\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20^60
SAB-EEC-87-013
January 15, 1987
Honorable Lee M. Thanas
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Thomas:
the Science Advisory Board's Environmental Engineering Connittee has
recently completed its review of the reports on landfilling and land
application as alternatives to ocean disposal of sewage sludges, that were
developed fcy the Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation for the Office
of Marine and Estuarine Protection. Vfe are pleased to forward to you the
Committee's report for your-consideration.
The Committee believes that the reports do not provide adequate
documentation to justify the choice of methodology and selection of models.
The Committee also recommends that the Agency conduct sensitivity analyses
to evaluate the importance of variables and uncertainties in the models.
In addition, the methodology should use data distributions rather than
subjectively defining "representative" conditions.
The Conmittee appreciates the opportunity to conduct this scientific
review, Vfe request that the Agency formally respond to the attached report.
Attachment
cc: Terry Yosie, SAB
Larry Jensen, QW
Tudor Davies, OMEP
Milt Russell, OPPE
Sincerely,
Raymond C. Loehr, Chairman
Environmental Engineering Coanittee
Science Advisory Board
Norton Nelson, Chairman
Executive Ccmnittee
Science Advisory Board
-------
This repdti: bas been written by t^e ^cience Advisorv Board, a
public advisorv group providing extramural scientific information and
advice Co the Administrator and other officials of the ^nvironmental
Protection Agency, The Board is structured to provide a balanced,
expert assessment of scientific matters related to problems facing the
Agency, This report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency,
and hence, the contents of this report do not necessarilv represent
the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency. Nor
does, mention of trade napies ,or eoranercial products represent endorsement
or recommendation'for use.
-------
REVIEW OF WRPORTS ON
IANDFILL1NR AND IAND APPLICATION
TO THE
OCEAN niSPOSAL OF POTTO STJ1DGER
REPOWT OP
THF. navmnNlOTTEAL FMGINEFMWC rTWlTTEF
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Washington, D.C.
January,
-013
-------
T&fale of Contents
I, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .... ..... ... ....... ................. ...... .. I
II. lUTBCfflUCTlON ....................... ......... ...... ....... .... 3
III. REPORT ON THE QPPE EVALUATION OF LANDPILLING AND LAND APPLICATION
ALTERATIVES TO Cffi OCEAN DISPOSAL OP POTW SLUDGE
A. General Comments .........**. ..... ........ ...... ........... 4
B. Specific Garments ........ .......... ............. ..... ..... 5
. C, Corrections .,,,',...,..._..........«.,.... .......... .' ...... . 8
IV. APPENDICES
A. tester of Committee Mentoers Conducting the Beview ........ 9
8. Charge to the Committee ..... ...... ...... ................. 12
C. References ......................... ..... ................. 13
-------
I. FSECUTIVK RUMHAPY
In late 1985, the Environmental ^nsineering Comnitr.ee of the Science Advisory
Board was asked by the Office of ^ferine and Estuarine Protection ((JiEP) to
review technical documents ^tpportlne revisions to the Agency's ocean duwpinE
regulations. The two main issues were: 1) technical justification for the
different regulatory treatment of the disposal of dredged materials and
2) the consideration, in the ocean disposal of publicly owned treatment works
(Pnrtl) slndges, of both the need for ocean dumping and the availability and
impacts of land-based alternatives, this report deals with the second of
these issues only. Specifically, this report presents the Science Advisory
Board review of the methodologies developed by EPA's office of Policy Planning
and Evaluation (OPPE) to analyze POTW sludge landfillim and land application
as alternatives to ocean disposal of POTW sludges (1,2).
The Honndttee was provided with two separate documents: one dealing with
landfill ing alternatives to ocean disposal of POTW sludge and the second dealing
with land application alternatives to the ocean disposal of KTTW sludges,
Because the methodology used for these options was so similar, and because the
documents are nearly identical in their draft form, the Committee opted to
present one combined review of the documents. Furthermore, the form ittee
recommends that the OPPE land application and landfilltog reports be combined
into a single report.
In general, the Committee finds that the reports do not provide adequate
documentation to justify the choice of methodolosy and the selection of
simulation models proposed,
The following summary outlines the Committee's principal findings and
recommendations. Details on each of these vill he found in Section III of
this report.
A. The reports do not provide adequate documentation to support the use of
the models proposed. Although reasons for the selection of the Pesticide Root
7,one J'fodel (PRZM) to describe transport in the unsaturated zone are made clear,
the model has been tested in the field only for pesticides and has not been
tested for applications of PCOT7 sludge to land, nor for transport of metals and
other potentially harmful chemicals of the type which occur in POTW sludge. In
addition, FRZM has not been tested for landfilling and cannot simulate nitrogen
dynamics in the unsaturated zone. There is no discussion of any validation or
the reasons for choosing the Analytic Transport 1,2,3-lHmension (AT123P) Hodel
in the saturated zone or the Exposure Analysis Model tag Systew (EX!AMS) Model
for transport in surface *»ter. The Committee recommends that such information
be included in the report.
P. The hydroloeic and chemical transport models used in the landfilling
and the land application methodologies are of the type commonly employed to
simulate area-aversEed, long-term behavior at the field or catchment scale.
Individual events at individual sites mav differ significantly from model
predictions. Because of these limitations, aaong others, the Committee recommends
that the reports include a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the precision by
which each parameter in the model nniPt be known to avoid an erroneous output.
-------
-2-
C. The OPPK reports propose that the analysis be done cm a regional basis
by defining representative conditions for coastal areas which can he considered
alternative! for ocean dunpine. The entire coastline of the United States
cannot be represented with respect to the variation in soil, climatic, hydrologic,
and POTW sludge disposal conditions b^r six coastal sites. The Comittee recommends
that the Agency develop & raore scientific approach using data distributions to
assess the ranee af conditions which may be encountered at any candidate site
for alternative land disposal.
P. The documents do not consider the co-disposal of POTW sludges in landfills
with other mmieipal and industrial wastes. The Committee suggests thst an
analysis of co-disposal in landfills he included (see specific conwent, p, 7).
E. The Universal Soil Loss Equation (I1SLE) Model was developed to predict
soil movement within a field* Its validity to predict sediment yield to a
stream is not demonstrated. The ftonnittee recoramends that the report consider
other models and adequately justify the use of TTSIE for the calculation of
runoff and erosion if it regains the model of choice (see specific conment,
p. ft).
-------
-3-
II.
In late 1QR5, the Office of Marine and Esotarine Protection fffffiP)
requested that the Science Advisory Board (SAB), review technical documents
support ing revisions to the Agency ocean dumping regulations, which iuiplenent
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). The documents were
to be divided into two categories addressing, respectively, ocean disposal of
publicly owned treatment works (POTW) sewage sludges and ocean disposal of
dredged materials,
At the same time, the Science Advisory Board was also asked by the Office
of Water Regulations and Standards (CWRS) to review technical dociments support-
ing the development of regulations to be proposed (under Section £05(d) of the
Clean Water Act) for the disposal /reuse of P0TW sludges. Both of these reviews
were assigned to the Environmental TSngineering Goimittee, which decided to
conduct the reviews simultaneously, since the subject material was very
similar and since, in fact, the same methodology was being used in some cases
to support both regulatory efforts,
The Environmental Engineering Committee accepted the task, and augmented
its members with a number of consultants, including three members of the En-
vironmental Advisory Board of the n, S. Array Corps of Engineers; three members
of the SAP's Environmental Effects, Transport and Fate Committee; one member
of the SAB's Health Effects Cannittee; and others. The Committee organised
itself for the reviews by creating a number of subgroups, each dealing with
one or more options/documents. A listing of the Coumittee membership, which
includes the subgroup breakdown, is provided in Appendix A. The Coomittee
decided that, rather than is'sue one large report covering all reviews, 'it
would issue three separate reports on the ocean disposal of dredged materials,
on the disposal/reuse of POTW sludges, and on the landfilling and land appli-
cation alternatives to ocean disposal of POIR sludges]. This document presents
only the third topic. The specific charge for this review appears in Appendix B.
to the MPFSA. relate to two separate issues. First, the Agency
'as* a result of a lawsuit brought by the National Wildlife Federation,
provide adequate technical justification for current regulations permitting
different regulatory treatment for the disposal of dredged raaterials. Second,
the Agency must make revisions to the portion of the regulations dealing with
the disposal of POTW sludges. These revisions, mandated by a second lawsuit
brought by the city of New York, will require that consideration be given to
the need for ocean dumping and to the availability and impacts of land-based
alternatives (whereas the current regulation considers only marine impacts) .
This last issue is subject of this report*
The documents describing a procedure for evaluating the land filling and
land application alternatives, respectively, to the ocean disposal of POTF
sludges (1,2) were provided to the Comnittee in Mav, 19S6. Mr. Mike Conti,
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (whose office had supervised the
preparation of the documents for fMIP) , briefed the Committee on their con-
tents at the Committee's meeting on June 10-11,
Siibsequent meetings of the full Cocmittee were held on July 23-24, Ausust
19-20, September 29-30, October 27-2S, and December 15-16. The purpose of these
meetings was primarily for Comnittee discussions and drafting of Gonmittee
reports. At most of these meetings, Agency staff were present to either brief
the Committee or to answer questions and clarify points that were not clear.
Ibis report, while largely drafted by subgroups chaired by Dr. Page and
Dr. fwing, has been contributed to, reviewed, and approved by the full Conrnittee
-------
-4-
III, roSPOWF ON THE OPPE EVALUATION OF LAJWILLING AND LAND APPII CATION
ALTERNATIVES TO THE OCEAN DISPOSAL OF PQTW SUJDGE
A, General Comments
The purpose of the landfilling methodology report is to present a method
of evaluating the risk of around water pollution resulting from a POTW sludge
trench landfill as an alternative to ocean disposal. The method is based on
determination of a unit concentration of contaminant resulting from a unit rate
of POTW sludge disposal. The model uses the Pesticide Root Zone Model (T*R2M)
to determine the rate of input of the contaminant to the ground water aquifer
resulting from leaching through the unsaturated zone and then uses the Analytical
Transient One-, Tte»-, and Three-Dimensional Simulation of Waste Transport in
the Aquifer System (AT123D) for estimating the concentration of contaminant
downeradient to the aquifer at the point of withdrawal.
The land application methodology considers both surface water and ground
water as the environmental exposure media, and it couples the PRZM model to
describe the transport of chemicals from a land application site to both ground
water and surface water with the Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXftMS)
to describe the fate and migration in surface water. Ground water transport
in the saturated zone is modeled with the ATI 23D model.
Because the methodologies used for the landfillihg and the land application
options are so similar, and because the two OPPE reports are so nearly identical in
their Review Draft form,, the committee recommends that the OPPE Landfilline and
land AppTication reports be combined. The Introduction (Section 1) and Model
Descriptions (Section 3) of each report, except for interchanging the titles
(I,andfilling and land Application), are identical, The Methodology (Section
2) , Model Input (Section 4) , and "References (Section 5) of the two draft reports
contain a substantial amount of similar or identical material. Combination of
the two reports will eliminate the confusion of having two such similar reports
in circulation.
Part of the charge to the Committee was to evaluate the consistency of
the approach and assumptions, including the consistency with the Office of
Water Regulations and Standards (OURS) methodologies for assessing the risks
of Pfyiy sludge disposal and reuse options* In this regard, the approach used
in the documents prepared by OPPE is so much different from that used in the
OWRS work that consistency among the documents is not amenable to evaluation,
Furthermore* the OPPE documents on alternatives to ocean disposal « landfllling
and land application — are not nearly as complete as the OtJRS methodologies
for risk assessment of POTW sludge disposal and reuse options. And as such,
evaluations of consistency are not possible. The Committee has, however,
noted some malor problems below.
The reports do not provide adequate documentation to justify the use of
the models proposed. The PRZM model used to describe the transport of chemicals
from the landfill or land application site to ground water was developed to
describe the fate of land-applied pesticides. The report discusses the previous
efforts to validate the PRZH model, which is commendable* the reasons for
selection of the PRZM model in the unssturated zone are wade clear. However,
the PRZM wodel has been validated in the field onlv for pesticides and
has not been tested for applications of PfTHT sludge to land or disposal (of
anv substance) in landfills. Nor has it heen shown to be valid for metals and
-------
-5-
other potentially harmful chemicals of the type which occur in POIW sludge,
Additionally, a major shortcoming of the PSZM in evaluation of land-based
POTW sludge disposal/reuse options is its inability to simulate nitrogen
dynamics in the unsaturated zone. These dynamics ace critical to the evaluation
of the impacts' of BOOT sludge disposal or application. Modifications required to
incorporate nitrogen dynamics into PRZM should not be extensive* and could be
implemented.
There is no discussion of any validation or the reasons for choosing the
AT123D model in the saturated zone or the use of the EXJtflS model for transport
in aquatic systems. Such information should be included in the report.
The hydrologic and chemical transport models used in the landfilling and
the land application methodologies are of the type ccromonly enployed to simulate
area-averaged, long-terra behavior at the field or catchment scale. They use
temporally and spatially lumped processes and parameters and, as such, represent
more the combined effects of engineering judgment and empirical evidence, rather
than either fundamental, mechanistic or statistical concepts. The models for
evapotranspiration and runoff and the approach to chemical sorption are good
examples; the conceptualizations are simple and constrained by the demands of
numerical simulation and the scarcity of available site data. The models
cannot describe the full temporal and spatial variability of the transport
processes. Individual events at individual sites may differ significantly
from model predictions, It is recognized that more fundamental distributed
parameter models are primarily used in the research realm, and"that parameter •
estimation for field sites is difficult. Thus, it is unlikely that it will be
feasible to use more advanced models in the near future* Because of the
limitations of the lumped modeling approach, the reports should include a
broader discussion of methods for parameter estimation and a sensitivity analysis
to evaluate the precision by which each parameter in the model must be known
to avoid an erroneous output.
The report proposes that the analysis be done on a regional basis by
defining representative conditions for coastal areas which can be considered
alternatives for ocean dumping. This may well be a policy matter which is
beyond the purview of this Ccronittee. There are, however, scientific aspects of
the approach which need to be considered. The methodology described involves
use of simulation models to evaluate the transport processes in this cortplex
environmental system. Seme of the input parameters for these models will vary
widely within a single region, and will have an impact on the calculated unit
contaminant concentration* The six coastal regions will not represent the
entire coastline of the United States with respect: to the variation in
soil, climate, hydrology, and POTW sludge disposal conditions. While
the application of the proposed methodology to six sites is a pragmatic
and illustrative site-specific method of evaluating the relative 'risk of
alternatives to ocean sludge disposal, it is not the scientific approach
needed to assess the range of conditions which may be encountered at any
candidate site for alternative land disposal. A formal sensitivity or
uncertainty analysis is required to accomplish this.
B. Specific Ccimients
(Note: Page numbers for specific ccfiments will be referenced to the Land
Application methodology report except where indicated otherwise. Many of
the specific comments related to the Land Application report will apply also
to the Landfilling report since they are nearly identical.)
-------
-6-
Page 1: A paragraph or two describing ocean disposal and land disposal
mcthods is recommended.
Page 2; The objective of the study and the audience or intended users
should be stated more clearly.
Page 4: The list of contaminants of concern in Table 1.1 is incomplete,
Elements such as cadmium, molybdenum, selenium, fluorine, and a
number of organics are missing. Contaminants of concern for
incineration should be deleted, as the document does not include
a treatment of incineration as a disposal option, the table should
be accompanied by an explanation for the choice of contaminants
and the reasons for inclusion in the land disposal options. The
in which this list was generated should be explained.
Page 5: Hie purpose of the report should be more clear lv stated. "To
evaluate each disposal alternative" should read: "to evaltiate the
land application alternative..." or "to evaluate the land
disposal alternatives'* if the two reports are consolidated into
one as recommended above.
Faee *; Maura 2.2 shows the representation of the source area, unsaturated
zone, and groundwater linkage. The discussion refers to a "standard
size source." The meaning of "standard" . is not clear. Downgradient
aquifer contaminant unit concentrations are computed for various
positions in the X-£ plane but only along trhe centerline of the plume
in the direction of flow (Y - 0). If the AT123D model incorporates
lateral dispersion, then the selection of the source area «ould have
some effect on the predicted concentrations. The "standard" area and
its relationship to the actual area of the landfill should be explained,
Page Q; The assumption that the tnaxiiaum concentration can be determined
from the concentration profiles at different distances downstream
in this X-Z plane is dependent on the assumption that this is
the plume centerline at all distances downgradient in the plane
and that the concentration is waxiimiB at the centerline of the
plume. Because the lateral dispersion pattern results in almost
uniform concentrations in a region near the centerline (i.e.,
the curve is flat in the central region) , the assumption used is
probably satisfactory. Some discussion of this concept should
be included,
Page 9: Hie model computes unit concentrations, which are then adjusted
by the specific POIW sludge disposal mass, chemical concentrations,
and landfill or land application characteristics. Clearly, the
contaminant concentrations are linear functions of the mass of
contaminant in the FTfTW sludge disposal site, which is the product of
the PC7W sludge disposal mass and the contaminant concentration in
the sludge. It is not clear what land disposal characteristics
are being referred to and whether the contaminant concentration
in the ground water is a linear function of all these site
characteristics. For example, are rainfall and cation exchange
capacity of the soil underlving the site included in the characteristics
considered? Is the contaminant concentration a linear function
of these characteristics? Information about these questions
should be in the report.
-------
-7-
Page 10: It is not clear how annual contaminant loadings to the
water will he distributed during the loadtag period to establish
the load in* input to AT123D, The assumption that the entire
loading occurs in a four-month period is acknowledged to he
conservative and to yield hieh results, one "wonders why unrealistic
results are tolerated 'lust for the sake of simplicity. If the
differences are not significant, why not use actual seasonal
loadings?
Paee 11: (of the Landfill report). There m,ist ^e a more rational reason for
not considering co-disposal sludee landfills in this analysis than
simplv statins tbat this issue is being addressed by the Office
of Solid Waste. A trore definitive rationale is needed*
Paee 12; (of the Landfill report). *to logic is provided to lustifv that the
post-closure period provides greater opportunity for leaching to
occur. Justification should he provided since the opposite could
be argued,
Page 13: (of the landfill report). The effect of total landfill area of the
trenched landfill on ground water contaminant concentrations is
discussed. The conversion of PRZM loadings to ground water loadings
can be obtained hy multiplying by the ratio of the actual fill
area to the total area only if it is assumed that the plumes from each
individual trench'are laterally dispersed to tnerge the pluroes "within
the dbwngradient distance used in the computation. TJhv is the unit
load concept (1000 kg/ha/yr) not used to take care of the total area
effect also? The report states that selected area sizes will be
used to represent a range of absolute POTW sludge disposal amounts.
Earlier (on page 6) reference was tnade to a "standard" area source;
this seems inconsistent. Greater clarification is needed. The
procedure will use "predominant" slopes and soil concentrations
in each region. In view of the enormous variation in these
characteristics within anv of the six regions on the entire
coastline of the United States, it will be difficult for the user to
determine what is "predominant" (see comment above).
Paee 13: (of land Application report). Under the "Land Application Scenario"
heading, the document describes key characteristics of a particular
type of land application system selected by the authors for simulation
in the study. However, no actual simulations are presented. The
detail and specificity presented in this section is not necessary.
Model input parameters can he presented in more general terms applicable
to all land application svstens.
Page Ifi; (of Landfill report). The equation is confusing. The dimensional
units for each variable need to be clarified. The unit concen-
tration concept would be more easily conveyed if this factor were
withdrawn fron the middle o^ the equation and placed separately
outside the parentheses so that all the other factors are nultipliers
applied to the unit concentration to obtain the adjusted ground
water concentration.
-------
-8-
Page 19s (of landfill report). Seasonal distribution of annual rainfall
as an input to the PSZM model is not explained.
Page 21? (of land Application report). Justification for the use of the
Universal Soil Loss Sguation (OSLE) for the calculation of runoff
and erosion needs to be provided. It may be a satisfactory predictor
of erosion within a field but its validity in predicting transport
& 'field and field to a stream has not been demonstrated.
Use of the soil loss information predicted by this model results in a
gross overestimate of soil movement to the edge of a field. Since there
are several established nodeis currently being uaed to predict soil
movement to the edge of the field, EPA should use one of these wore
appropriate models . The Soil Conservation Service has been using the
"Chemicals, Runoff, Erosion, and Agricultural Management Systems"
(CREAMS) model (3) extensively for this purpose. The Office of
Surface Mining has reccmnended the use of "Sediraentology by Distributed
Model Treatment1* (SEDIMOT II) model (4) fee disturbed lands, and this
model has been adopted for such use by a nunfcer of states. (Within
the past year, an improved model called SEDCM) Plus (Sediment, Erosion,
and Discharge by Computer Aided Design) (5) has been released. It is
based on SEDIMOT II.) _ Both CREAMS and SEDIMOT II produce, as part of
their output, distribution of soil particle sizes. This is extremely
useful In evaluating the characteristics of the exported soil material
. • which leaves the field • scale area and enters the surface waters*
Hi is provides the user with iiftortant water quality insights, such as
the proportion of various particle-size classes, including small
particles on which pollutants could be adsorbed. In light of these
contents, we recommend that the Agency consider the use of CREAMS and
SEDIMOT II.
Page 11: _ The assumption in the EXSMS model that bacterial populations neither
grow nor decline sinply due to the presence of a chemical is incorrect,
Page 32: The rate of absorption and desorption is not necessarily related to
the extent or strength of adsorption.
References; Hie Committee recommends that citations frcra peer reviewed
journals be used whenever possible. Use of information only from
EPA contractor reports and papers presented at meetings but not
published, should be used with caution.
C. Cortectierai
Page 10s (of Landfilling report). On line 9, the value of 25 kg/ha should
be changed to 20 kg/ha, if 801 of the 100 kg/ha applied annually
occurs in four months.
Page 31: The report should avoid use of the designation 1.E-5M (1x10-%)
for concentration.
-------
-9-
APPEN0IX
U.S. aWIHOWIENEAL PROTECTION AGMCY
SNVHCNMEOTAL ENGINEERING aWTITEE
ADVISCVY BOARD
COMOTTEF TO REVIEW RF.CULATIGNS ON OCEAN DUMPING AND
REUSE AW> DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
Membership on
Dr. Ravraond C. Loehr (Chairman) Landfillfap
Civil Engineering Department
University of Texas
Austin, TK 7«712
Or* Larry V, Canter * Overall Risk Assessment
Professor of Civil liigtoeering and land Application
Environmental Science
University of (Mahopa
200 Felgar Street, Room 127
Norman, OK 73019
Mr. Richard A. ftonway Incineration
Corporate Development Fellow
itaion Carbide Corporation
P, 0, Pox 8361 (77CV3A2)
South Charleston, W. 25303
Mr. Allen Cywin ** Incineration
Consultant
1126 Areturus lane
Alexandria, VA 22308
Dr. Benjamin C. Dysart, III Overall Risk Assessment
Fnvtronmentsl Systems Fhgineering Department
Clanson University
Clenjson, SC 29634-0919
Dr. Ben B. Bring LardflHing (Chair)
Professor a£ &wironFiental studies
Institute fcnr Ehvlroimental Studies
University of Illinois
40R S. noodwin
TTrbana, II- 61801
Dr, Davis L. Ford Ocean Disposal
Davis L. Ford and Associates
2901 NT. Interregional
Austin, TX 7*722
Notes:
* - Metnber, Environmental Advisory Board, Corps of Engineers
** - Consultant to the Environmental Fngineering Committee
-------
-10-
Mr. George Oreen Incineration
Public Service Company of Colorado
^anaper Production Services
1ROO W Sheri Lane
Littleton, CO
Mr, Clair P. Guess, Jr. * Dredged Material
Consultant
P.O. Box 156
Denmark, SC 29042
Dr. Rolf Hartung *** Overall ^isk Assessment
School of Public Health
Tlrtiversity of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 4S109
Dr. J. William Baun landfilline
13^11 Sidgedale Brive
Suite 343
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Dr. ^eorgte H, Hich? Incineration
President
Pesert Research Institute . •
P.O. Box -60220
Reno, 1W 89506
Dr. "Robert Huseett *** Dredged Material (Chair)
College of William and Marv
Chairman, Department of
Chemioal nceanotraphy
Virginia Tpstitute of Marine SciRnces
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
T)r. ^enneth n. Jenkins *** Dredged Material
Professor of Biology Ocean Disposal
California State University at Long Beach
long Peach, fA
Dr. Joseph T. Line Landfilling
3M Company . ...
3M Cotwwnity Service Executive Program
Building 521-11-01
St. Paul, Ml 55144
Dr. Cecil Lue-HinB ** Land Application
Director for Research and Development
Metropolitan Sanitarv District of
Oreater Chicago
ion East Erie Street
Chicago, II 60611
Notes:
* - Member, Pnvironmental Advisory Roard, Corps of Engineers
** - Consultant to the Environmental ftigineerins? Cownittee
*** , Memher, Envtronmental Effects, Transport and Fate Coiwiittee, SAB
-------
-11-
Dr. Donald J. O'Connor
Professor of Environmental Engineering
Environmental Engineering Science Program
Manhattan College
Manhattan College Parkway
Bronx, NY 10471
Dr. Charles P. O'Melia
Professor of Environmental Engineering
Department of Geography and Environmental
Engineering
The Johns Hopkins University
MP 2191*
Ocean Disposal (Chair)
Dredged Material
Material
Ocean Disposal
Dr. Albert Page **
Department of Soil £ Environmental Sciences
University of California
Riverside, CA 92 521
Dr. Mitchell Small
Department of Civil Engineering
Camesie-Mellon University
Pehenley Park
Pittsburgh, PA 15?. 13
Dr. Evan Vlachos *
Colorado State University
Department of Sociology
Port Collins, CO 805? 3
Dr. Bernard Weiss ****
Division of Toxicology
liniversity of Rochester School of Medicine
Rochester, Wi
Land Application (Chair)
Landfill ing
Land Application
Overall ^isk Assessment (Chair)
Overall Risk Assessment
Executive Secretary
Mr. Harry C. Tomo (until
Executive Secretary, EEC
Science Advisory Board (A-101F)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agencv
Washington, B.C.
Mr. Fric Hales (from
Executive Secretary, EEC
Science Advisory Board (A-101F)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Washington, D.C. 20460
Notes;
* " Member, Environmental Advisory Board, Corps of Engineers
** - Consultant to the Environmental T^gineering Committee
**** - Member, Environmental Health Octroittee, RAP
-------
-12-
APPENDK B
Environmental Engineering Conroittee
Science Advisory Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
REVIEW OF TECHNICAL MATERIAL SUPPORTING REVISIONS TO
PORTIONS OF EPA OCEAN DUMPING REGULATIONS
RELATING TO THE LANDFILLING AND IAND APPLICATION ALTERNATIVES
TO THE
OCEAN DISPOSAL OF PQTW SLUDGES
Charge to the Comnittee
To review and advise the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (CMEP) on
the overall technical and scientific validity of the documents, prepared by
the Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation, Integrated Environmental Man-
agement Division, providing the methodology for evaluating the landfilling
and land application alternatives to the ocean disposal of POTW sludges.
Particular attention should be given to:
a. Their scientific validity.
b. Their consistency of approach and assumptions, including consistency
with OWRS methodologies for the evaluation of POTW sludge disposal/
reuse options.
c. Modeling and data needs.
-------
C
REFERENCES
r\onieian, A, S. Jr. and B, P. Bicknell, "Environmental Fate of Contami-
nants from Sludge Disposal Alternatives to Hcean Dnrnpinp - landfill
Methodology Report," prepared for the Environmental Research Center,
University of Nevada-las Vep;as and for the Integrated Fnviroratiental
Management Division, IT, S» Environmental Protection Agency, March,
?. Donigian, A. S. Jr, and B, R. BieVnell, "Pnvironmental Fate of
nants frcm Rlvd^e Disposal Alternatives to Ocean Pumplm - Land Appli-
cation Hethodology Report," prepared for the Fnvironmental Research
Center, TTniversity of ?Jevada-las Ve^as and for the Integrated Ifhviron-
roental Manageraent Division, TT. R, Environmental Protection Agency,
March,
3. Knisel, W.O., Fd. "CRFAMS: A FleW-Scale ^-todel for fthenicals, Runoff,
and frosion for Agricultural Management Systems'," U. P, Department
• of Agriculture CPFA-AP) Deport #26 Ofoltmes 1-3), ^scon, AZ, 1980.
Warner, R.(% et al, "A H?drologv and Redimentolo^y Watershed
Part II: Users Manual." Tiept, of Agricultural Fhsineering, Univeristv
of Kentucky, Taxinpton,
5, Nehgen, P.J, and P»C. Uarner, "Application of Oonpwter Graphics in the
• "mi face Mining Industry," Proceed ings of the 19 th I n t ernat ional S wpos Jim
on Computer^Applications in the Mineral Industry (AFCfTH), Penn State Univ.,
nniversity Park, PA, April 14-18, 19Rfi.
------- |