (Index 2) 	  3-23

    Incineration	  3-24

         Index of air concentration increment resulting
           from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 	  3-24
         Index of human cancer risk resulting from
           inhalation of incinerator emissions (Index 2)	  3-28

    Ocean Disposal	  3-29

         Index of seawater concentration resulting from
           initial mixing of sludge (Index 1) 	  3-30
         Index of seawater concentration representing a
           24-hour dumping cycle (Index 2) 	  3-33
                                   11

-------
                            TABLE OP CONTENTS
                               (Continued)
                                                                     Page
         Index of toxicity to  aquatic  life  (Index 3)  	   3-34
         Index of human toxicity risk  resulting from
           seafood consumption (Index  4)  	   3-36

4.  PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR BENZO(A)PYRENE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
      SLUDGE	   4-1

    Occurrence	   4-1

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

    Human Effects 	   4-4

         Ingestion 	   4-4
         Inhalation 	   4-6

    Plant Effects 	   4-7

         Phytotoxicity 	   4-7
         Uptake  	   4-7

    Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 	   4-7

         Toxicity 	   4-7
         Uptake	   4-7

    Aquatic Life Effects  	   4-7

         Toxicity	   4-7
         Uptake  	   4-8

    Soil Biota Effects 	   4-8

    Physicochemical Data  for Estimating Fate and Transport  	   4-8

 5.  REFERENCES	   5-1

 APPENDIX.  PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
    BENZO(A)PYRENE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE  	   A-l
                                   111

-------
                                SECTION 1

                               IHTRODUCTION
     This  preliminary  data  profile  is  one  of  a  series   of  profiles
dealing  with  chemical  pollutants  potentially of  concern  in municipal
sewage sludges.   Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) was  initially  identified as being
of potential  concern when sludge  is  landspread  (including distribution
and marketing),  placed in a landfill,  incinerated or  ocean disposed.*
This  profile  is  a  compilation of  information  that  may  be  useful  in
determining whether  BaP poses  an  actual hazard  to human health  or the
environment when sludge is disposed of by these methods.
     The  focus   of   this  document  is  the   calculation  of  "preliminary
hazard indices"  for  selected  potential exposure  pathways,  as  shown  in
Section  3.   Each  index illustrates  the hazard  that could  result from
movement  of  a  pollutant  by  a given pathway  to  cause  a  given  effect
(e.g., sludge -* soil *  plant uptake * animal uptake -  human  toxicity).
The  values  and  assumptions   employed   in   these   calculations  tend  to
represent  a  reasonable "worst  case"; analysis  of error  or uncertainty
has been conducted  to  a  limited  degree.    The  resulting value  in most
cases  is indexed  to unity;   i.e., values  >1 may indicate  a potential
hazard, depending upon the assumptions of the calculation.
     The data used for  index calculation have been selected or estimated
based  on  information  presented  in  the  "preliminary  data  profile",
Section 4.  Information in the profile  is  based  on a  compilation of the
recent literature.   An attempt has  been  made to  fill  out  the profile
outline  to the  greatest extent possible.   However, since  this is  a pre-
liminary analysis, the literature has  not been exhaustively perused.
     The  "preliminary  conclusions" drawn  from each  index in  Section  3
are summarized  in Section 2.    The  preliminary  hazard  indices will  be
used as  a  screening  tool  to  determine which  pollutants  and  pathways may
pose a hazard.   Where a potential hazard is  indicated by interpretation
of these  indices,  further analysis will  include a more  detailed  exami-
nation of  potential  risks  as  well  as   an  examination  of  site-specific
factors.   These  more rigorous  evaluations may  change the  preliminary
conclusions presented in  Section 2, which  are  based  on a  reasonable
"worst case" analysis.
     The  preliminary   hazard   indices   for   selected   exposure  routes
pertinent to landspreading and distribution  and  marketing,  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 (OWRS)  to  discuss landspreading, landfilling,  incineration,
  and ocean disposal,  respectively,  of  municipal  sewage  sludge.
                                   1-1

-------
                                SECTION 2

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

  I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

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

          Landspreading of sludge may slightly increase  che soil concen-
          tration of BaP  when  sludge containing a  high  concentration of
          BaP is applied at the 50 and 500 me/ha  rates (see Index 1).

     B.   Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota

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

     C.   Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

          The potential toxicity of  increased  soil  concentrations  of  BaP
          to  plants  could not  be determined  due   to lack of data  (see
          Index 4).

          Landspreading of sludge containing a high concentration  of  BaP
          is  expected  to slightly  increase  the  tissue  concentration of
          BaP in plants in the animal and human diet (see Index 5).

          The maximum  plant  tissue  concentration  which is permitted by
          phytotoxicity   could not  be  determined  due   to  lack of  data
          (see Index 6).

     D.   Effect on Herbivorous Animals

          The concentration  of  BaP  in  plants  grown on  sludge-amended
          soil is not expected  to exceed  the dietary concentration  which
          is toxic to herbivorous animals  (see  Index 7).

          Landspreading of sludge is not  expected to  pose  a toxic  hazard
          due  to  BaP  for  grazing  animals  that   incidentally  ingest
          sludge-amended soil (see Index 8).

     E.   Effect on Humans

          For toddlers  who  consume  plants grown in sludge-amended  soil,
          an increase in  the risk  of cancer  due  to BaP  is  expected when
          sludges  containing  the  worst-case  concentration of  BaP  are
          landspread.   For adults,  an increase  in   the risk of cancer is
                                   2-1

-------
         expected  when  sludges  containing  a typical  concentration  of
         BaP  are applied  at  the  rates  of  50  and 500 mt/ha,  and  when
         sludges  containing a  worst-case concentration  are  applied  at
         any rate  (5 to  500 mt/ha)  (see Index 9).

         A  conclusion was  not drawn  as  to the  cancer  risk  resulting
         from  consumption  of  animal products derived from animals  feed-
         ing on plants because the index values could not be calculated
         due to lack of  data  (see  Index 10).

         A  conclusion was  not drawn  as  to the  cancer  risk  resulting
         from   consumption  of  animal  products   derived from  animals
         ingesting  soil because  the index  values could  not  be  calcu-
         lated due  to  lack  of  data (see Index 11).

         An  increase  in the  risk of  cancer is  expected to  occur  for
         toddlers   who   ingest   sludge-amended   soil   when    sludges
         containing atypically high  concentrations of  BaP  are  applied
         to  soil at high rates  (50 and 500 mt/ha)  (see  Index  12).

         The   aggregate  human  cancer  risk  due to BaP  resulting  from
         landspreading of  sludge  could not  be  evaluated due to  lack of
         data  (see Index 13).

 II.  LAHDFILLING

     The concentration of BaP  in  groundwater at the well  is expected to
     increase   when sludge  is  disposed   in  landfills.   The   greatest
     increase   in  the  groundwater   concentration  is expected  when worst-
     case conditions exist  in. both the  unsaturated and  saturated  zones
     (see Index 1).

     The risk   of   cancer  due  to  BaP  in  groundwater   is  expected  to
     atypically  increase above  the  pre-existing   risk   due  to  dietary
     sources  only  when  sludges with atypically high  concentrations  of
     BaP are  disposed  in landfills which  are characterized by the worst-
     case conditions (see Index 2).

III.  INCINERATION

     The concentration of   BaP  in  air  is  expected to  increase as  the
     sludge  feed rate  and  concentration   of  BaP  in sludge increase.   An
     exception   is  found  when  sludge  containing a  typical concentration
     of BaP is burned at  a low rate  (2660  kg/hr  DW);  in this  case no
     increase  is expected (see Index 1).

     Incineration of sludge is  expected  to  increase the  cancer  risk due
     to inhalation  of  BaP  above the risk posed by background  urban air
     concentrations of  BaP.    This  increase  may be  substantial  when
     sludge  containing a high concentration  of  BaP is  incinerated  at a
     high feed rate and a large  fraction of  the  pollutant  is  emitted
     through  the stack (see Index  2).
                                   2-2

-------
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

    Only slight increases of BaP occur after the  dumping  of  sludges and
    initial mixing  (see  Index 1).   Only  slight  increases  of  seawater
    BaP  concentrations  occur  after  a   24-hour   dumping   cycle  (see
    Index 2).    Only  slight  increases  in the  incremental  hazard  to
    aquatic life  are  evident  for worst-concentration sludges  dumped at
    the typical and  worst  sites.  No  increase is apparent  for typical
    sludges dumped at typical  sites  (see Index 3).   Increases  in human
    health risk are  apparent  from consuming seafood  taken from typical
    or  worst   sites  after   dumping   of   sludges  containing   worst
    concentrations of BaP (see Index  4).
                                  2-3

-------
                           SECTION 3

         PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR BENZO(A)PYRENE
                   IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

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

     1.   Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)

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

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

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

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

               500 mt/ha  Cumulative  loading  after  100  years  of
                          application at 5 mt7ha/year.

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

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

                 i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

                    Typical    0.143 Ug/g DW
                    Worst       1.937 Ug/g DW

                    The typical and worst  sludge concentrations  are
                    the   median   and    95th    percentile   values
                              3-1

-------
               statistically derived from  sludge  concentration
               data  from   a  survey   of   40   publicly-owned
               treatment works (POTWs) (U.S. EPA,  1982).   (See
               Section  4, p. 4-1.)

           ii. Background concentration of  pollutant in soil
               (BS) =0.1 Ug/g DW

               In    agricultural    and    forest    conditions
               reasonably  removed   from  industrial  and  urban
               influence, the  levels  of BaP are  approximately
               0 to  10 ppb  (Kolan  et  al.,  1975  and  Hites  et
               al., 1977 as cited by Overcash,  1984).

          iii. Soil half-life of pollutant  (t^) = 0.18986 years

               The value given was  derived  from  a  degradation
               rate  of  0.01 day"1   (Herbes  and Schwall,  1978).
               (See Section 4, p. 4-8.)

     d.   Index 1 Values (ug/g DW)

                              Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
              Sludge
          Concentration        0        5        50       500

              Typical         0.10     0.10     0.10     0.10
              Worst           0.10     0.10     0.14     0.11

     e.   Value  Interpretation  -   Value  equals  the  expected
          concentration  in sludge-amended soil.

     f.   Preliminary Conclusion -  Landspreading  of sludge may
          slightly increase  the  soil  concentration of BaP when
          sludge  containing  a  high  concentration  of BaP  is
          applied at the 50 and 500 mt/ha rates.

Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota

1.   Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)

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

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

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

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

               See Section 3, p. 3-2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -   Assumes pollutant  form
          bioconcentrated  by   soil   biota  is  equivalent  in
          toxicity  to  form  used  to demonstrate  toxic effects
          in  predator.    Effect  level   in  predator  may  be
          estimated from that in a different  species.

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

               See Section 3, p. 3-2.

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

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

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

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

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

C.   Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

     1.   Index of Phytotozic Soil Concentration (Index 4)

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

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

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

                    See Section 3, p. 3-2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
   d.
Diet
Data Used and Rationale

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

     See Section 3, p. 3-2;

ii.  Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue (UP)

     Animal Diet:
     Spinach   0.42 Ug/g  tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)1

     Human Diet:
     Carrot    1.8  Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)"1

     Spinach  was   selected   to  represent   a  plant
     consumed by herbivorous  animals because no data
     were  immediately available  for  crops  normally
     fed  to  animals.   It   is  assumed that  the uptake
     factor  for  spinach is similar to uptake factors
     for  more  representative  plants.   Connor (1984)
     reported uptake  factors  of  0.02  to  0.05 (ratio
     of    plant    to    soil    concentration,   fresh
     weight:fresh  weight).   Since  it  was  noted  by
     Connor  that conversion  from dry-dry  ratios  to
     fresh-fresh ratios had  been done by multiplying
     by  0.12, the  inverse was assumed for conversion
     of  fresh-fresh to dry-dry weights.    When con-
     verted  to  a   dry-dry ratio,  the highest,  and
     thus   most   conservative,   uptake   factor  for
     spinach was 0.42.

     Carrots were  selected to represent a plant con-
     sumed  by  humans.  The uptake factor  for carrot
     roots   ranged  from  0.09  to 0.22  (fresh-fresh
     ratio)  when  grown   in  sand  and  was  0.01  when
     grown  in  compost  (Connor,  1984).   As  in  the
     case  of spinach, ratios  for fresh weights were
     converted  to  ratios   of  dry  weights  by dividing
     by   a  factor  of   0.12.    The  uptake  factor
     selected  was  the  highest,   and  thus   the  most
     conservative,  value.   (See Section 4,  p. 4-9.)

 Index  5  Values  (yg/g  DW)

                    Sludge Application Rate  (mt/ha)
     Sludge
  Concentration        0          5       50       500
Animal

Human

Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.042
0,042
0.18
0.18
0.042
0.044
0.18
0.19
0.042
0.061
0.18
0.26
0.043
0.045
0.18
0.19
                       3-5

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

     f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  Landspreading  of  sludge
          containing a worst  concentration  of  BaP  is expected
          to slightly increase  the tissue concentration of BaP
          in plants in the animal and human  diet.

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

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

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

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

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

     e.   Value  Interpretation  -  Value  equals  the  maximum
          plant  tissue  concentration which  is  permitted  by
          phytotoxicity.     Value  is   compared  with  values  for
          the same  or similar plant  species given  by Index 5.
          The lowest  of  the two indices  indicates  the maximal
          increase  that   can  occur  at  any  given  application
          rate.

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

-------
D.   Effect on Herbivorous Animals

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

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

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

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

                 i. Concentration  of  pollutant in  plant  grown in
                    sludge-amended soil (Index  5)

                    The  pollutant  concentration  values  used  are
                    those Index 5  values  for  an animal  diet   (see
                    Section 3, p. 3-5).

                ii. Peed  concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
                    (TA) = 40 ug/g DW

                    A  concentration  of  40  Ug/g  was  the  lowest
                    dietary  concentration  associated with  adverse
                    effects.    This  concentration  was  associated
                    with  carcinogenic  effects   in mice  after   oral
                    administration  for 110  days  (National  Academy
                    of Sciences (NAS),  1977).   No tumors were found
                    in mice  fed up  to 30 ppm  in the diet  for 110
                    days, while mice   fed  diets  containing 50 to
                    250 Ug/g  for  100  to  197  days   showed  greater
                    than  702 incidence  of  stomach tumors (U.S.   EPA,
                    1980).  (See Section 4, p.  4-10.)

          d.   Index 7 Values

                                  Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
                   Sludge
               Concentration        0         5       50       500

                  Typical         0.0011    0.0011   0.0011   0.0011
                  Worst           0.0011    0.0011   0.0015   0.0011

          e.   Value Interpretation  -  Value equals factor  by which
               expected  plant  tissue  concentration  exceeds   that
                              3-7

-------
          which is  toxic  to  animals.   Value  > 1  indicates a
          toxic hazard may exist for herbivorous animals.

     f.   Preliminary Conclusion - The  concentration  of BaP in
          plants grown  on  sludge-amended soil  is  not expected
          to   exceed   the   dietary   concentration   toxic   to
          herbivorous animals.

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

     a.   Explanation - Calculates  the amount  of  pollutant in
          a grazing animal's diet resulting from  sludge adhe-
          sion  to  forage  or  from  incidental  ingestion  of
          sludge-amended  soil  and   compares   this  with  the
          dietary toxic threshold concentration for  a grazing
          animal.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  that  sludge  is
          applied over  and  adheres  to  growing  forage,  or that
          sludge  constitutes 5 percent of  dry matter  in  the
          grazing animal's   diet, and  that  pollutant  form in
          sludge  is  equally bioavailable  and  toxic  as  form
          used to demonstrate toxic effects.   Where  no sludge
          is applied  (i.e.,  0 mt/ha),  assumes diet  is  5 per-
          cent soil  as a basis for comparison.

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

            i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

               Typical    0.143 ug/g  DW
               Worst      1.937 Ug/g DW

               See 'Section 3, p. 3-1.

           ii. Fraction of animal diet  assumed to  be  soil (CS)
               = 5%

               Studies  of  sludge  adhesion  to  growing  forage
               following applications  of  liquid or filter-cake
               sludge  show  that  when  3 to  6  mt/ha  of sludge
               solids  is   applied,   clipped  forage  initially
               consists of  up to 30  percent sludge  on  a dry-
               weight  basis  (Chaney and Lloyd,  1979; Boswell,
               1975).   However,  this  contamination diminishes
               gradually with time  and growth, and  generally
               is not  detected  in the  following year's growth.
               For  example,  where pastures  amended at  16  and
               32 mt/ha were grazed throughout  a  growing sea-
               son  (168 days),  average sludge  content  of for-
               age  was only  2.14  and  4.75 percent,  respec-
               tively  (Bertrand  et  al.,  1981).     It  seems
               reasonable  to assume  that  animals   may  receive
                         3-8

-------
                    Long-term dietary  exposure to 5  percent sludge
                    if maintained  on  a  forage  to  which  sludge is
                    regularly applied.   This estimate  of  5 percent
                    sludge is  used  regardless of  application rate,
                    since  the  above  studies  did  not  show  a clear
                    relationship between  application rate  and  ini-
                    tial  contamination,  and  since  adhesion  is  not
                    cumulative yearly because of die-back.

                    Studies  of  grazing animals  indicate  that  soil
                    ingestion, ordinarily <10  percent  of dry weight
                    of diet,  may reach  as  high  as  20  percent  for
                    cattle and  30  percent  for sheep  during winter
                    months  when forage   is  reduced  (Thornton  and
                    Abrams,  1983).    If   the  soil  were  sludge-
                    amended, it is conceivable that  up to 5 percent
                    sludge may  be  ingested  in this  manner as'well.
                    Therefore,  this  value  accounts  for  either  of
                    these scenarios, whether  forage  is harvested or
                    grazed in the field.

               iii. Peed  concentration toxic to  herbivorous animal
                    (TA) = 40 ug/g DW

                    See Section 3,  p. 3-7.

               Index 8 Values

                                  Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
                   Sludge
               Concentration      0        5        50       500
Typical
Worst
0
0
0.00018
0.0024
0.00018
0.0024
0.00018
0.0024
               Value Interpretation  -  Value equals  factor  by which
               expected dietary concentration  exceeds  toxic concen-
               tration.   Value  > 1  indicates a  toxic hazard  may
               exist for grazing animals.

               Preliminary Conclusion  -  Landspreading of  sludge  is
               not expected  to  pose  a toxic  hazard due to  BaP  for
               grazing  animals   that  incidentally  ingest  sludge-
               amended soil.
B.   Effect on Humans
          Index   of   Human   Cancer   Risk   Resulting  from   Plant
          Consumption (Index 9)

          a.   Explanation -  Calculates  dietary intake expected  to
               result from  consumption  of  crops  grown  on  sludge-
               amended  soil.    Compares  dietary  intake  with  the
               cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of the pollutant.
                              3-9

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

c.   Data Used and Rationale

       i. Concentration  of pollutant  in  plant grown  in
          sludge-amended soil (Index 5)

          The  pollutant  concentration  values  used  are
          those  Index  5  values  for  a  human diet  (see
          Section 3, p. 3-5).

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

          Toddler     74.5 g/day '
          Adult      205   g/day

          The  intake  value for  adults  is based on  daily
          intake of crop  foods  (excluding fruit)  by vege-
          tarians  (Ryan et  al.,  1982);  vegetarians  were
          chosen to represent  the worst  case.   The  value
          for toddlers  is  based on the FDA  Revised  Total
          Diet  (Pennington,  1983)  and   food  groupings
          listed  by the  U.S.  EPA  (1984a).    Dry  weights
          for  individual  food  groups were  estimated  from
          composition  data  given  by  the U.S.  Department
          of  Agriculture  (USDA)  (1975).    These  values
          were composited  to estimate  dry-weight  consump-
          tion of all non-fruit crops.

    iii.  Average daily human dietary  intake of pollutant
          (DI)

          Toddler    0.29 Ug/day
          Adult      0.88 Ug/day

          U.S. EPA  (1980)  reported  that  daily intake  of
          BaP  from  food ranged  from  0.16 to  1.6  Ug/day.
          The daily intake  was  obtained  by  averaging the
          two  values  at the extremes  of  the range.   The
          value  for toddlers was  calculated  by  assuming
          that daily  intake of  BaP is one  third  of  the
          adult daily intake.  (See Section 4,  p.  4-3.)

     iv.  Cancer potency =  11.5 (mg/kg/day)"*

          Cancer  potency   for    ingestion   of  BaP   was
          calculated by  U.S.  EPA  (1980).   The slope  was
          based on  a  study by  Meal  and Rigdon (1967,  as
                   3-10

-------
     cited in  U.S.  EPA, 1980)  in  which BaP  was fed
     to mice at concentrations  ranging  from 1 to 250
     ppm  in  the  diet  for  approximately   110  days.
     Results  showed a  significant  increase  in  the
     incidence  of  stomach  tumors  at several  doses.
     In the four highest dose  groups receiving 5.85,
     6.5,  13.0, and  13.5 mg/kg  body weight (bw)/day,
     tumors developed  in 4  of  40,  24  of   34,  19 of
     23, and 66  of  73  mice, respectively, compared
     to 0 of  289  in  controls.    (See  Section  4,
     p. 4-5.)

 v.  Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
     0.00607  ug/day

     The  RSI   is  the  pollutant intake value  which
     results  in  an  increase  in cancer  risk  of 10~
     (1 per 1,000,000).   The RSI  is calculated from
     the cancer potency using the following formula:
     RSI =
            10
   i~6  x 70 kg  x 103 Ug/mg
                Cancer potency
Index 9 Values
Group
   Sludge
Concentration
Sludge Application
   Rate (nit/ha)

     5     50
500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
2300
2300
2300
2400
2300
3200
2300
2400
Adult       Typical      6200   6200   6300   6400
            Worst        6200   6500   8900.  6700

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

Preliminary  Conclusion  -  For  toddlers who  consume
plants grown in  sludge-amended soil, an  increase in
the  risk of  cancer  due  to  BaP  is  expected  when
sludges  containing  the  worst-case   concentration  of
BaP are  landspread.   For adults, an  increase  in the
risk of cancer is expected  when sludges containing a
typical  concentration   of   BaP are  applied  at  the
rates  of   50   and   500  mt/ha,  and   when  sludges
containing a worst-case  concentration are  applied at
any rate (5  to  500  mt/ha).
              3-11

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

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

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

c.   Data Used and Rationale

      i.  Concentration  of pollutant   in  plant grown  in
          sludge-amended soil (Index 5)

          The  pollutant  concentration  values  used  are
          those Index  5  values  for  an animal  diet  (see
          Section 3, p. 3-5).

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

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

      y   Toddler    43.7 g/day
          Adult     ' 88.5 g/day

          The fat  intake  values  presented, which comprise
          meat,  fish,   poultry,  eggs  and milk  products,
          are  derived  from  the  FDA  Revised  Total  Diet
          (Pennington,  1983),   food groupings  listed  by
          the U.S. EPA  (1984a) and food  composition  data
          given by USDA (1975).   Adult  intake  of meats is
          based on males  25 to  30  years  of age and  that
          for milk  products on  males   14  to 16 years  of
          age,  the age-sex  groups with  the  highest  daily
          intake.    Toddler  intake  of  milk products  is
          actually  based  on  infants,   since infant  milk
          consumption is the highest among that  age  group
          (Pennington, 1983).
                   3-12

-------
          iv.  Average daily human  dietary intake of pollutant
               (DI)

               Toddler    0.29 pg/day
               Adult      0.88 pg/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-10.

           v.  Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
               0.00607 ug/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-11.

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

     e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

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

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

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

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

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

            i. Animal tissue  - Data not immediately available.

           ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

               Typical     0.143 Ug/g DW
               Worst      1.937 yg/g DW

               See Section 3,  p.  3-1.
                        3-13

-------
     ill. Background concentration  of  pollutant  in  soil
          (BS) = 0.1 Ug/g DW

          See Section 3, p.  3-2.

      iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed  to be soil (CS)
          = 52

          See Section 3, p.  3-8.

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

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

          Toddler   ' 39.4 g/day
          Adult      82.4 g/day

          The affected  tissue  intake value  is  assumed  to
          be  from  the  fat  component  of meat  only (beef,
          pork,    lamb,    veal)    and   milk    products
          (Pennington,   1983).    This is  a  slightly  more
          limited choice than  for Index 10.   Adult intake
          of  meats  is  based on males  25  to 30  years  of
          age and  the  intake  for  milk products  on males
          14  to  16  years of age, the  age-sex groups with
          the  highest  daily  intake.    Toddler  intake  of
          milk  products  is actually   based  on  infants,
          since  infant   milk  consumption  is the  highest
          among that age group (Pennington, 1983).

     vii. Average daily  human  dietary  intake of pollutant
          (DI)

          Toddler    0.29 Ug/day
          Adult      0.88 Ug/day

          See Section 3, p.  3-10.

    viii. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
          0.00607 ug/day

          See Section 3, p.  3-11.

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

e.   Value Interpretation -  Same as  for Index 9.

f.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  Conclusion was  not  drawn
     because index values could not  be calculated.
                   3-14

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

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

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

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

               See Section 3,  p. 3-2.

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

               Pica child    5    g/day
               Adult         0.02 g/day

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

          iii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
               (DI)

               Toddler    0.29 Ug/day
               Adult      0.88 Ug/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-10.

           iv. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
               0.00607 Ug/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-11.
                        3-15

-------
              d.   Index  12 Values
                                                   Sludge  Application
                                                      Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
130
130
150
150
5
130
130
150
150
50
130
170
150
150
50
130
140
150
150
              e.   Value  Interpretation  -  Same  as  for  Index  9.

              f.   Preliminary  Conclusion - An  increase  in  the risk  of
                   cancer is expected to  occur for toddlers who  ingest
                   sludge-amended    soil    when   sludges   containing
                   atypically high concentrations  of BaP are applied  to
                   soil at  high  rates  (50  and 500  mt/ha).

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

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

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

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

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

              e.   Value  Interpretation  -  Same  as  for  Index  9.

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

II.  LANDFILLINC

     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,
              1983b).  Treats  landfill leachate as a  pulse  input,  i.e.,
              the application  of  a constant  source concentration  for  a
                                  3-16

-------
         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
         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
                             3-17

-------
          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 volume of
          the medium (soil), i.e.,  neglecting  the mass of
          the water (CDM, 1984a).

     (c)  Volumetric water content  (0).

          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
          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
                   3-18

-------
     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
     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,
               3-19

-------
          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    0.143 mg/kg DW
          Worst      1.937 mg/kg DW

          See Section 3, p.  3-1.

     (b)  Soil half-life of  pollutant  (t^.)  =  69.3 days

          The  value  given  in days  is  the same as  that
          reported  in   years   (0.18986)  in   Section  3,
          p. 3-2.

     (c)  Degradation rate (u) =  0.01  day'l

          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:

                        0.693
      (d) Organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc) =
          630,000 mL/g

          The  organic  carbon  partition  coefficient  is
          multiplied   by   the   percent   organic   carbon
          content  of  soil   (fOc^  to  derive a  partition
          coefficient  (Kj),  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  Kj values  for  different soil  types.   The
          value of Koc is from Lyman (1982).
                    3-20

-------
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.

          (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 (1983b).

          (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.    Heterogenous  conditions
               produce  large  spatial   variation   in  hydraulic
               conductivity,  making  estimation  of  a  single
               effective  value  extremely difficult.    Values
               used   are  from  Freeze  and  Cherry  (1979)  as
               presented in U.S. EPA (1983b).

          (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.
                         3-21

-------
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 deter-
          mine the magnitude  and  direction  of groundwater
          flow.    As gradient  increases,   dispersion  is
          reduced.     Estimates   of   typical   and   high
          gradient   values   were   provided   by   Donigian
          (1985).

     (b)  Distance from well to landfill (Ail)

          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  (AZ),  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^.
                    3-22

-------
          iii. Chemical-specific parameters

               (a)  Degradation rate (y) = 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.

     5.   Value Interpretation  - Value equals the  maximum expected
          groundwater concentration  of pollutant,  in  JJg/L,  at  the
          well.

     6.   Preliminary  Conclusion - The  concentration  of  BaP  in
          groundwater  at   the  well  is expected  to  increase  when
          sludge  is  disposed in landfills.   The greatest increase
          in the  groundwater concentration is expected  when  worst-
          case  conditions   exist   in   both  the   unsaturated   and
          saturated zones.

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  to
          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. 3-25.

          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)
               = 0.88 lag/day

               See Section  3, p. 3-10.


                             3-23

-------
               d.    Cancer potency = 11.5 (mg/kg/day)"^-

                    See  Section 3, p.  3-11.

               e.    Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
                    0.00607 ug/day

                    See  Section 3, p.  3-11.

          4.    Index 2 Values - See Table 3-1.

          5.    Value Interpretation -  Value  >1   indicates  a  potential
               increase  in  cancer risk  of  10~6 (1  in 1,000,000).   The
               null  index value should be used  as  a  basis  for comparison
               to  indicate the degree  to which any risk is due  to land-
               fill  disposal, as opposed to  preexisting dietary sources.

          6.    Preliminary Conclusion - The risk of  cancer due  to  BaP in
               groundwater  is  expected  to   increase  above   the  pre-
               existing  risk  due  to  dietary  sources  only when  sludges
               with  atypically  high concentrations  of  BaP are  disposed
               in   landfills   which  are  characterized   by   worst-case
               conditions.

III. INCINERATION

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

          1.    Explanation  -  Shows  the  degree   of  elevation  of  Che
               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  (COM, 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.    Dilation
               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.
                                  3-24

-------
Site Characteristics
    Condition of Analysisakc
345
Sludge concentration

Unsaturated Zone
                                        W
                                                W
N
Soil type and charac-
teristics**
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
T
T

T
T
1.3xlO-4
150
T
T

T
T
LBxlO'3
150
W
T

T
T
3.3x10-4
150
NA
W

T
T
3.9xlO-3
150
T
T

W
T
4.3x10-4
150
T
T

T
W
4.6x10-4
150
NA
W

W
W
11
3800
N
N

N
N
0
150
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 (Pjjry), volumetric water content (0), 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 (AS,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).

-------
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 - 1400F
               Solids content - 28%
               Stack height - 20 m
               Exit gas velocity - 20 m/s
               Exit gas temperature - 356.9K (183F)
               Stack diameter - 0.60 m

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

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

               EP = 392 Ib H20/mm BTU
              . Combustion zone temperature - 1400F
               Solids content - 26.6Z
               Stack height - 10 m
               Exit gas velocity - 10 m/s
               Exit gas temperature - 313.8K (105F)
               Stack diameter - 0.80 m

c.   Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

     Typical    0.143 mg/kg DW
     Worst      1.937 mg/kg DW

     See Section 3, p. 3-1.

d.   Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (FM)

     Typical    0.05 (unitless)
     Worst      0.20 (unitless)

     These  values  were  chosen as  best  approximations  of
     the  fraction  of  pollutant  emitted  through  stacks
                   3-26

-------
          (Farrell,  1984).   No  data was available  to validate
          these values; however, U.S.  EPA  is  currently testing
          incinerators for organic  emissions.

     e.   Dispersion parameter for  estimating maximum annual
          ground level concentration (DP)

          Typical    3.4
          Worst     16.0

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

     f.   Background concentration  of pollutant in urban
          air (BA) = 0.0005 Ug/m3

          Average concentrations of  BaP in urban areas  of the
          United  States  were  0.0032   Ug/m3   in  1966,  0.0021
          Ug/m3  in   1970,   and  0.0005  in  1976  (U.S.  EPA,
          1980).    These  data  indicate  a  declining  trend.
          Therefore, the value  selected to  represent  the back-
          ground concentration of BaP  in urban air  is the most
          recent  of  these  three  values.     (See  Section  4,
          p. 4-2.)

4.   Index 1 Values

                                              Sludge Feed
     Fraction of                            Rate  (kg/hr  DW)a
     Pollutant Emitted    Sludge
     Through Stack     Concentration      0     2660  10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.6
9.6
     Worst               Typical         1.0     1.1    3.5
                         Worst           1.0     2.9   35

     a The typical (3.4 ug/m3) and worst (16.0 Ug/m3)   disper-
       sion  parameters  will  always   correspond,  respectively,
       to the  typical  (2660 kg/hr DW) and  worst  (10,000 kg/hr
       DW) sludge feed rates.

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

     Preliminary Conclusion  - The concentration of  BaP  in air
     is expected to  increase as the  sludge feed  rate  and con-
     centration  of  BaP in  sludge increase.   An  exception  is
     found when  sludge containing  a typical  concentration  of
     BaP is burned at a low  rate  (2660  kg/hr  DW);  in this case
     no increase is expected.
                        3-27

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

     1.   Explanation - Shows the  increase  in human intake expected
          to result from  the incineration of  sludge.   Ground level
          concentrations  for carcinogens  typically were  developed
          based upon assessments published  by the U.S. EPA Carcino-
          gen Assessment Group  (GAG).   These ambient concentrations
          reflect  a dose  level  which,  for  a   lifetime  exposure,
          increases the risk of cancer by 10~^.
     2.   Assumptions/Limitations   -   The   exposed   population  is
          assumed  to  reside  within   the  impacted  area  for  24
          hours/day.   A  respiratory volume  of  20 m3/day is assumed
          over a 70-vear lifetime.
     3.   Data Used and Rationale

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

               See Section 3, p. 3-27.

          b.   Background  concentration of  pollutant in  urban air
               (BA) = 0.0005 Ug/m3

               See Section 3, p. 3-27.

          c.   Cancer potency = 4.3  (mg/kg/day)~*

               The cancer  potency  for  inhalation of BaP was derived
               by  U.S.  EPA (1984b)  based  on a  study  by Thyssen et
               al.  (1981,  as  cited in U.S.  EPA,  1984b)  in  which
               Syrian  golden  hamsters  were  exposed  to  BaP  by
               inhalation.  Dose  levels of  2.2, 9.5,  and 46.5 mg/m3
               produced  tumors  in 0 of 27,  9  of  26, and  13  of 25
               animals,  respectively.   No tumors were  found in the
               27 controls.  (See Section 4,  p. 4-6.)

          d.   Exposure  criterion (EC)  =  0.00081 Ug/m3

               A  lifetime  exposure  level which would  result  in  a
               10~  cancer risk was  selected as ground level  con-
               centration  against which  incinerator  emissions  are
               compared.   The risk  estimates developed by  CAG are
               defined as  the  lifetime  incremental  cancer  risk in a
               hypothetical    population     exposed     continuously
               throughout  ' their   lifetime   to  the   stated   con-
               centration  of  the  carcinogenic  agent.   The exposure
               criterion is calculated  using  the following formula:

                    Pf,     10"6 x  103 Ug/mg  x 70 kg
                    C.L.  ^'~"        ^~~~'~~~
                         Cancer potency x 20 m-Vday
                              3-28

-------
          4.    Index 2  Values

                                                        Sludge Feed
               Fraction of                               Rate  (kg/hr DW)a
               Pollutant Emitted     Sludge
               Through  Stack.     Concentration      0     2660  10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.62
0.62
0.64
0.92
1.0
5.9
               Worst                Typical          0.62   0.71    2.2
                                   Worst            0.62   1.8    22

               a  The  typical  (3.4 ug/m^)  and worst (16.0 yg/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  > 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  -   Incineration  of  sludge   is
               expected  to increase the cancer risk due  to  inhalation of
               BaP above the  risk  posed  by background urban  air  concen-
               trations  of BaP.   This increase may be  substantial  when
               sludge containing a high concentration  of  BaP  is  inciner-
               ated   at  a  high feed  rate  and a  large  fraction   of  the
               pollutant  is emitted through the stack.

IV.  OCEAN DISPOSAL

     For  the  purpose  of  evaluating  pollutant   effects   upon   and/or
     subsequent uptake by  marine  life as  a  result  of  sludge  disposal,
     two types of mixing  were modeled.  The initial  mixing  or  dilution
     shortly  after dumping of a single load  of sludge  represents  a high,
     pulse concentration  to  which  organisms  may  be  exposed for  short
     time periods but  which  could be repeated  frequently;  i.e.,  every
     time a  recently dumped  plume  is encountered.   A  subsequent  addi-
     tional  degree of  mixing  can be  expressed  by a  further  dilution.
     This is  defined as  the  average dilution  occurring  when  a  day's
     worth of  sludge is  dispersed  by 24 hours of  current movement  and
     represents  the  time-weighted  average  exposure  concentration  for
     organisms in the disposal area.  This  dilution accounts  for  8 to 12
     hours of the high pulse  concentration encountered by  the  organisms
     during  daylight  disposal  operations and  12  to 16 hours  of  recovery
     (ambient  water   concentration)  during  the  night  when   disposal
     operations are suspended.
                                  3-29

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

     1.   Explanation - Calculates  increased  concentrations in ug/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    3AOO 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  con-
               version  to  dry  weight  assumes  4   percent  solids  by
               weight.    The  worst-case  value   is  an  arbitrary
               doubling of the  typical  value  to allow for potential
               future increase.

               The assumed  disposal practice to  be  followed  at  the
               model  site  representative of  the   typical case  is  a
               modification of that  proposed  for  sludge disposal at
               the formally designated  12-mile  site  in the New York
               Bight Apex  (City  of New York,  1983).   Sludge barges
               with capacities  of 3400 mt  WW would be  required to
               discharge a  load  in no less than  53  minutes travel-
               ing at  a minimum speed of 5 nautical miles  (9260 m)
               per  hour.  Under  these conditions,  the  barge  would
               enter the site, discharge  the  sludge  over 8180 m and
               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,
                              3-30

-------
     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
     the  typical site, except that  barges  would  dump  half
     their   load   along  a  track,  then  turn  around and
     dispose of the balance along the same  track in  order
     to  prevent a barge from dumping outside of  the  site.
     This  practice  would  effectively  halve  the   path
     length compared to  the typical  site.

b.   Sludge concentration of pollutant  (SC)

     Typical    0.143 mg/kg DW
     Worst       1.937 mg/kg DW

     See Section 3, p.  3-1.

c.   Disposal site characteristics

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

     Typical      20 m            9500  m/day
     Worst          5 m            4320  m/day

     Typical site  values  are  representative  of a  Large,
     deep-water  site with   an  area  of  about  1500 km^
     located beyond the continental   shelf  in the New York
     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
                   3-31

-------
          velocity of  11  cm/sec  (9500  m/day)  chosen  is  based
          on the  average  current velocity  in  this  area  (COM,
          1984b).

          Worst-case values are representative  of a near-shore
          New York  Bight  site with  an  area of about  20  km^.
          The pycnocline  value of  5 m  chosen  is  the  minimum
          value of  the 5  to  23  ra 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
          (COM,  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

     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.
                         3-32

-------
     5.    Index 1 Values (ug/L)

               Disposal                         Sludge Disposal
               Conditions and                   Rate (mt DW/day)
               Site Charac-     Sludge
               teristics    Concentration      0      825     1650

               Typical        Typical          0.0   0.00029  0.00029
                              Worst           0.0   0.0039   0.0039

               Worst          Typical          0.0   0.0024   0.0024
                              Worst           0.0   0.033    0.033

     6.    Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected increase
          .in BaP  concentration in seawater  around a  disposal  site
          as a result of sludge disposal after initial mixing.

     7.    Preliminary  Conclusion  -  Only  slight  increases  of  BaP
          occur after the dumping of  sludges  and initial mixing.

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

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

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

     3.    Data Used and Rationale

          See Section 3, pp.  3-30 to  3-32.

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

          See Section 3, p. 3-33.
                             3-33

-------
     5.    Index 2 Values  (ug/L)

               Disposal                          Sludge Disposal
               Conditions and                   Rate (mt DW/day)
               Site  Charac-    Sludge
               teristics     Concentration    0      825     1650

               Typical         Typical      0.0   0.000078  0.00016
                              Worst        0.0   0.0011    0.0021

               Worst          Typical      0.0   0.00068   0.0014
                              Worst        0.0   0.0092    0.018

     6.    Value  Interpretation   -  Value   equals   the   effective
          increase  in BaP  concentration  expressed as  a  TWA concen-
          tration in seawater around a disposal  site experienced by
          an organism over a 24-hour period.

     7.    Preliminary  Conclusion   -  Only  slight   increases   of
          seawater  BaP concentrations occur  after  a 24-hour dumping
          cycle.

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   BaP,   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
          values designed  to  be  protective against chronic  tox-
          icity.  Therefore, to evaluate the potential  for adverse
          effects on marine life resulting  from initial  mixing con-
          centrations,  as   quantified  by Index  1,  the  chronically
          derived criteria  values are used.

     2.    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.
                             3-34

-------
4.
Data Used and Rationale

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

     See Section 3, p. 3-33.

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

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

     No   BaP-specific  criteria   values   are  immediately
     available.    The  300   Ug/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  pres-
     ently  available  regarding   the  chronic  effects  of
     PAHs  on  more sensitive  marine  aquatic  life  (U.S.
     EPA, 1980).

Index 3 Values
          Disposal
          Conditions and
          Site Charac-    Sludge
          teristics    Concentration
                                      Sludge Disposal
                                      Rate (mt DW/day)
                                        825
                     1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.00000095
0.000013
0.00000095
0.000013
          Worst
                    Typical
                    Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0000081
0.00011
0.0000081
0.00011
     Value Interpretation  - Value equals  the factor  by  which
     the  expected   seawater   concentration   increase   in  BaP
     exceeds the protective value.  A value  > 1  indicates that
     acute or chronic toxic conditions may exist  for organisms
     at the site.

     Preliminary  Conclusion -  Only  slight   increases  in  the
     incremental hazard to aquatic life are  evident  for worst-
     concentration  sludges  dumped  at  the   typical  and  worst
     sites.    No  increase  is  apparent  for  typical  sludges
     dumped at typical sites.

                        3-35

-------
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. 3-34.

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

          b.   Dietary consumption of seafood (QP)

               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.
                             3-36

-------
The area  used  to represent the  disposal impact area
should  be an approximation of  the  total  ocean area
over  which  the  average  concentration  defined  by
Index 2  is  roughly applicable.   The average rate of
plume  spreading  of  1 cm/sec  referred  to  earlier
amounts  to  approximately  0.9  km/day.  Therefore, the
combined  plume  of  all  sludge  dumped  during  one
working  day will gradually spread,  both parallel to
and perpendicular  to current  direction, as  it pro-
ceeds  down-current.    Since  the  concentration  has
been  averaged  over  the  direction  of  current  flow,
spreading in this  dimension will  not further  reduce
average  concentration;  only spreading in the perpen-
dicular  dimension  will  reduce the average.   If sta-
ble conditions are  assumed over  a  period of days, at
least 9  days would  be  required  to  reduce the average
concentration by one-half.  At  that  time, the  origi-
nal plume length of approximately  8 km (8000 m) will
have   doubled   to   approximately   16 km   due   to
spreading.

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

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

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

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  approxi-
mately    7200   km2   and   constitutes   approximately
0.02 percent of the total  seafood  landings  for the
Bight  (CDM, 1984b).   Near-shore  area 612 has an area
of  approximately 4300  km2 and  constitutes  approxi-
mately   24  percent   of  the  total   seafood  landings
(CDM,  1984c).   Therefore  the  fraction of all seafood
landings  (FSt)  from the  Bight which could originate
from  the area  of impact of either  the typical  (deep-
               3-37

-------
      water)  or worst  (near-shore)  site can  be calculated
      for this typical  harvesting scenario as follows:

      For the typical  (deep water) site:

      uc  - AI x 0.02Z =                                (2)
      t!>t ~ 7200 km^

[10 x 8000 m x  9500 m  x  10~6  ka^/m2]  x 0.0002 _          5
                          M                    " ^  i X 1U
                   7200 km2

      For the worst (near shore) site:

      FSt, ALJ
            4300 km2

  [10 x 4000 m  x 4320  m  x 10~6 km2/m2] x Q.24            3
                         r+                     ~ ./ * o x i u
                  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 habit-
      ually within a  single NMFS reporting area.   Or,  an
      individual could have a preference for a particular
      species  which  is  taken  only  over   a  more  limited
      area,  here  assumed arbitrarily to  equal  an  NMFS
      reporting  area.    The  fraction  of  consumed  seafood
      (FSW) that  could originate from the  area  of  impact
      under  this  worst-case   scenario  is   calculated  as
      follows:

      For the typical  (deep water) sice:

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

      For the worst (near shore) site:

      FSW = 	Q-^r = 0.040                       (5)
            4300 km2

 d.   Bioconcentration   factor   of    pollutant   (BCP)   =
      11,100 L/kg

      The value  chosen  is the weighted average  BCF  of  BaP
      for  the   edible   portion  of   all   freshwater  and
      estuarine  aquatic  organisms consumed  by   U.S.  citi-
      zens (U.S. EPA,  1980).   The weighted average  BCF is
      derived as part of  the  water  quality  criteria devel-
      oped by  the U.S.  EPA to  protect human  health  from
      the potential carcinogenic  effects of BaP induced by
                    3-38

-------
4.
     ingestion    of    contaminated    water   and   aquatic
     organisms.    Although  no  measured  steady-state  BCF
     for  BaP is  available, a BCF value for  aquatic organ-
     isms containing  about  7.6% 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  32 lipid content of consumed fish  and shellfish.
     It   should   be  noted,  however,  that  the  resulting
     estimated  weighted  average  BCF of  11,100 L/kg  is  a
     possible overestimation.    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  (U.S.  EPA,   1980).    It
     should be  noted that lipids of  marine  species differ
     in  both structure  and  quantity from those  of fresh-
     water  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)
     = 0.88 Ug/day

     See  Section 3,  p. 3-10.

f.   Cancer potency  =  11.5 (mg/k.g/day)~^

     See  Section 3,  p. 3-11.

g.   Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI)  = 0.00607 ug/day

     See  Section 3,  p. 3-11.

Index 4 Values
     Disposal
     Conditions and
     Site Charac-      Sludge      Seafood
     teristics     Concentration3  Intake3'"
                                          Sludge Disposal
                                          Rate (mt DW/day)
                                           0
                  825   1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
140
140
140
150
140
160
     Worst
              Typical
              Worst
Typical
Worst
140
140
140
170
140
200
     a All  possible  combinations  of  these  values  are  not
       presented.   Additional combinations  may be  calculated
       using the formulae in the  Appendix.

     b Refers to both  the  dietary consumption of  seafood (QF)
       and the  fraction of  consumed  seafood originating from
                        3-39

-------
  the disposal  site  (FS).   "Typical" indicates the use of
  the  typical-case  values  for  both of  these parameters;
  "worst"  indicates  the use of  the  worst-case values for
  both.

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  pre-
existing dietary sources.

Preliminary  Conclusion -  Increases  in human health risk.
are apparent from consuming seafood  taken from typical or
.worst  sites  after  dumping  of  sludges  containing  worst
concentrations  of BaP.
                           3-40

-------
                              SECTION 4

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

   A.  Sludge

       1.  Frequency of Detection

           BaP was detected in 21 of 437 samples      U.S. EPA, 1982
           (5Z) and 3 of 42 samples (72) from 50      (pp. 42 and 50)
           POTWs.

       2.  Concentration

           Dry-weight sludge concentrations of BaP    Statistically
           found in a survey of POTWs:                derived from
             Median           0.143 ug/g DW           data presented
             95th percentile  1.937 Ug/g DW           in U.S. EPA,
             Mean             0.561 ug/g DW           1982
             Minimum          Not detected
             Maximum          2.918 ug/g DW

           Wet-weight sludge concentrations:          U.S. EPA, 1982
           1 to 490 Ug/L from 437 samples             (p. 42)
           from the 40-city study.

   B.  Soil - Unpolluted

       1.  Frequency of Detection

           Data not immediately available.

       2.  Concent rat i on

           The concentration in the upper layers of   Suess, 1976
           of the earth is in the range of 0.100 to   (p. 244)
           1.000 Ug/g of carcinogenic  PAHs and
           results from the activity of soil
           bacteria and from decayed plants.

   C.  Mater - Unpolluted

       1.  Frequency of Detection

           0 of 87 systems tested serving popula-     Pendygraft
           tions of >75,000  were  positive  for BaP.    et al., 1979
                                                      (pp. 177 and
                                                      181)
                                 4-1

-------
    2.  Concentration

        a.  Freshwater

            Groundwater will have a carcinogenic   Suess, 1976
            PAH concentration of 0.001 to          (p. 244)
            0.010 Ug/L.  Freshwater lakes will
            have a PAH concentration of 0.010 to
            0.025 ug/L.

        b.  Seawater

            Data not immediately available.

        c.  Drinking Water

            Water = 0.0011 Ug/day                  U.S. EPA, 1980
                                                   (p. 112)

D.  Air

    1.  Frequency of Detection

        Data not immediately available.

    2.  Concentration

        a.  Urban

            Philadelphia average BaP concentra-    Suess, 1976
            tions for 1967-1969 for the four       (p. 244)
            quarters of the year were 6.3, 1.7,
            1.4, and 6.7 ng/m^.

            Pittsburgh average BaP concentrations  Suess, 1976
            for 1967-1969 for the four quarters    (p. 246)
            of the year were 21.3, 18.3,  6.0, and
            9.4 ng/m3.

            BaP in air of U.S.  cities  (ng/nr*):     U.S. EPA, 1980
                                                   (p. C-32)
            1966    1970    1976

            3.2     2.1     0.5
                              4-2

-------
        b.  Rural

            0.1 to 0.2 ng/m^                       Suess, 1976
                                                   (p. 244)

            BaP in air of U.S. rural areas         U.S. EPA, 1980
            ng/m3:                                 (p. C-32)

            1966    1970    1976

            0.4     0.2     0,1

E.  Food

    1.  Total Average Intake

        Data not immediately available.

    2.  Concentration

        Average Daily Intake of BaP:               U.S. EPA, 1980
        Water = 0.0011 Ug/day                      (p. C-112)
        Food = 0.160 to 1.6 Ug/day
        Estimated average adult intake for
        food =0.88 Ug/day (based on mean
        of the range values)
        Estimated average toddler intake =
        0.29 Ug/day (based on assumption
        that toddler intake is 1/3 of adult
        intake)

        A test of 39 beers showed no BaP above     Joe et al., 1981
        a level of 0.5 ng/g.                       (p. 644)

        BaP concentrations in vegetable oils and   U.S. EPA, 1980
        margarine showed BaP values of 0.2 to      (p. C-13)
        8.0 ng/g.

        BaP concentrations in smoked fish ranged   U.S. EPA, 1980
        from trace amounts to 0.6 ng/g.            (p. C-14)

        BaP concentrations in smoked meat ranged   U.S. EPA, 1980
        from trace amounts to 10.5 ng/g.           (p. C-21)

        BaP concentrations in fruits from          U.S. EPA, 1980
        unpolluted environments ranged from        (p. C-24)
        trace amounts to 29.7 ng/g (data for
        Europe and Japan).

        BaP concentrations in cereals showed       U.S. EPA, 1980
        values of 0.1 to 60 ng/g (data for         (p. C-25)
        Europe and Japan).
                              4-3

-------
            BaP concentrations in vegetables from      U.S. EPA, 1980
            unpolluted environments showed values of   (p. C-26)
            0.01 to 24.3 ng/g (data for Europe and
            Japan).

II. HUMAN EFFECTS

    A.  Ingestion

        1.  Carcinogenicity

            a.  Qualitative Assessment

                Numerous polycyclic aromatic com-      U.S. EPA, 1980
                pounds (such as BaP) are distinctive   (p. C-72)
                in their ability to produce tumors in
                skin and most epithelial tissues of
                almost all species tested.  Latency
                periods can be short, and tumors pro-
                duced may resemble human carcinomas.

                Carcinogenicity of BaP has not been    U.S. EPA, 1980
                studied as thoroughly by oral intake   (pp. C-86, C-88,
                as by other routes of administration;  C-89)
                however, tumors of various sites
                result when BaP is administered orally
                to rodents.  Tumors include stomach
                tumors, leukemias, lung adenomas,
                esophagal tumors, and intestinal
                tumors.  With oral, intratracheal, and
                intravenous routes of administration,
                BaP is less effective than other PAHs
                (e.g., 7,12-dimethylenz[a]anthracene,
                3-methylcholanthrene, and dibenz(a,h)-
                anthracene) in producing carcinomas,
                but has remarkable potency for induc-
                tion of skin tumors in mice.

            b.  Potency

                Cancer potency =  11.5  (mg/kg/day)"1    U.S. EPA, 1980
                                                       (p. C-180)
                The cancer potency was derived from
                data reported by Neal and Rigdon
                (1967), as cited in U.S. EPA (1980).
                In this study, BaP was fed to CFW
                mice at dietary concentrations rang-
                ing from 1 to 250 ppm for approxi-
                mately 110 days.  Stomach tumors
                (primarily squamous cell papillomas,
                but some carcinomas) appeared with an
                incidence statistically higher than
                controls at several doses.
                                  4-4

-------
        Tumor  incidences:
            Dose                 Incidence
        (mg/kg/dav)     (No.  Responding/No.  Tested)

            0.0                 0/289
            0.13                0/25
            1.3                 0/24
            2.6                 1/23
            3.9                 0/37
            5.2                 1/40
            5.85                4/40
            6.5                24/34
           13.0                19/23
           13.5                66/73

2.  Chronic Toxicity

    a.  ADI

        Not derived since cancer potency
        was used to assess hazard.

    b.  Effects

        See Section 4, p. 4-4.

3.  Absorption Factor

    Intestinal transport occurs readily,       U.S. EPA, 1980
    primarily by passive diffusion.            (p. C-37)

    Rats given BaP by gavage in starch solu-   U.S. EPA, 1984b
    tion (100 mg) or in the diet (250 mg)      (p. 5)
    absorbed approximately 50 percent of the
    administered compound.

4.  Existing Regulations

    For maximum protection from carcinogenic   U.S. EPA, 1980
    effects,  ambient water concentration for   (p. vi)
    PAHs should be zero, assuming no thresh-
    old.  Criteria for levels which may
    result in incremental increase in risk of
    cancer over the lifetime of 10~^f 10"^,
    and 10~7 are 28.0 ng/L, 2.8 ng/L, and
    0.28 ng/L,  respectively.

    1970 World Health Organization European     U.S.  EPA, 1980
    Standards  for Drinking Water recommends     (p. C-108)
    PAH concentration not to exceed 0.2 Ug/L.
                          4-5

-------
B.  Inhalation

    1.  Carcinogenicity

        a.  Qualitative Assessment

            BaP was the first carcinogenic hydro-
            carbon identified in soot.

            Intratracheal instillation of BaP in   U.S. EPA, 1980
            Syrian golden hamsters showed a dose   (pp. C-89 and
            response relationship for development  C-91)
            of respiratory tumors.  Also, co-
            administration of carrier particles
            such as Fe203 can markedly increase
            tumor incidence depending on the
            conditions of the experiment and
            physical characteristics of the
            particle.

        b.  Potency

            Cancer potency = 4.3  (mg/kg/day)'1     U.S. EPA, 1984b
                                                   (p. 32)
            Cancer potency was derived by U.S.
           -EPA (1984b) based on a study by
            Thyssen et al. (1981) in which
            Syrian golden hamsters were exposed
            to BaP by inhalation at levels of
            0, 2.2, 9.5, or 46.5 mg/m3 for 59.5
            to 96.4 weeks.  Incidence of tumors
            were:

                Dose                 Incidence
               (mg/m3)     (No;  Responding/No.  Tested)

                0                      0/27
                2.2                    0/27
                9.5                    9/26
               46.5                   13/25

    2.  Chronic Toxicity

        a.  Inhalation Threshold or MPIH

            Data not assessed since the evalua-
            tion was based on carcinogenicity.

        b.  Effects

            See Section 4, p. 4-6.
                              4-6

-------
         3.  Absorption Factor

             There is ample evidence that BaP is        U.S. EPA,  1980
             easily absorbed through the lungs.         (p. C-37)

         4.  Existing Regulations

   Substance       Exposure Limit         Agency

Coke Oven          150 ug/m3, 8-hr   U.S. Occupational  U.S. EPA,  1980
Emissions          time-weighted     Safety and Health  (p. C-108)
                   average (TWA)     Administration

Coal Tar           0.1 mg/m3,        U.S. National
Products           10-hr TWA         Institute for
                                     Occupational
                                     Safety and Health

Coal Tar Pitch     0.2 mg/ra3         American
of Volatiles       (benzene          Conference of
                   soluble fraction  Governmental and
                   8-hr TWA)          Industrial
                                     Hygienists

III. PLANT EFFECTS

     A.  Phytotoxicity

         Data not immediately available.

     B.  Uptake

         See Table 4-1.

 IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND  WILDLIFE EFFECTS

     A.  Toxicity

         See Table 4-2.

     B.  Uptake

         From available information  on  excretion  of      U.S. EPA,  1980
         PAH in animals,  extensive bioaccumulation is    (p.  C-49)
         not likely to  occur.

  V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS

     A.  Toxicity

         1.   Freshwater

             Data not immediately available.
                                  4-7

-------
         2.  Saltwater

             Acute toxicity value of 300 ug/L  is        U.S. EPA,  1980
             based on tests of polychaete worms         (pp. B-l and
             exposed to crude oil fractions.  No        B-2)
             chronic data are presently available.

     B.  Uptake

         The estimated weighted average BCF of BaP      U.S. EPA,  1980
         for the edible portion of all freshwater       (p. C-19)
         and estuarine aquatic organisms consumed
         by U.S. citizens is 11,100.

 VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS

     Data not immediately available.

VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING PATE AND TRANSPORT

     Molecular weight:   252.32                          NAS, 1977
     BaP is very persistent in water and is             (p. 691)
     soluble at 0.004 mg/L at 27C

     Degradation rate:  0.01 day~"l                       Herbes  and
                                                        Schwall, 1978

     Koc (organic carbon partition coefficient) =       Lyman,  1982
     630,000 mL/g
                                  4-8

-------
                                                 TABLE 4-1.  UPTAKE OF BENZO(A)PYRENE BY PLANTS





*-

Plant/Tissue
Carrots/roots
Carrots/roots
Carrota/fol iage
Carrots/to! iage
Radi aheal roots
Radishes/foliage
Spinach/leaf
Soil
Type
sand
compost
sand
compost
NR
NR
NR
Chemical Form
Applied
BaP
BaP
BaP
BaP
BaP
BaP
BaP
Soil Concentration
(Mg/g W)
NRb
NH
NR
NH
NR
NR
NR
Tissue
Concentration
(Mg/g DW)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.75-1.
0.08 (0
0.08 (0
0.08 (0
0.08-0.
0.08 (0
0.16-0.
Uptake
Pactora
8(0.09-0.22)
.01)
.01)
.01)
16(0.01-0.02)
.01)a
42(0.02-0.05)
Reference*
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
(P-
(P-

-------
                                    TABLE 4-2.  TOX1C1TY OK BENZO(A)PYRENB TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Feed Water
Chemical Form Concentration Concentration Daily Intake Duration
Species (H)a Fed (g/g DW) (mg/L) (rag/kg) of Study Effects
Rat (40) BaP NKb '* NK 2.5 NR Papillomas in stomach of
3 of 40 animals
Mouse BaP 50-250 NK NR 110-197 days >70I incidence of stomach
tumors
Mouse BaP 30 NK NR 110 days No tumors
Mouse BaP 250 NK NR 1 day No tumors
Mouse BaP 250 NK NK 2-4 days 10Z tumor incidence
1 Mouse BaP 250 NH NK 5-7 days 30-40Z tumor incidence
O
Mouse BaP 250 NK NR 30 days 100Z tumor incidence
Mouse BaP 40-45 NH . NR 110 days Carcinogenic effects
References
U.S. EPA,
(p. C-88)
U.S. EPA,
(p. C-B8)
U.S. EPA,
(p. C-88)
U.S. EPA,
(p. C-88)
U.S. EPA,
(p. C-88)
U.S. EPA,
(p. C-88)
U.S. EPA,
(p. C-88)
NAS, 1977
(p. 692)
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980

N - Number of experimental  animals when reported.




NK = Not reported.

-------
                                SECTION 5

                                REFERENCES
Abramowitz,  M.,  and  I.  A.  Stegun.    1972.    Handbook  of  Mathematical
     Functions.  Dover Publications, New York, NY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connor,  M.  S.    1984.    Monitoring  Sludge-Amended  Agricultural  Soils.
     BioCycle.   January/February:47-51.

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.
                                   5-1

-------
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, MM.

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.

Griffin,  R.   A.    1984.    Personal   Communication to U.S.  Environmental
     Protection   Agency,   ECAO  -   Cincinnati,   OH.     Illinois   State
     Geological Survey.

Herbes,  S. E.,  and L. R.  Schwall.   1978.   Microbial Transformations of
     Polycyclic   Aromatic   Hydrocarbons   in  Pristine  and  Petroleum-
     Contaminated Sediments.  Applied Environ. Microbiol.  35:306.

Joe, F.  L.,  E.  L. Roseboro,  and T.  Fazio.   1981.   High Pressure Liquid
     Chromatographic  Method  for Determination  of  Polynuclear  Aromatic
     Hydrocarbons in Beer.  J. Assoc. Off. Anal.  Chem.  64(3):641-646.

Lyman, W.  J.   1982.   Adsorption  Coefficients  for  Soils  and Sediments.
     Chapter  4.   In;   Handbook  of  Chemical  Property Estimation Methods.
     McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.

National Academy  of  Sciences.   1977..  Drinking  Water and  Health.   NAS,
     National   Research   Council   Safe   Drinking   Water   Committee.
     Washington, D.C.

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.

Neal,  J., and   R.  H.  Rigdon.    1967.    Gastric  Tumors   in Mice  Fed
     Benzo(a)pyrene:    A  Quantitative  Study.     Tex.  Rep.   Biol.  Med.
     25:553.   (As cited in U.S. EPA, 1980.)

Overcash,  M.     1984.     Estimated   Distribution  of  BaP  with  Sludge
     Application to Land.  Contract Report.  Metro Seattle, WA.

Pendygraft, G. W., R.  E. Schlegel, and  M.  J. Huston.  1979.   Organics in
     Drinking Water:   Maximum  Contaminant  Levels  as an  Alternative  to
     the GAC Treatment Requirement.  J. AWWA.  174-183.   April.

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

Pettyjohn, W. A.,  D.  C. Kent, T.  A. Prickett,  H. E. LeGrand, and F. E.
     Witz.    1982.    Methods  for  the  Prediction  of  Leachate  Plume
     Migration  and  Mixing.   U.S.  EPA Municipal  Environmental  Research
     Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
                                   5-2

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

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 II.   Prepared for U.S.  EPA under
     Contract No. 68-01-3887.  Menlo Park, CA.  September.

Suess,  M.  J.   1976.   The  Environmental Load  and Cycle  of Polycyclic
     Aromatic Hydrocarbons.  Sci. Total Environ.  6:239-250.

Thornton,  I., and  P. Abrams.   1983.   Soil Ingestion - A Major Pathway of
     Heavy Metals  into Livestock  Grazing Contaminated Land.   Sci.  Total
     Environ.  28:287-294.

Thyssen, J.,  J.  Althoff,  G.  Kimmerle, and U. Mohr.   1981.   Inhalation
     Studies  with Benzo(a)pyrene  in  Syrian  Golden Hamsters.   J.  Natl.
     Cancer Inst.  66(3):575-577.  (As cited  in U.S. EPA, 1984b.)

U.S.  Department   of  Agriculture.     1975.      Composition   of  Foods.
     Agricultural Handbook No. 8.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.   1977.   Environmental Assessment
     of Subsurface  Disposal  of  Municipal  Wastewater  Sludge:    Interim
     Report.     EPA/530/SW-547.        Municipal   Environmental   Research
     Laboratory, 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.
     Vol.  I.     EPA   440/1-82/303.      Effluent   Guidelines  Division,
     Washington, D.C.

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

U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1983b.    Rapid Assessment  of
     Potential   Groundwater  Contamination   Under   Emergency   Response
     Conditions.  EPA 600/8-83-030.
                                   5-3

-------
U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1984a.  Air  Quality Criteria for
     Lead.   External Review  Draft.   EPA 600/8-83-028B.   Environmental
     Criteria  and   Assessment  Office,  Research   Triangle   Park,   NC.
     September.

U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1984b.   Health Effects Assessment
     for  Polycyclic Aromatic  Hydrocarbons (PAHs).   Final  Draft.   ECAO-
     CIN-H036.      Environmental   Criteria   and   Assessment   Office,
     Cincinnati, OH.  November.
                                   5-4

-------
                               APPENDIX

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

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

       1.  Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)

           a.  Formula

               cs  = (SC x AR) + (BS x MS)
                 3          AR + MS

               CSr = CSS [1 + O

               where:

                    CSS  = Soil  concentration  of  pollutant   after   a
                          single year's  application  of  sludge  (ug/g
                          DW)
                    CSr  = Soil  concentration  of  pollutant  after  the
                          yearly  application   of   sludge   has   been
                          repeated  for n  + 1  years (ug/g DW)
                    SC  = Sludge concentration  of  pollutant  (ug/g DW)
                    AR  = Sludge application  rate  (mt/ha)
                    MS  = 2000  mt  ha/DW  =  assumed  mass  of  soil in
                          upper  15  cm
                    BS  = Background  concentration  of  pollutant  in
                          soil (ug/g DW)
                    t-j.  = Soil half-life  of pollutant (years)

           b.   Sample  calculation

               CSS  is  calculated  for AR  =  0,  5-,  50  mt/ha  and 500
               mt/ha*.

   n  inn  -  (0*1*3 UR/g DW x 5  mt/ha) + (0.1  ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
         ~                (5  mt/ha DW + 2000 mt/ha  DW)

               CSr  is  calculated for  AR =  5  mt/ha applied  for 100
               years


   0.103  yg/g DW = 0.100 ug/g DW [1 + 0.5 (1/0.18986) + 0.52/0.18986)

                 *  ... + 0.5 (99/0.18986)]
                                A-l

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

    1.  Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)

        a.  Formula


            Index 2  = |j

            where:

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

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

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

        a.  Formula
          IT  x UB
      3 =   -

where:
             Index       -
                  ll  = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
                        sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
                  UB  = Uptake  factor  of  pollutant  in  soil  biota
                        (Ug/g tissue DW  [Ug/g  soil DW]"1)
                  TR  = Food  concentration toxic  to  predator  (ug/g
                        DW)

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

 C.  Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

     1.  Index of Phytotoxic  Soil Concentration (Index 4)

         a.  Formula


             Index  4  =  ^

             where:

                  Ij_  = Index 1  * Concentration of pollutant in
                         sludge-amended  soil (yg/g DW)
                  TP  = Soil  concentration toxic  to plants  (ug/g  DW)
                                A-2

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

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

             a.  Formula

                 Index 5 = Ix  x UP

                 where:

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

             b.  Sample Calculation

0.042 Ug/g DW = 0.100 ug/g DW x 0.42 Ug/g  tissue  DW  (ug/g soil DW)-1

         3.  Index of Phytotoxic Plant Tissue Concentration (Index 6)

             a.  Formula

                 Index 6 = PP

                 where:

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

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

     D.  Effect on Herbivorous Animals

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

             a.  Formula
                 Index 7 ^

                 where:

                        15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
                             plant grown in sludge-amended soil
                             (Ug/g DW)
                        TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
                             animal (ug/g DW)
                                   A-3

-------
        b.  Sample calculation


            0 0011 - 0.042 Ug/g DW
            '0011     40  Ug/g  DW
    2.   Index  of  Animal  Toxicity  Resulting  from Sludge  Ingestion
        (Index 8)

        a.  Formula

            If AR = 0; Index 8=0

                                   SC x GS
            If AR * 0; Index 8 =     TA


            where:

                   AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
                   SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
                   GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to  be soil
                   TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
                        animal (ug/g DW)

        b.  Sample calculation

            If AR = 0; Index 8=0

            H A. , 0, 0.0001.  - 

E.  Effect on Humans

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

        a.  Formula


                  o -  (Is  x  DT) *  PI
            Index 9	^

            where:

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

        b.  Sample calculation (toddler)
                      (0.18 Ug/g DW  x  74.5  g/day)  + 0.29 ug/day
            2259*4 ~                0.00607 ug/day


                              A-4

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

    a.  Formula

                    (Ic  x UA x DA) + DI
        Index 10 =  -  -


        where:

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

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

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

    a.  Formula
                                  (BS x GS x UA x DA)  * DI
        If  AR = 0;  Index 11 = - ^ -

              j. n   T j    11       (SC x GS x UA x DA)  + DI
        If  AR $ 0;  Index 11 =
        where:

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

        Sample   calculation  (toddler)   -  Values   were   not
        calculated due  to  lack  of  data.
                           A-5

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

    a.  Formula

                    (Ii  x DS)  + DI
        Index 12 =  		


        where:

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

    b.  Sample calculation

           (0.100 ug/g  DW x 5  g/dav)  *  0.29 ug/day
    130 =              0.00607  ug/day

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

    a.  Formula

                                            r    3DI
        Index  13 = Ig  + IIQ + 111 * I12 ~  (   RSI
         where:
              In   = Index   9 =   Index   of  human  cancer   risk
                    resulting from plant consumption (unitless)
              1 10 = Index  10 =   Index   of  human  cancer   risk
                    resulting   from    consumption    of    animal
                    products   derived " from  animals  feeding  on
                    plants (unitless)
              111 = Index 11   =   Index   of  human  cancer   risk
                    resulting   from    consumption    of    animal
                    products  derived  from  animals  ingesting soil
                    (unitless)
              I12 = Index 12  =   Index  of   human   cancer   risk
                    resulting from soil ingestion (unitless)
              DI   = Average   daily   human   dietary   intake   of
                    pollutant (ug/day)
              RSI = Cancer risk-specific level (ug/day)

         Sample   calculation   (toddler)   -   Values   were   not
         calculated due to lack of data.
                           A-6

-------
II.  LANDFILLIHG

    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-
        mafes  initial  dilution in the aquifer  to  give  the  initial con-
        centration,  C0,  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,  Cgjax,   is  used  to  calculate  the  index  values given  in
        Equations 4  and 5.

    B.  Equation  1:  Transport Assessment

     C(y.t) = |  [exp(Ai)  erfc(A2) + exp(Bi)  erfc(B2)]  = P
-------
         CF = 250 kg  sludge  solids/m^  leachate  =

              PS x  103
              1 - PS

         PS = Percent solids  (by weight)  of  landfilled  sludge
              202
           t = Time  (years)
         X = h = Depth  to  groundwater (m)
         D* = a x V* (m2/year)
           a = Dispersivity  coefficient (m)

         y* s 2 (m/year)
              0 x R
           Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
           0 = Volumetric  water content (unitless)

           R = 1 +   dry x Kd = Retardation factor  (unitless)
                     0
        pdry  =  Dry  Dulk density (g/mL)
          Kd  =  foc  x Koc (mL/g)
         foc  =  Fraction of  organic  carbon (unitless)
         Koc  =  Organic  carbon partition coefficient  (mL/g)

                   c_U.  (years)-l
                                     i \
           U = Degradation rate (day ^ )

     and  where for the saturated zone:

          C0 = Initial  concentration of  pollutant  in  aquifer  as
               determined by Equation 2  (ug/L)
           t - time (years)
           X = AJ, = Distance from well to landfill (m)
          D* = a x V* (m2/year)
           a = Dispersivity coefficient  (m)

          v* - K x -? (m/year)
               <4 x R
           K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
           i = Average hydraulic gradient between  landfill  and well
               (unitless)
           
               since  Kd  = foc x  Koc and  foc is assumed  to be zero
               for the saturated zone

C.  Equation 2.  Linkage Assessment
                          0 x W _
          co ~ cu x 365  [(K  x  i)  *  0] x B
                              A-8

-------
 where:

      Co = Initial  concentration  of pollutant  in  the saturated
           zone as determined by Equation 1 (Ug/D
      Cu = Maximum  pulse  concentration  from  the  unsaturated
           zone (yg/L)
       Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
       W = Width o landfill (m)
       K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (ra/day)
       i = Average hydraulic gradient  between  landfill and well
           (unitless)
       0 = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
       B = Thickness of saturated zone (m) where:

           B >      <>.'W' -  and B > 2
               Kx i  x 365             
Equation 3.  Pulse Assessment

      C(yit} = P(X,C)  for  0  t < t0
         Co

      QLl = P(X,t)  - P(X,t - t0) for t > t0
         co
 where:
      t0  (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]  t  Cu

               C( Y  t )
      P(X,t) =   -p.* .   as determined by Equation 1
                 co
 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(Afi,,t)  calculated  in  Equation  1
                  (Ug/L)

 2.   Sample Calculation

      1.34 x 10~4 yg/L = 1.34 x  1(T4
                          A-9

-------
    P.   Equation  5.  Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting
         from Groundwater  Contamination  (Index  2)

         1.   Formula

                          (I   x AC) + DI
              Index 2 =


              where:

                   T! =  Index 1  =  Index  of  groundwater  concentration
                         resulting  from  landfilled  sludge  (yg/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

                     (1.34 x  1Q~4  Ug/L  x 2 L/day)  +  0.88  Ug/day
              145  =                0.00607  Ug/day

III. INCINERATION


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

          1.    Formula

                         (C x PS x SC x  FM x DP) + BA
               Index  1  = 	g


          where:

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

          2.   Sample Calculation

      1.036 = [(2.78 x 10'7 hr/sec  x g/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW x 0.143 mg/kg DW x 0.05

             x 3.4 ug/m3)  + 0.0005 ug/m3]  *  0.0005 ug/m3
                                   A-10

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

         1.  Formula

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

             where:

               1^ = 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)

               Sample Calculation
               0 639 = [(1.036 - 1) x 0.0005 ug/m3] + 0.0005
                                       0.00081 Ug/m3

IV.  OCEAN DISPOSAL
          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)
                    W  = Width of initial plume dilution (m)
                    D  = Depth  to  pycnocline   or   effective   depth  of
                         mixing for shallow water site (m)
                    L  = Length of tanker path (m)

          2.   Sample Calculation


                0.143 mg/kg  DW x 1600000 kg WW x 0.04 kg  DW/kg  WW  x  103
        Wg   "                  200 m x 20 m  x  8000  m x 103 L/m3
                                  A-ll

-------
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
            ,     82500Q kg DW/day x  0.143  me/kg  DW x 103 Ug/mg
0.000078  Ug/L = - 9500 m/day x 20 m x  8000 m x Ifl3  L/n/


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

      1.   Formula


           Index 3 = AWQC

          where:

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

      2.   Sample Calculation


           0.00000095 - "
 D.   Index  of  Human Cancer Risk  Resulting  from Seafood Consumption
      (Index 4)

      1.   Formula
                      (I2  x BCF x 10~3 kg/g x FS x QF)  + PI
           Index 4 =  - 
                                   A-12

-------
               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
                     (yg/day)
               RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)

          2.   Sample Calculation

               144.9 =

(0.000078 Ug/L x 111QO L/kg x 10~3  kg/g  x 0.000021 x  14.3 g  WW/day) + 0.88 ug/day
                                  0.00607 lag/day
                                   A-13

-------
TABLE A-l.  INCUT DATA VARYING IN I.ANUKILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOR EACH CONDITION
Condition of Analysis
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (pg/g DW)
Unsaturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, fjry (g/mL)
Volumetric water content, 6 (unitless)
Fraction of organic carbon, foc (unitless)
Site parameters
Leachate generation rale, Q, (m/year)
Depth to groundwater, h (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
hp. Saturated zone
 Soil type and characteristics
Aquifer porosity, 0 (unitless)
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,
K (m/day)
Site parameters
Hydraulic gradient, i (unilless)
Distance from well to landfill, AH, (m)
Dispersivily coefficient, a (m)
1
0.143


1.53
0.195
0.005

0.8 '
5
0.5

0.44
0.86

0.001
100
10
2
1.937


1.53
0.195
0.005

0.8
5
0.5

0.44
0.86

0.001
100
10
3
0.143


1.925
0.133
0.0001

0.8
5
0.5

0.44
0.86

0.001
100
10
4 5
0.143 0.143


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
0.143


1.53
0.195
0.005

0.8
5
0.5

0.44
0.86

0.02
50
5
7 8
1.937 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
   Unsaturated  zone  assessment  (Equations  1 and 3)

     Initial  leachate  concentration, C0  (ug/L)
     Peak concentration,  Cu  (pg/L)
     Pulse duration, to  (years)

   Linkage assessment  (Equation  2)

     Aquifer  thickness,  B (m)
     Initial  concentration in  saturated  zone, Co
   Saturated zone assessment  (Equations  1 and  3)

H*   Maximum well concentration,  Cmax  (ug/L)

   Index of grounduater concentration  resulting
     from landfilled sludge,  Index  I ((ig/L)
     (Equation 4)

   Index of human toxici t y/cancer risk resulting
     from groundwater contamination, Index 2
     (unitless) (Equation  5)
135.8|        1484]         Hi.8)         135.6]
14.64x10-4]   |6.2BxlO-3]   (3.87x10-2)    (35.8]
(13700]       (13700)       (392)          (5.00)
                                       135.8)       (35.8)      [484]       N
                                       14.64x10-4)  (4.64x10-4] [484]       N
                                       (13700)      (13700)     (5.00)      N
1126)        (126]         (126)          (253)        (23.8)       (6.32)      (2.38)      N

(4.64x10:4)   (6.28x10-3]   |3.87xlO-2|    (35.8)       (4.64x10-4)  (4.64x10-4] |484]       N



(1.34x10-4)   (1.82x10-3)   (3.30x10-4)    )3.89xlO-3)  (4.30x10-4)  (4.64x10-4) (11.2)      N



(1.34x10-4)   |1.82xlO-3|   (3.30x10-4)    (3.89x10-3)  (4.30x10-4)  (4.64x10-4) 111.2]      0
(145)
|146|
(145]
(146)
(145]
(145)        (3840)   (145]
   aN  - Null condition,  where no landfill  exists;  no value  is used.
   "NA = Not applicable tor this condition.

-------
                          BENZO(A)PYRENE
p. 3-2 should read;
Index 1 Values
Group^
Sludge Concentration
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
  0       5       50      500
             Typical
             Worst
                         0.01
                         0.01
         0.01
         0.014
0.013
0.057
0.01
0.015
p. 3-5 should read:
Index 5 Values  (ug/g DW)
                                       Sludge Application  Rate  (mt/ha)
Diet
Animal
Human
Sludge Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0.0042
0.0042
0.018
0.018
5 -
0.0043
0.0062
0.019
0.026
50
0.0056
0.024
0.023
0.1
500
0.0043
0.0063
0.019
0.027
p. 3-7 should read;
Index 7 Values
Group
Sludge Concentration
Sludge Application Rate  (mt/ha)
  0       5       50      500
                 Typical
                 Worst
                          0.00011   0.00011   0.00014  0.00011
                          0.00011   0.00016   0.0006   0.00016
p. 3-11 should read!
Index 9 Values
                                       Sludge  Application Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
48
48
140
140
5
55
150
170
440
50
120
1100
340
3000
500
55
160
170
440

-------
p. 3-16 should read:


Index 12 values


                                      Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Group	Sludge Concentration 	0	5	50	500

Toddler        ~ Typical              60       56       59      56
                 Worst                60       56       95      60

Adult            Typical              150      150      150     150
                 Worst                150      150      150     150
p. 3-2  Index 1 Values

Preliminary Conclusion - should read:

     Landspreading of sludge may slightly increase the soil
concentration of BaP when sludge containing a typical concentration
of BaP is applied at the 50 mt/ha rate and when sludge containing
a high concentration of BaP is applied at the 5, 50, and 500
mt/ha rates.

p. 3-5  Index 5 Values

Preliminary Conclusion - should read:

     Landspreading of sludge containing a worst concentration of
BaP is expected to increase the tissue concentration of BaP in
plants in the animal and human diet slightly at the 5 and 500
mt/ha application rates and significantly at the 50 mt/ha
application rate.


p. 3-11  Index 9 Values

Preliminary Conclusion - should read:

     Landspreading of sludge containing BaP is expected to increase
the risk of cancer for adults or toddlers who consume plants
grown on the sludge-amended soil when applied at any application
rate (5 to 50Q mt/ha) at either typical or worst concentrations.

-------