THE DETERMINATION OF RELEASE TIME
FOR OCEAN DISPOSED WASTEWATERS
A Report
Submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II Edison, New Jersey
in support of
Application for a Special Ocean Disposal
Permit by E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company
Grasselli Plant, Linden, New Jersey
by
Lloyd L. Falk, Ph.D, P.E.
Principal Consultant
Engineering Department
and
James R. Gibson, Ph.D.
Chief, Aquatic Toxicology
Haskell Laboratory for Toxicology
and Industrial Medicine
of
E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company
-------
SUMMARY
Du Pont has performed studies which describe the biological
effects and in situ dispersion characteristics of ocean-disposed waste-
waters from its Grasselli Plant at Linden, New Jersey.
Results of these studies show that:
• Under oceanographic conditions least likely to
enhance dispersion, peak wastewater concentration
in the barge wake is, initially, about 450 parts
per million (v/v) one minute after release
• Wastewater concentrations decline to a peak of
about 80 parts per million within 4 hours after
release, and to about 60 ppm after 12 hours.
• Chronic no effect level for Mysidopsis bahia
(opossum shrimp) and Cyprinodon variegatus
(sheepshead minnow) is 750 ppm.
• The wastewaters are not selectively toxic to a
particular life stage of Cyprinodon or Mysidopsis.
• There is little difference in the toxicity of the
wastewater to several species of marine organisms.
Conclusions are:
• that the Grasselli wastewaters can be discharged into
the marine environment over a 5-hour period, at a
barge speed of 5 knots, without adverse impact.
• that the approach to evaluating'mixing zones recom-
mended by the National Academy of Sciences/National
Academy of Engineering is a valid means for calcu-
lating release times for ocean disposed wastewaters.
-------
INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
On February 12, 1975, Mr. R. D. Turner, Plant Manager of
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company's (Du Pont) Grasselli Plant in
Linden, N. J., applied for a special ocean dumping permit pursuant to
section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act,
PL-92-532. The requested special permit was for the disposal of waste-
water generated during the manufacture of dimethylhydroxylamine and
anisole. Du Pont maintained that these wastewaters met EPA's regulatory
requirements for the issuance of a special permit. In support of the
application and Du Font's contention that the wastewaters meet the regu-
latory criteria, Mr. Turner, on June 10, 1975, transmitted to Mr. R. T.
Dewling, Region II, EPA, a "Report on Release Conditions Based on Testing
of Appropriate Sensitive Marine Organisms" prepared by Du Font's Drs.
W. C. Gaskill and J. R. Gibson (Appendix A). The report showed that,
based on acute toxicity data, dispersion of Grasselli wastewaters over
a 5-hour period, at a barge speed of at least 5 knots, would meet EPA's
criteria for a special permit. Reports by John Ball and D. W. Hood
referenced in Appendix A were transmitted to Mr. Dewling by Dr. L. L.
Falk on June 13, 1975 (Appendix B).
At public hearing in New York, N. Y. on June 12, 1975, EPA,
Region II issued a tenative determination to grant Du Pont a special
permit for the disposal of the Grasselli wastewaters. At that hearing,
EPA also issued a draft of the proposed permit (Appendix C).
EPA's tentative determination and draft permit supported
Du Font's contention that the wastewaters met all criteria for a special
permit. However, EPA required that wastewater be released over a dis-
tance of 150 nautical miles (approximately 30 hours), while Du Pont
maintained that their toxicity and predicted dispersion data allowed for
a shorter — 25 nautical miles — release distance (approximately 5 hours
release time).
-------
Dr. Falk summarized Du Font's position in his testimony at the
June 12, 1975 hearing (Appendix D). The essence of Du Font's position
was that calculations for the limiting permissible concentration (LPC)
and/or release time (or distance) include considerations of wastewater
dispersion and wastewater toxicity as a function of time (i.e. a "time-
toxicity" approach). This approach is similar to that recommended by
the Committee on Water Quality Criteria, Environmental Studies Board,
National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of Engineering (see
Appendix F, Exhibit B).
Subsequent to the June 12, 1975 public hearing, Region II
asked EPA's Ecological Effects Division (EED), Office of Research and
Development (ORD) to review Du Font's proposed approach for determining
release time.
On July 8, 1975, Dr. A. J. McErlean (EPA-EED-ORD) responded to
Region II in a memorandum addressed to Mr. Dewling (Appendix E). In that
memorandum, Dr. McErlean indicated that Du Font's proposed approach re-
quired validation.
On July 30, 1975, Mr. Turner transmitted to Mr. P. J. Bermingham
(Region II Hearing Officer) Du Font's response (Appendix F) to Dr. McErlean's
memorandum.
On August 6, 1975, Du Pont and EPA representatives met in Edison,
N. J. to review Du Font's proposed approach in detail. During the meeting,
ORD reiterated that the approach required validation.
To provide time to validate the time-toxicity concept, Mr. Turner
indicated that Du Pont would accept an interim permit (letter of August
14, 1975 to Mr. Bermingham, Appendix G). Mr. Turner stated, however, that
Du Pont still considered the proposed approach to be sound and technically
valid, and that Du Pont would seek to obtain acceptance of the time-toxicity
approach to establish release time for ocean-disposed wastewaters
On September 2, 1975, Mr. Bermingham recommended to Mr. G. M.
Hansler, Regional Administrator, that Du Font's proposed approach be
- 2 -
-------
accepted and that a special permit, which allowed for wastewater release
over 25 nautical miles (5 hours) be issued (Appendix H).
Region II issued an interim permit to Du Pont effective November
20, 1975.
Du Pont and EPA met again on February 6, 1976 in Edison, N. J.
to discuss the time-toxicity concept. EPA agreed that the proposed
methodology had technical merit, but reiterated the need for validation
of the concept. To validate the concept, EPA required that Du Pont:
1. Demonstrate actual dispersion rates at the 106 site
under oceanographic conditions least likely to enhance
dispersion rates, and
2. Assess sublethal effects of the Grasselli wastewater.
As a result of these discussions, Du Pont initiated a research
program designed to fulfill EPA's requirements. Appendix I contains the
following correspondence between Du Pont and EPA relative to the research
program:
1. A letter (R. D. Turner (Du Pont) to W. J. Librizzi
(EPA), March 23, 1976) which describes toxicological/
biological studies Du Pont intended to perform.
2 A letter (R. D. Turner to Dr. Richard D. Spear (EPA),
July 13, 1976) which describes the dispersion tests to
be done at the 106 site.
On May 18, 1976, Dr. Gibson met in Narragansett, R. I. to
discuss Du Font's proposed studies with the following EPA represent-
atives :
Dr. J. H. Gentile - National Marine Water Quality Laboratory
Mr. D. J. Hansen - Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory
Dr. R. J. Nadeau - Region II
Mr. P. W. Anderson - Region II
Mr. P. R. Parrish of Bionomics' Marine Research Laboratory, Pensacola,
Florida, attended the meetings.
- 3 -
-------
During the meeting, several alterations in the research program
were suggested by EPA resprsentatives. Du Pont accepted the suggested
alterations, and documented them in a letter (July 19, 1976) from Dr.
Gibson to the attendees (Appendix J). A preliminary progress report on
the research program was sent to Drs. Nadeau and Gentile and to Mr. Hansen
on August 31, 1976 (Appendix K). Drs. Falk and Gibson reported additional
progress at the September 20, 1976 public hearing in New York, N. Y.
(Appendix L).
This report contains the complete results of Du Font's
research program.
- 4 -
-------
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. Dispersion Study
On September 9, 1976, EG&G Environmental Consultants conducted
a dispersion study of Grasselli wastewater at the 106-site.
Conditions at the time of the study were those least likely to
enhance dispersion, i.e., the presence of a strong thermocline lying be-
tween the depths of 20 to 40 meters, and calm sea with light winds, about
10 mph. Wastewater was marked with a fluorescent dye tracer.
Dispersing wastewater in the wake of the barge was monitored for
pH and dye concentration for about 11 hours after release. Complete
methodology is detailed in Appendix M which is the report of that study
submitted to Du Pont by EG&G in February, 1977.
B. Toxicity Tests
Composited samples of actual barged wastewater were used for
all experiments. Chemical analyses of the test material are presented
in Appendix N.
Test species were Cyprinodon variegatus (sheepshead minnow),
Mysidopsis bahia (opossum shrimp) and Palaemonetes pugio (grass shrimp).
All tests were conducted by Bionomics Marine Research Laboratory
at Pensacola, Florida. Their complete report, including methodology, is
attached as Appendix 0,
Data analysis and pathological examinations were conducted at
Du Pont's Haskell Laboratory for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine at
Newark, Delaware.
- 5 -
-------
RESULTS
A. Wastewater Dispersion
Under the calm sea and thermocline conditions, seawater pH
in the barge wake was not measurably affected by the waste. This obser-
vation was confirmed by laboratory titrations of seawater with Grasselli
wastewater (Figure 1). Within two minutes after release minimum dilution
of the'wastewater was about 5000-fold, and increased to 15,000 to 30,000
after 11 hours.
Figure 2 presents the data tabulated in EG&G's Table 3-3
(Appendix M, p. 3-20), but recalculated and plotted as maximum waste-
water concentration (ppm by volume) as a function of time after release.
Plotted data are maximum observed wastewater concentrations for all
transects at each level where dye was measured. The line drawn in
Figure 2 represents the peak wastewater concentration, under worst-
case dispersion conditions, expected in the barge wake at any time
after release, regardless of the depth at which it occurs.
B. Wastewater Toxicity
Lethal Responses; Tables 1-5 summarize mortality data for
lethality tests with Cyprinodon. Tables 6-8 summarize lethality data
for Mysidopsis. These data show that there is little difference in the
toxicities of raw and pH adjusted (to seawater pH) wastewater for ex-
posure times longer than 4 hours. They also show that the wastewater
is not selectively toxic to a particular life stage, nor is there any
great difference in response between these species after about 4 hours
exposure time.
Table 9 compares the responses of several species which
have been tested for lethal responses to raw Grasselli wastewaters.
While there are species differences in lethal response, these differ-
ences tend to become less apparent with longer exposure times.
Mortality data from the time-independent and subchronic
- 6 -
-------
tests with Cyprinodon (Tables 4 and 5) show that the wastewaters are
not cumulatively toxic and establish estimates of lethal response
threshold for the wastewaters. Based on these data, the mortality
threshold (i.e. a concentration above which some mortality would be
experienced) should be between 1000 and 2000 ppm, and the 50% response
threshold should be between 1500 and 2500 ppm. Estimated time inde-
pendent LC50 values lie between 1900 and 2300 ppm. Probit analyses of
mortality data are contained in Appendix P.
Wastewater concentrations of 750 ppm or less caused no
mortality among exposed Cyprinodon or Mysidopsis during chronic ex-
posure. Wastewater concentrations of 1500 ppm caused slight mortality
in both species during chronic exposure. Consideration of all mortal-
ity data collected to date suggests that mortality thresholds for
continuous exposure in most species would be at concentrations greater
than 1000 ppm.
Nonlethal Responses: Tables 10 and 11 present data on the
effects of wastewater on egg hatchability and fry growth, respectively,
for Cyprinodon. The wastewater, at concentrations up to 5000 ppm, had
no effect on egg hatchability and, at concentrations less than 1687 ppm,
had no effect on fry growth and development. Table 12 presents growth
data for chronically exposed C^. variegatus. Table 13 presents data on
egg production by female Cyprinodon, during the chornic study. Anal-
ysis of variance revealed no significant (p <^ 0.05) differences in total
egg production or in the number of eggs produced per female per day
among the controls and treatment groups exposed to wastewater concen-
trations of 750 ppm or less. At 1500 ppm, there was a significant
decrease in egg production per female day during the third spawning
period. There was an effect on egg hatchability at 1500 ppm during
all 3 spawning periods. The effect, however, was probably not a
direct effect of the wastewater (Table 14).
Tables 15 and 16 summarize the results of the chronic test
in Mysidopsis. There were no differences among control and exposed
groups with respect to time-to-formation of brood pouches, release
- 7 -
-------
of young, numbers of young, survival and maturation of young or onset
of reproduction in first generation mysids. There was an apparent effect
on mysid behavior and slight mortality at 1500 ppm.
Appendix Q contains the results of histopathological examina-
tions which were conducted on exposed and control fish. There were no
histopathological effects noted which were attributable to wastewater
exposure.
To supplement the studies which have been described, Du Pont
performed additional toxicity tests which simulated disposal conditions.
These tests, called pulsed exposures, were also performed to assess the
validity of the NAS/NAE recommendation (Appendix F, Exhibit B).
Two species Cyprinodon variegatus and Palaemonetes pugio were
tested under pulsed exposure conditions. Palaemonetes was selected
because it had not been previously tested for wastewater toxicity and
thus, its response could be used to test the applicability of the time-
toxicity concept to untested species. The methods and raw data for
these tests are contained in Appendix 0. Figure 4 summarizes the exposure
conditions and results of these experiments for both Cyprinodon and
Palaemonetes. Under pulsed exposure conditions, both species responded
similarly to simulated wastewater dispersions.
At an initial concentration (Ci) of 10000 ppm and a slow (10
ml/min) dilution rate, high mortality occurred among exposed individuals
of both species. Rapid dilution rates (100 ml/min), at 10000 ppm initial
concentration, substantially reduced lethality. Initial concentrations
of 5000 ppm caused slight mortality in Palaemonetes but not in Cyprinodon,
while 1000 ppm was non-toxic at both dilution rates for both species.
Initial concentrations selected for these experiments were considerably
greater than those observed in the dispersion study. Experimental dilu-
tion rates of 10 or 100 ml/min were respectively slower and faster than
observed dispersion rates at the disposal site (Figure 4).
Cyprinodon variegatus was used as a model for testing the
validity and/or applicability of the NAS/NAE recommendation. The proce-
- 8 -
-------
dure used for NAS/NAE calculations was basically the same as is presented
in Appendix F. Stepwise, the procedure was:
• LC50 for Cyprinodon was plotted as a function of time,
and a line of best fit constructed (Figure 5).
• A line of best fit for no-effect concentration (Co),
was also constructed (Figure 5).
• Simulated dispersion curves (from Figure 4) were
drawn.
• Time segments (T) were established as follows:
Tl = tl~tO; T2 = ^^1' T3 = t3~t25 etc-
where:
t(n) is the exposure time (in hours) at which
successive LCSO's were determined.
• Average exposure concentration (Cx) for each time
interval (T) was calculated by the formula:
^t(n) - Ct(n) + Ct(n+l)
where:
V
ct(n+l) = Ct(n) x
V+RU
where:
V = volume of the exposure chamber in ml
R = dilution rate in ml/min
At = elapsed time between Ct^ and Ct2 in minutes
(note: here At = T expressed in minutes)
U = the units for At (i. e. minutes)
or, Ct/n\ and Ct/n+^\ could have been read directly from
the dilution curves in Figure 4.
Table 17 summarizes these calculations for the four simulated dispersion
curves in Figure 5.
_ 9 _
-------
• E!Q (the effective time for no effect) was determined
for each Cx (see example in Appendix F)
• The data for each of the simulated dispersion curves
were fitted into the equation
Z[T/ET0]<1
These calculations were also performed for ET5Q at the 100 ml/min dilution
rates (i.e. the effective time of exposure to Cx, which produces a 50%
response). The six example calculations:
EXAMPLE 1: Ci =
R
ET0 =
Cx
9750
9260
8790
8560
7770
5000
2190
960
317
EXAMPLE 2: Ci
R
frp „.
ET50 ~
Cx
9750
9260
8790
8560
7770
5008
2190
960
10000 ppm
10 ml/min
Test Criterion
ETQ T/ETQ
0.96 0.260
1.05 0.238
1.10 0.227
1.15 0.217
1.30 0.769
2.80 0.714
33 0.121
1200 0.003
00 _
10000 ppm
10 ml/min
Test Criterion
ET5Q T/ET0
1.30 0.192
1.55 0.161
1.60 0.156
1.70 0.147
2.10 0.476
6.6 0.303
350 0.011
oo _
£[T/ET0]
2.550
• Thus, the prediction is that the
no effect level will be exceeded.
• Observed response = >60% mortality.
• The prediction is valid.
E[T/ET0]
1.446
• Thus, the prediction is that the
LC50 will be exceeded.
• Observed response = >60% mortality.
4 The prediction is valid.
- 10 -
-------
EXAMPLE 3: Ci =
R =
ETQ =
Cx
8010
4810
2900
1740
740
EXAMPLE 4: Ci =
R =
ETQ =
Cx
4870
4630
4400
4170
3690
3750
1570
688
EXAMPLE 5: Ci
R
ET50 =
Cx
4870
4630
4400
4170
3690
2750
1570
10000 ppm
100 ml/min
Test Criterion
ET0 T/ET0
1.25 0.200
3.10 0.081
12 0.020
65 0.004
00 —
5000 ppm
10 ml/min
Test Criterion
ET0 T/ET0
3.0 0.083
3.4 0.074
3.8 0.066
4.0 0.063
6.0 0.167
14.0 0.143
94 0.043
CO —
5000 ppm
10 ml/min
Test Criterion
ET50 T/ET50
7.2 .035
8.6 .029
10 .025
13 .019
20 .050
75 .026
00 —
Z[T/ET0]
0.305
• Thus, the prediction is that the no
effect level will not be exceeded.
• Observed response = No mortality. .
• The prediction is valid.
Z[T/ET0]
0.637
• Thus, the prediction is that the
no effect level will not be exceeded.
• Observed response = No mortality.
• The prediction is valid.
E[T/ET50]
0.184
• Thus, the prediction is that the
LC50 will not be exceeded.
• Observed response = No mortality.
• The prediction is valid.
- 11 -
-------
EXAMPLE 6: Ci =
R =
ET0 =
Cx
4000
2410
1450
870
.370
5000 ppm
100 ml/min
Test Criterion
ET0
2.8
21
103
2000
00
T/ET0
0.052
0.012
0.002
—
£[T/ET0]
0 066
\J » \J\J\J
• Thus, the prediction is that the no
effect level will not be exceeded.
• Observed response = No mortality.
• The prediction is valid.
All six cases conform to the NAS/NAE prediction that when:
Z[T/ET(X)]>1
the effect level (x) will be exceeded and conversely, when:
Z[T/ET(X)]<1
the effect level (x) will not be exceeded.
\
Two additional experiments were conducted to assess (a) the
effects of multiple pulsed exposures on Cyprinodon and Palaemonetes, and
(b) the effect of pulsed exposure on spawning female Cyprinodon.
Multiple pulses, in general, did not appear to cause effects
different from those observed in single-pulse experiments.
Exposure of spawning female Cyprinodon to single or multiple
pulses (Ci = 3000 ppm) caused reduced egg production (Appendix 0).
- 12 -
-------
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Results of the dispersion study show that peak concentrations
for Grasselli wastewaters in the wake of a barge moving at approximately
5 knots and with a release time of 5 hours would be about 450 ppm one
minute after release. Within 6 minutes, peak concentration declines
to about 250 ppm; to about 80 ppm within 4 hours, and to about 60 ppm
in 12 hours. These concentrations represent maxima under poor disper-
sion conditions which exist during summer months.
Observed dispersion correlates fairly well with dispersion
predictions which were made in Appendix A. Comparison between observed
and predicted dispersion (Figure 3) shows that:
• Wastewater dilution rates during the first half
hour after release were more rapid than predicted.
• Wastewater concentrations observed between 1/2
and 4 hours after release were within the ranges
predicted.
• Wastewater dispersion after 4 hours following
release yielded concentrations greater than had
been predicted in 1975. (A likely explanation is
that calmer sea conditions prevailed during the 1976
test than during the studies on which the 1975 fore-
cast was based).
The real significance of the dispersion data however, is that
within 1 minute after release from the barge, wastewater concentration
declines to levels which are below observed chronic no-effect concentra-
tions for two species of sensitive marine organisms — Cyprinodon variegatus
and Mysidopsis bahia. Based on results of previous toxicity tests, simi-
lar no effect levels would be expected for other marine species.
We conclude that Du Font's Grasselli wastewaters can be
discharged into the marine environment, over a 5-hour period at a
- 13 -
-------
barge speed of 5 knots, without any adverse impact.
We also conclude that the NAS/NAE recommendation is a valid
and applicable means for utilizing toxicity and wastewater dispersion
data to derive release time (or discharge rates) for ocean-disposed
wastewaters and further, that the "time-toxicity" concept has been
validated.
- 14 -
-------
TABLE 1
LCSO'S* OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATER TO 1-7 DAY OLD FRY OF
C. VARIEGATUS FOR VARIOUS EXPOSURE TIMES
Exposure LC50 in ppm (95% Confidence Limits)
Time (Hr.) Raw Waste pH Adjusted Waste
0.25 >100000 >100000
0.5 37930 (CL not defined) >100000
0.75 79740 (51640-118600) 67530 (52380-77940)
1.0 36040 (CL not defined) 38230 (5620-71880)
2.0 30810 (19050-41970) 18860 (CL not defined)
4.0 30720 (CL not defined) 42300 (31980-49090)
8.0 9010 (6200-10720) 8000 (5870-9670)
12.0 3980 (3400-4530) 7060 (5950-8270)
24.0 2730 (2550-2920) 4110 (3790-4470)
48.0 2440 (CL not defined) 4230 (2620-4930)
96.0 1270 (1040-1470) 978 (442-1920)
* LC50 values reflect mortality which occurred during exposure plus a
96-hour post-exposure period.
-------
TABLE 2
LCSO'S* OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATER TO 30-DAY-OLD JUVENILE
C. VARIEGATUS FOR VARIOUS EXPOSURE TIME
Exposure LC50 in ppm (95% Confidence Limits)
Time (Hr. ) Raw Waste pH Adjusted Waste
0.25 93590 (73380-107360) >100000
0.5 23180 (18130-27680) 77740 (CL not defined)
0.75 30660 (27730-36660) 3A090 (26030-46280)
1.0 19210 (17590-20750) 11130 (8800-13700)
2.0 12380 (10830-14560) 22570 (19260-33860)
4.0 10570 (9270-11790) 11830 (10610-12840)
8.0 11620 (10720-12550) 9350 (8370-10740)
12.0 6730 (6130-7320) 9560 (8270-10310)
24.0 3120 (2880-3370) 3990 (3710-4320)
48.0 1630 (CL not defined) 2540 (CL not defined)
96.0 1230 (1050-1360) 1960 (1870-2050)
* LC50 values reflect mortality which occurred during exposure plus a
96-hour post-exposure period.
-------
TABLE 3
LCSO'S* OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATER TO ADULT C. VARIEGATUS
FOR VARIOUS EXPOSURE TIMES
Exposure LC50 in ppm (95% Confidence Limits)
Time (Hr.) Raw Waste pH Adjusted Waste
0.25 >100000 >100000
0.5 43890 (CL not defined) >100000
0.75 39380 (42370-80840) 86400 (CL not defined)
1.0 20020 (CL not defined) 43480 (34410-52180)
2.0 20190 (CL not defined) 57730 (CL not defined)
4.0 14170 (11690-16720) 10410 (CL not defined)
8.0 8420 (CL not defined) 6350 (5000-7500)
12.0 6430 (27-17560) 6570 (4330-7740)
24.0 5220 (4620-5730) 5770 (CL not defined)
48.0 . 2700 (CL not defined) 3400 (CL not defined)
96.0 1950 (CL not defined) 1170 (496-1680)
* LC50 values reflect mortality which occurred during exposure plus a
96-hour post-exposure period.
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF TIME- INDEPENDENT TOXICITY TEST
pH-ADJUSTED WASTEWATER
Nominal
Concentration
(ppm)
Control
1,050 ppm
1,440 ppm
1,867 ppm
2,489 ppm
3,319 ppm
4,425 ppm
5,900 ppm
LC50
5% Conf. Limits)
Mortality
WITH GRASSELLI
Exposure
24 hr.
No. (%)
' 0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
7 (35)
20 (100)
20 (100)
3410
(No CL) .
48 hr.
No. (%)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
20 (100)
20 (100)
20 (100)
2870
(No CL)
96 hr.
No. (%)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (5)
20 (100)
20 (100)
20 (100)
2720
(No CL)
144 hr.
No. (%)
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (15)
4 (20)
9 (45)
20 (100)
20 (100)
20 (100)
2250
(2036-2480)
192 hr.
No. (%)
0 (0)
0 (0)
5 (25)
4 (20)
18 (90)
20 (100)
20 (100)
20 (100)
1930
(1750-2120)
240 hr.
No. (%)
0 (0)
0 (0)
5 (25)
4 (20)
18 (90)
20 (100)
20 (100)
20 (100)
Same
as
192 hr.
Post-
Exposure
336 hr.
No. (%)
0 (0)
0 (0)
5 (25)
4 (20)
18 (90)
20 (100)
20 (100)
20 (100)
Same
as
192 hr.
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF MORTALITY EXPERIENCED BY C0 VARIEGATUS DURING THE
FIRST 28 DAYS POST-HATCH AS A RESULT OF EXPOSURE TO VARIOUS
CONCENTRATIONS OF pH-ADJUSTED GRASSELLI WASTEWATER
Mortality
Exposure
Concentration
Day
14
(ul/1; ppm) Number (%)
Control A
Control B
712 ppm A
712 ppm B
949 ppm A
949 ppm B
1,266 ppm A
1,266 ppm B
1,687 ppm A
1,687 ppm B
2,250 ppm A
2,250 ppm B
3,000 ppm A
3,000 ppm B
4,000 ppm A
4,000 ppm B
LC50
)% Confidence Limits)
1
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
3
0
2
19
38
30
39
40
(2.5)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(10.0)
(2.5)
(0)
(0)
(7.5)
(0)
(5.0)
(47.5)
(95.0)
(75.0)
(97.5)
(100)
2550
(2320-2750)
Day
Number
2
0
0
0
4
i
0
3
4
0
10
28
39
39
40
40
28
(%)
(5.0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(10.0)
(2.5)
(0)
(7.5)
(10.0)
(0)
(25.0)
(7000)
(97.5)
(97.5)
(100)
(100)
2290
(2190-2380)
Post-Exposure
Day
Number
2
0
0
0
4
1
0
4
4
0
11
28
39
39
40
40
42
(7.)
(5.0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(10.0)
(2.5)
(0)
(10.0)
(10.0)
(0)
(27.5)
(70.0)
(97.5)
(97.5)
(100)
(100)
2290
(2190-2370)
-------
TABLE 6
LCSO'S* OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATERS TO MYSIDOPSIS BAHIA
FOR VARIOUS EXPOSURE TIMES
Exposure LC50 in ppm (95% Confidence Limits)
Time (Hr.) Raw Waste pH Adjusted Waste
0.25 14030 (14415-15711)
0.50 11640 (10887-12319) 15860 (15300-16390)
0.75 10800 (10172-11738) 7620 (6450-8670)
1 6290 (5688-6968) 7590 (6460-8530)
2 6600 (6213-6904) 7230 (6490-8060)
4 5210 (CL not defined) 7450 (6670-7970)
8 5280 (4813-5454) 3430 (3070-4050)
96 898 (506-1205) 1320 (1100-1530)
* LC50 values reflect mortality which occurred during exposure plus
96-hour post exposure period.
-------
TABLE 7
CUMULATIVE PERCENT SURVIVAL OF MYSIDOPSIS BAHIA EXPOSED TO
VARIOUS CONCENTRATIONS OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATER FOR 25 DAYS.
Day Wastewater Concentration (ppm)
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
94
100
90
70
60
60
188
100
90
75
65
65
375
90
75
55
30
30
750
100
85
55
35
35
1500
95
70
60
30
10
Control
100
90
75
65
40
-------
TABLE 8
CUMULATIVE PERCENT SURVIVAL OF Fx MYSIDS EXPOSED TO VARIOUS
CONCENTRATIONS OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATER FOR 14 DAYS
Day
1-5
6-10
11-14
Wastewater
94
100
100
100
188
100
100
90
375
100
100
100
Concentration (ppm)
750
100
94
87
1500
100
100
80
Control
100
95
95
-------
TABLE 9
STATIC TOXICITY (LC50) OF RAW GRASSELLI WASTEWATER
TO SEVERAL SPECIES OF MARINE ORGANISMS
EXPOSURE TIME IN HOURS
SPECIES
MENIDIA*
SKELETONEMA*
ARTEMIA
.25 .5 .75 1
- - - 4270
- - - >10000
4
2360
>10000
8 12
2175
>10000
24
2002
1375
48
1880
803
96
1660
1180
CYPRINODON^ >100000 35000
MYSIDOPSIS 14030 11640
56000
10802
2519
25000
6286
1911
18000
5210
1542
8500
5276
6600
>10000
559
4100
>10000
462
2700
400
1400
898
* Mean of 15 Samples
/ Mean of 10 Samples
t Mean of 3 Life Stages
-------
TABLE 10
EFFECT OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATER ON HATCHABILITY OF
CYPRINODON VARIEGATUS EGGS
Wastewater
Concentration Mean Percent
(ppm) Hatch
712 95
949 89
1266 95
1687 94
2250 94
3000 96
4000 98
Control 96
-------
TABLE 11
MEAN LENGTH
pH-ADJUSTED
Nominal
Concentration
Cul/1; ppm)
Control A
Control B
712 ppm A
712 ppm B
949 ppm A
949 ppm B
1,266 ppm A
1,266 ppm B
1,687 ppm A
1,687 ppm B
2,250 ppm A
2,250 ppm B
3,000 ppm A
3,000 ppm B
4,000 ppm A
4,000 ppm B
AMONG GROUPS OF C0 VARIEGATUS FRY EXPOSED TO
GRASSELLI WASTEWATER
POST-HATCH
DURING THE
Mean Standard Length
and Standard
Exposure
Day 14
0.5 + 0.1
0.6 + 0.1
0.6 ±0.1
0.8 + 0.2
0.5 + 0.1
0.6 + 0.2
0.6 + 0.1
0.6 + 0.1
0.5 + 0.2
_a
0.5 + 0.1
0.5 + 0.1
0.5 + 0.1
085 + 0.0
_b
_b
Day 28
1.2 + 0.2
1.3 + 0.1
1.3 + 0.1
1.3 + 0.1
1.2 + 0.1
1.3 + 0.1
1.3 + 001
1.3 + 0.1
1.2 + 0.2
1.3+ 0.1
1.3 + 0.1
1.4 + 0.1
1.6 + 0.0
1.8 + 0.0
-
FIRST 28 DAYS
(in Centimeters)
Deviation
Post-Exposure
Day 42
1.3 + 0.2
1.4 + 0.1
1.4 + 0.1
1.4 + 0.1
1.4 + 0.1
1.4 + 0.1
1.4+ 0.1
1.4 + 0.1
1.3 + 002
1.3 + 001
1.4 + 002
1.7 + Oe2
2.4 + 0.0
2.5 + 0.0
-
"
No measurements
No fish
-------
TABLE 12
STANDARD LENGTH (CM) AND IN-WATER WEIGHT (G) OF SHEEPSHEAD MINNOWS (CYPRINODON
VARIEGATUS) EXPOSED
SEA WATER.
Nominal concentration
FOR 178 DAYS TO GRASSELLI
Day 33
(y£/£;ppm) Length Weight
Control
180 (Raw)
188
375
750
1,500
3,000
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
± 0.3 0.2
± 0.2 0.2
± 0.1 0.1
± 0.1 0.1
± 0.1 0.2
± 0.1 0.2
_a
WASTEWATER IN FLOWING, NATURAL
Day 89
Length
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
± 0.4
± 0.3
± 0.3
± 0.3
± 0.3
± 0.3
-
Weight
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
Day 178
Length
3.3 ± 0.3
3.2 ± 0.4
3.3 ± 0.3
3.2 ± 0.3
3.3 ± 0.3
3.2 ± 0.3
-.
Weight
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
a All fish had died.
-------
TABLE 13
EGG PRODUCTION AMONG FEMALE £._ VARIEGATUS EXPOSED TO
VARIOUS CONCENTRATIONS OF pH-ADJUSTED GRASSELLI WASTEWATER
Wastewater Concentration (ppm)
188
375
750
1500
Control
Total Number of Eggs Produced*
(No. per Female per Day)
First Spawning Second Spawning Third Spawning
1010 (18.5) 1095 (18.4) 659 (12.5)
999 (16.7) 1177 (19.6)
908 (15.0)
1373 (22.9)
848 (14.5)
1162 (19.4)
1064 (20.7)
2270 (37.3)
1274 (21.2)
1034 (17.2)
364 (6.5)
936 (15.6)
* Two replications at each spawning period.
-------
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS OBSERVED DURING
CHRONIC EXPOSURE OF C^_ VARIEGATUS TO VARIOUS CONCENTRATIONS
OF pH-ADJUSTED GRASSELLI WASTEWATER
Wastewater Concentration
(ppm)
188
375
750
1500
3000
Control
Observed Effects Through
178 Days of Exposure
None
None
None
- Slight Mortality
- Slightly Impaired Egg Hatchability*
- Impaired Feeding Behavior
Complete Mortality
None
* This effect may not be due to direct action of the wastewaters.
-------
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS NOTED DURING A CHRONIC STUDY IN
WHICH MYSIDOPSIS BAHIA WERE EXPOSED TO VARIOUS
CONCENTRATIONS OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATER.
Exposure
Concentration
(ppm) Observed Effects
94 None
188 None
375 None
750 None
1500 - Abnormal behavior
- Mortality rate greater than control
Control None
-------
TABLE 16
AVERAGE NUMBER OF OFFSPRING PER HATCH OF MYSID
SHRIMP (MYSIDOPSIS BAHIA) EXPOSED TO pH-ADJUSTED
GRASSELLI WASTEWATER IN A CHRONIC TEST.
Nominal
concentration
(y£/£;ppm)
Control
94
188
375
750
1,500
Average number of
offspring per hatch
5.3
4.7
6.0
4.5
5.3
5.0
-------
TABLE 17
VALUES FOR LC50, Co AND T FOR GRASSELLI WASTEWATERS TESTED AGAINST
C. VARIEGATUS IN PULSED EXPOSURES
Exposure Time
in Hours
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.0
2
4
8
12
24
48
96
144
192
336
672
LC50 (ppm)
93590*
23180*
30660*
11130*
12380*
10410*
6350*
3980*
34106
28706
27206
22506
19306
25506
22906
Co (ppm)
30890
7650
10120
3670
4080
3440
2100
1310
1120
948
897
743
636
840
756
T (Hours)
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
2
4
4
12
24
48
48
48
144
336
* Lowest observed static LC50, regardless of life stage exposed
or pH state of wastewater.
6 Dynamic exposure to pH adjusted wastewater.
-------
10,000
5000
~ 1000
500
z
o
g
cc
H-
Z
UJ
o
o
o
a:
UJ
£
fe
100
5C
FIGURE I. pH titration curve: Grasselli wastewater with seawater.
8.0
8.5
9.0
PH
9.5
10.0
10.5
-------
1000
500
-100
a.
•Z
50
o
cc
Ul
CO
FIGURE 2. Maximum concentration of Grasselli wastewater vs time-observed
in the wake of a moving barge at the 106-disposal site.
- SURFACE
• 5.0 M
x 14.5 M
10 50 100
TIME AFTER RELEASE(min)
500 1000
-------
iooolFIGURE3. OBSERVED YS. PREDICTED
DISPERSION OF
6RASSELLI WASTEWATER
BEHIND A MOVING BARGE
OBSERVED MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATIONS
AT 106 SITE
SEPTEMBER 9,1976
PREDICTED
DISPERSION
ENVELOPE
JUNE 10, 1975
2 4 6 8 10
TIME AFTER RELEASE; HOURS
-------
10000
5000
! 500
QL
o
^
o:
o
z
o
o
-------
100,000
50,000
FIGURES. Relationships among LC50, no effect levels (C.Vorleaotusl simulated dispersion and actual
dispersion for Grosselll wastewateri.
2 10,000 T.
5,000
o
o
a:
LU
LU
1000
500
100
LINE OF BEST FIT FOR LC50
JLATED DIS>EeSION \
-s. ^^fc.\
TIME-.WEIGHTED NO EFFECT LEVEL (Co)
\ \
OBSERVED DISPERSION \ \
^^ \\
STATIC LC50
O DYNAMIC LC50
0.1
0.5
1.0
5 10
TIME IN HOURS
50 100
500 1000
1500
-------
APPENDICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix
A Report of Release conditions Based on Testing of
Appropriate Sensitive Marine Organisms, by
W. C. Gaskill and J. R. Gibson, June 10, 1975.
B Letter, L. L. Falk to R. T. Dewling, June 13, 1975,
with attached reports by John Ball and Donald W. Hood.
C Draft Permit NJ006-Special, 6 June '75, Region II,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
D Statement of Lloyd L. Falk, June 12, 1975.
E Memorandum, A. J. McErlean to R. T. Dewling, July 8,
1975.
F Letter, R. D. Turner to P. J. Bermingham, July 30,
1975, with attached comments on McErlean to Dewling
memorandum (shown in Appendix E).
G Letter, R. D. Turner to P. E. Bermingham, August 14,
1975.
H Memorandum, P. E. Bermingham to G. M. Hansler,
September 2, 1975.
I Letter, R. D. Turner to William J. Librizzi, March 13,
1976, with attachments.
J Letter, J. R. Gibson to J. H. Gentile, et al, July 19,
1976.
K Letter, J. R. Gibson to J. H. Gentile, et al,
August 31, 1976, with attachment.
L Statements of L. L. Falk and J. R. Gibson, September 20,
1976.
M "Measurement of the Dispersion of Barged Waste Near
38° 50' N Latitude and 72° 15' W Longitude at the
'106' Dump Site," EG&G, Environmental Consultants,
February, 1977.
N Chemical analyses of February 19-24, 1976 barged wastes
by T. Wright, Jr., E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
Grasselli Plant and by New York Testing Laboratories,
Inc., March 19, 1976.
-------
- 2 -
Appendix
0 Toxicity Test Report, EG&G, Bionomics, January, 1977.
P Computer Printouts, Probit Analyses of EG&G, Bionomics
data.
Q Histopathology Report.
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
REPORT ON RELEASE CONDITIONS
BASED ON TESTING OF
APPROPRIATE SENSITIVE MARINE ORGANISMS
IN SUPPORT OF
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS § COMPANY
GRASSELLI (LINDEN), NJ PLANT'S
APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
TO
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
UNDER THE
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT
(P.L. 92-532)
JUNE 10, 1975
BY
W. C. GASKILL, ENGINEERING SERVICE DIVISION
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (DU PONT)
J. R. GIBSON, HASKELL LABORATORY FOR INDUSTRIAL
MEDICINE AND TOXICOLOGY
CENTRAL RESEARCH Q DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (DU PONT)
-------
SUMMARY
This report is submitted in support of E. I. du Pont
de Nemours and Company's application for a Special Permit
to continue ocean disposal of industrial wastes from its
Grasselli Plant at Linden, New Jersey. Specifically, Du Pont
requests that the determination of Limiting Permissible Con-
centration (LPC) as defined in 40 CFR 227.71 and the asso-
ciated release procedure be made as follows:
1) The LPC be established by applying the 0.01
factor to the 4-hour LC50 to Acartia tons a
m ^ ^™^™^^^^^™~
(the most sensitive organism of those speci-
fied by EPA for testing).
2) The mixing-release zone configuration set
forth in 40 CFR 221.12 and 227.73 (i.e., 100
meters (M) on each side of the vessel to a
depth of 20 meters) be applied in determining
the volume available for dispersion.
Determination of LPC for the Grasselli Plant waste in
this manner results in a permitted release of waste over a
period of 5 hours at a speed of at least 5 knots, weather
permitting.
-------
- 2 -
The attached report of the requested release conditions
shows that:
a) negligible, if any, harm will accrue to the
environment under the requested conditions,
b) the calculated LPC provides for an adequate
margin of safety when analyzed in terms of
accepted time-toxicity-dispersion concepts,
c) dispersion rapidly reduces concentrations of
the waste to well below safe levels within
10 to 20 hours,
d) the time frame during which the greatest po-
tential for mortality exists is the first 10
hours after release,
e) increasing release time results in a negligible
reduction in potential mortality.
In view of the above, Du Pont requests approval of the
requested release procedure.
-------
RESULTS
The determination of rates at which industrial wastes
can be discharged from a moving barge without unacceptable
adverse environmental impact is essential to the conduct of
an environmentally sound ocean dumping program. Inherent
to these determinations is the establishment of toxicologi-
cal parameters which ensure a negligible effect of such
wastes on marine organisms. This proposal serves to outline
procedures for evaluating acute toxicity data and the appli-
cation of data in formulating environmentally acceptable
discharge rates. The methods and procedures are consistent
with the Final Regulations and Criteria on Ocean Dumping
published pursuant to PL 92-532, on October 15, 1973.
A. Bio as say
The Final Regulations and Criteria (October 15, 1973)
under PL 92-532 require use of bioassays on appropriate sen-
sitive marine organisms in establishing permissible concen-
trations of wastes during ocean disposal operations. Region
II, EPA (R. T. Dewling, EPA, to R. D. Turner, Du Pont, Feb.
21, 1975) has specified the appropriate sensitive marine
organisms as:
-------
- 2 -
• Acartia tons a (zooplankton),
• Skeletonema costatum (phyloplankton),
• Menidia menidia (finfish).
Du Pont has tested all three organisms using EPA-approved
methodology and submitted data to Region II in May 1975.
Since the zooplankton (Acartia tons a) exhibited the most
sensitivity to the subject wastes, this report addresses
itself to that organism and the calculated safe release
time based on that organism.
Acute bioassays were performed on Acartia tons a to pro-
vide data which specifically defined LC50 (Tim) as a function
of time, with emphasis on the initial exposure period. The
time periods for these bioassays were 1, 4, and 8 hours.
Additional LC50 values for 24 and 48 hours were determined
from 96-hour data. Bioassays on 8 to 10 replicate waste sam-
ples were performed.
After all data had been obtained, LC50 calculations were
made by Probit Analysis (Finney, 1952) so that the precision
of the LC50 estimate could be determined (i.e., 951 Confidence
Limits.) Slopes of the probit-mortality plots were statistical-
ly compared in order to determine whether or not there was sig-
nificant variation in toxicity among the samples. Calculations
of the LC01 concentrations were also made.
-------
- 3 -
Computer printouts for all probit analyses are presented
in Appendix I. Comparison of slopes for all probit-mortality
lines revealed no significant differences among the observed
LCSO's at a given point in time. Thus, indicating no differ-
ence in the toxicity of replicate waste samples, and allowing
use of the mean LC50 or LC01 as being representative of waste
toxicity at each point in time. Distributions of observed
LC50 values for the respective samples at each exposure time
are presented in Figures 1J6. Mean LC50 and LC01 values are
i
summarized in Table I and are graphically displayed in Figure
7.
B. Anticipated Dispersion
Du Pont has monitored the dispersion patterns of similar
wastes discharged from a moving barge in the Gulf of Mexico.
From this work, we have been able to conclude that the initial
dispersion of wastes (up to 10 minutes) can be calculated with
a high degree of accuracy. This dispersion has been shown to
be a function of barge speed and discharge rate. The initial
waste concentration in the wake of the barge has been shown to
be described by the expression (See Figure 8) :
Co = 0.1 Q/V; where
Co = the initial waste concentration in ppm
Q = discharge rate, in Ib./min., and
V = barge speed, in knots.
-------
- 4 -
Under the requested release conditions, Q = 31,000 Ibs./
min., and a barge speed of 5 knots, the initial concentration
is expected to be 620 ppm.
The results of Du Font's monitoring in the Gulf of Mexico
have been reviewed relative to the dispersion models of Hydro-
science, Inc. and Clark, et al (1971). The measured disper-
sion patterns are consistent with the behavior predicted by
both models. Figure 9 shows how wastes were diluted behind a
moving barge during those dispersion tests. Subsequent to
initial mixing in the immediate barge wake, additional disper-
sion to 0.1 of the initial ;vake concentration occurred in from
0.5 to 3.5 hours. Typically, dispersion reduced the initial
concentration by 0.01 in 6 to 8 hours.
C. Calculated Release Time
Du Pont has requested that LPC be derived from the 4-hour
LC50 to Acartia tonsa. Thus, based upon the mean 4-hour LC50,
LPC is determined to be 19.1 ppm (0.01 x 1911 ppm).
Applying to this value, the release/mixing zone concept
as specified by the regulations, the following calculations
are performed:
LPC =19.1 ppm (V/V)
Total volume of waste to be discharged - 1 x 10 gallons
• Thus,
Volume of dilution water required to reach LPC = 1 x 106 gal.ft
19.1 gal7/10 "gal
= 5.23 x 1010 gal.
-------
- 5 -
1 M3 = 264.17 gal.
• Thus ,
Volume of diluent sea water = volume of required release/
mixing zone =
5.25 x 101Q gal. - = 1.98 x 108 M3
2.6417 x 10Z gal./M
Release zone = 100 M + 100 M + 15 M = 215 M Wide
Mixing zone = 20 M Deep
• Thus,
1.98 x 10 fT t, nnn ,
Length of release/mixing zone = (215M) — (20M) - = 46, DOOM
1 M = 3.28 ft.
•' Thus ,
Length of zone - 3.28 ft./M x 46,000 M = 151,000 ft.
1 Nautical mile « 6,076 ft.
• Thus ,
Length of zone = ffi^ftf/Mle (naut.) = 24.9 Nautical miles
Barge speed = 5 knots = 5 nautical miles/hour
• Thus ,
24
Release time = g^M/hr = 4.97 hours (i.e., 5 hours)
-------
- 6 -
The Final Regulations and Criteria for Ocean Disposal
contain the following definitions:
§ 227.7 Definitions.
§ 227.71 Limiting permissible concen-
trations.
The limiting permissible concentra-
tion is:
(a)"That concentration of a waste
material or chemical constituent in the
receiving water which, after reasonable
allowance for initial mixing in the mix-
ing zone, will not exceed 0.01 of a con-
centration shown to be toxic to appro-
priate sensitive marine organisms in a
bioassay carried out in accordance with
approved EPA procedures; or
(b) 0.01 of a concentration of a waste
material or chemical constituent other-
wise shown to be detrimental to the ma-
rine environment.
§ 227.72 Release zone.
A release zone is the area swept out by
the locus of points constantly 100 meters
from the perimeter of the conveyance
engaged in dumping activities, beginning
at the first moment in which dumping is
scheduled to occur and ending at the
the last moment in which dumping is
scheduled to occur. For disposal through
an outfall or other fixed stucture, the
release zone is measured from the point
at which the waste material enters the
ocean if no diffuser is used, or from the
length of outfall along which diffuser
ports are located. *
§227.73 Mixing zone.
(a) The mixing zone is the region into
which a waste is initially dumped or
otherwised discharged, and into which
the waste will mix to a relatively uniform
concentration within four hours after
dumping. It is required that the concen-
tration of all waste materials or trace
contaminants be at, or below, the limit-
ing permissible concentration at the
boundaries of the mixing zone at all
times and within the mixing zone four
hours after discharge. The actual con-
figuration of a mixing zone will depend
upon vessel speed, method of disposal,
type of waste, and ocean current and
wave conditions. For the purposes of
these regulations a volume equivalent to
that of a mixing zone is the column of
water immediately contiguous to the re-
lease zone, beginning at the surface of
the water and ending at the ocean floor,
the thermocline or halocline, if one
exists, or 20 meters, whichever is the
shortest distance.
(b) For disposal through an outfall or
other structure, the volume of the mix-
ing zone will be measured by projecting
t.hfi release zone at the deoth of the point
of release or the waste to the nearest
hydrodynamic discontinuities above and
below that point, but in no case exceed-
ing 20 meters in total distance. Diffusion
of wastes beyond the limits of the mixing
zone will be estimated by standard
oceanographic methods of calculation
acceptable to the Administrator or his
designee.
Using the 4-hour LC50 as the basis for determining LPC
is consistent with Section 227.71. An LPC determined on the
basis of the 4-hour LC50 of the Grasselli waste to Acartia
tons a is appropriate and provides the margins of safety nec-
essary for obviating toxicity as a result of a 5-hour release
time. Figure 10 shows the relationship of LC50 and LC01 from
1 through 96 hours to the LPC derived from the 4-hour LC50
(i.e., 19.1 ppm). The significant feature of this Figure is
the greater than tenfold difference between LC01 and LPC at
all points in time after discharge. However, the regulatory
concept of LPC assumes instantaneous dilution within the mixing
-------
- 7 -
zone to a uniform concentration (LPC) --a phenomenon which
does not occur in actual practice. Thus, until such time as
dispersion and dilution mechanisms reduce waste concentrations
to the LPC, higher-than-LPC concentrations will be realized
within the mixing zone.
Figure 11 superimposes the Phase II dispersion envelope
(Figure 9) upon LC50, LC01, and LPC (Figure 10). Significant
features of Figure 11 are:
• LPC is attained within approximately 1 to 10
hours after discharge.
• At no point in time before attainment of LPC is
an LC01 concentration for that point in time
realized.
Thus, when either LPC or actual dispersion is considered in
light of time and toxicity, there is clear evidence that mar-
gins of safety, which will obviate deleterious effects are
achieved; even when the 4-hour LC50 is used as the basis for
determining LPC.
Finally, it is appropriate to examine the effect of in-
creasing release time (i.e., lowering LPC) upon estimated
waste concentrations.
The effect (upon concentration) of doubling (10 hours)
and quadrupling (20 hours) the requested release time of 5
hours is illustrated in Figure 12 which demonstrates that no
-------
- 8 -
appreciable differences in actual waste concentration-rela-
tive to toxic concentrations are realized with increased
release time. Thus, time-mortality-concentration relation-
ships are virtually unchanged. Furthermore, it is essential
to realize that regardless of the release time, the time
required to reach LPC remains constant (i.e., 1 to 10 hours).
Summary:
Du Pont has described the toxicity of its Grasselli
Plant's barged waste as a function of time through 96-hours
of exposure; using EPA-approved methodology. The total time-
mortality syndrome lias been considered in light of an LPC
derived from the 4-hour LC50 as well as estimated dispersion/
dilution. These considerations are consistent with the Final
Regulations and Criteria for Ocean Disposal and demonstrate
that these wastes can be safely discharged into the marine
environment under requested discharge conditions of 5 hours
release time at a barge speed of 5 knots.
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Ball, John. 1972. Texas ASM University. Cited in:
Engineering Report on Waste Dispersion at Sea, E. I.
du Pont de Nemours $ Company,. July, 1973.
Clark, B. D. , Rittall, W. F. , Baumgartner, D. J. and Bryan,
K. V. 1971. "The Barged Ocean Disposal of Wastes, A
Review of Current Practice and Methods of Evaluation,"
U. S. E.P.A. , Corvallis, O.R.
Finney, D. J. 1952. Probit Analysis, 2nd ed., Cambridge
University Press, London.
Hood, D. W. 1960. Results of the Survey on Deep Sea Dis-
posal of Caprolactam Wastes from the Beaumont, Texas
Plant. Report to E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
from Department of Oceanography and Meteorology, Texas
University.
-------
NO. 3228. LOGARITHMIC PROBABILITY. DESIGNED BY HAZEN. WHIPPLE B, FULLER.
CODEX BOOK COMPANY. INC. NORWOOD, MASSACHUSETTS.
PBINTCD IN U.S.A.
/oo
99
* —
4
11
---
[---
99.9
:|=
r
99
c=
.8
ttl
?1
99.5
99
98
= Af
?Vf
9
fl
5
rl
:p
=(
|-
—
•>
9
*r
v -
^ i
--
--
0
zilil:
£ , ± ' ' .
*• V
----.:-_
------
80
. ; ^
K; ""
j
...i _
}
i
T
-)
70
i§i
~ ^3 "2
_-!|i
^
60 50
^i|2i:i
s=zEiv:-
|>
V
40 :
EEEEpf
" E [ : '- ~
,^£ts
0,,U
- - - - L
*
»
^h
-
--*-
s
>
-
--
--
50
V
C
^
-
-
f
-
=s
=>
^
20
i* ::\-
^\\\:".
-.::::
--r
10
ifcri:
L-- .=
:- = = -
"I
. td
--
**•
•)
^
i
=J
Jt
-
-Vs
—
ci
2
= EE
f^T'5
blc
I rp
1
_El!:
0
^
5
0
2
0.1
0.
...
r--
---
IK
-
-
-
-
-
0.(
J
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2
10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9
99.99
-------
NO. 3228. LOGARITHMIC PROBABILITY. DESIGNED BY HAZEN, WHIPPLE a FULLER.
CODEX BOOK COMPANY, INC. NORWOOD, MASSACHUSETTS.
PRINTED IN U.S.A.
/ooo$9
99
99.9 99.8 99.5 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
10
2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
I
-------
NO. 3228. LOGARITHMIC PROBABILITY. DESIGNED BY HAZEN. WH1PPLE & FULLER.
CODEX BOOK COMPANY, INC. NORWOOD, MASSACHUSETTS.
PRINTED IN U.S.A.
1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
99.9 99.8 99.5 99 98
80 70 60 50 40 30 20
1.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1
10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
90 95
98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9
99.99
-------
NO. 3228. LOGARITHMIC PROBABILITY. DESIGNED BY HAZEN. WHIPPLE a FULLER.
CODEX BOOK COMPANY, INC. NORWOOD. MASSACHUSETTS.
PB1NTEO IM U. >.A.
99.99 99.9 99.8 99.5 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 21 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
looooe
RP
is u; u as:
T?
•£3
EuffiZi::
| 1000
Q.
o
in
u
O
•-n
100
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.99
-------
NO. 3228. LOGARITHMIC PROBABILITY. DESIGNED BY HAZEN. WHIPPLE a FULLER.
CODEX BOOK COMPANY, INC. NORWOOD, MASSACHUSETTS.
PRINTED IN U. B. A.
1.99
99.9 99.8 99.5 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
10
2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
£ES3E
J t31
£3
Q.
O
U
o:
o
o
x
ob
1000
10
°0.
01 0.05 Oil 0.2 0.5 1 2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9
99.99
-------
O»
en
in
o
CJ
b
ifl
b
o
CM
o
to
o
CO
1
*
in
en
I
oo
CO
at
a>
10
S
en
CO
en
en
ea
en
o
8
Oo
O
anoH-96
-------
WOQQ.
TIME. IM HOUR 5
-------
-------
9. PHASE. HI DISPERSION
M ••••.4
100
ISO £00
TIME IN MINUTES
£50
300
35O
-------
TIME. IM HOURS
-------
TIMC. IM HOUR 3
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 214? ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-1
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOG(io).
4 MR
INPUT DATA
CONTROLS SAMPLE SIZE « 20. » DEATHS » o. NATURAL MORTALITY •
DOSE LOG DOSE SAMPLE « DEATHS RATEUDJ.) PROBIT
1000*0000
1500*0000
2000»0000
2500*0000
3000.0000
3500.0000
HOOO.OOOO
3.0000
3*1761
3 • 3 0 I' 0
3.3979
3.4771
.? • 5 4 4 1
3.6021
20*
20*
20.
20*
20.
20.
20*
1*
7.
12.
1 1*
16,
20.
20.
.2000
.3500
.6000
.5500
.8000
.9999
,9999
4. 1585
4.6151
5.2529
5. 1254
5.8415
8.7191
8.7191
RESPONSE RATE = o.o OR i.o AT POINTS
CONSTANTS USED IN PROBlT CALCULATIONS
HETEROGEN'IETY FACTOR =
NUMBER OF POINTS =
DEGREES OF FREEDOM a
DEVIATE a
G a
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES a
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG Y
AVG X
AVG T
NATURAL MORTALITY
SLOPE
T STATISTIC a SLOPE/SE
INTERCEPT
CHI SQUARED
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
POINT
1 *01
1 »05
'• MO
'• «20
1 »50
1 *80
1 «9o
' .95
s .99
DOSE
538. 14Q1
763.679Q
920.3660
1 153*7759
1 777.7738
2739.2487
3433.937M
*U38.49 JO
5872.967Q
1
7
5
1
5
-
.0000
.9600
.0925
5.350447
3.328060
I .356333
.000002
4« 482437
641 11 £1 C CL o
• "i *4 *f 5 => 2
9.567366
8* 545459
95« CC
LOWER
289.5954
476. 0382
619.3561
849. Q410
1508.969Q
2401 «8135
2928.5051
3417.2953
4521 • 16Q3
SE a .000481
SE a .695539
)NFIDENCE LIMITS
UPPER
7&5.SS&8
994. 1 138
1 152.8129
1383.8923
2018.99Q9
3288.9631
4430.9895
5739. M297
9382.5438
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-1
4 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE Op THE PRORlT REGRESSION LINE»
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE= 4.4824, INTERCEPT" -9.567T
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE= .0000
7 LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
JS PROBjT VA
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6*5
6.4
6.3
6*2
6. 1
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.7
5*6
5*5
5.4
5.3
5.2
5. 1
5.0
4.9
4.9
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4. 1
4.0
3*9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3* I
3*0
4-
+
+
4-
4-
4-
4-
+
+
4-
4-
4>
+
+
4-
+
+
4-
4-
4-
4;
4-
4>
+
+
4-
4-
4-
+
4-*
4- *
+ .
4-
+
4-
4>
4-
4>
+
4-
+
4-
3.000
+
3. 100
+
3.201
*
3.3Q1
3.401
+
3.502
4-
+
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
•
*
3.602
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2119 ACARTIA TQNSA SAMPLE 9923-1
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOGOOJ.
o MR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE SIZE = 20. * DEATHS = o. NATURAL MORTALITY » ,i
DOSE LOG DOSE SAMPLE « DEATHS RATEUDJt) PROBIT
iooo»ooon
1500. 0000
2000*0000
2500*0000
3000*0000
3500.0000
1000*0000
3*0000
3*1761
3*3010
3.3979
3.4771
3*5111
3.6021
20*
20«
20*
20»
20*
20*
20.
1.
8.
16.
IB.
18,
20.
20.
.2000
.4000
.8000
.9000
.9000
.9999
,9999
1. 1585
1 . 7 1 7 1
5.8115
6.2817
6.2817
8.7191
8*7191
RESPONSE RATE = 0.0 OR 1.0 AT POINTS
CONSTANTS USED IN PROBfT CALCULATIONS
HETEROGENIETY FACTOR = 1.0000
NUMRER
DEGREES
TOTAL NUMBER
SUMMARY STATIST
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
NATURAL
T STATISTIC
C
POINT
B ,01
= .05
» • 10
» .20
0 ,50
0 »80
0 ,90
a ,95
a ,99
OF POINTS *
OF FREEDOM =
DEVIATF «
G =
OF CYCLES =
ICS
AVQ Y =
AVG X =
AVG T =
MO^TALlTy »
SLOPE =
= SLOPE/SE =
INTERCEPT a
HI SQUARED =
DOSE
575.3116
763.1181
887.6770
J065.5508
1511 .0900
2112*9221
2572.3239
2991 .Ql 16
3968.7596
7
5
I .9600
.0882
4
5.175922
3.265086
1.315386
.000000 SE
5*517203 SE
6.599276
-12.636168
2,918767
95Z CONF
LOWER
315. 1820
513. 1688
632.9785
8 13.9031
1290.3026
1901*5810
2?51«2955
2565*7729
3231*7726
» .000256
= ,810577
IDENCE LIMITS
UPPER
765.7036
957.8323
1080.9803
1251,9301
1703.2898
2182.9505
3131 .1287
3829.9108
5619,1667
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-1 fl HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE op THE PKORIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE — SLOPE" 5.5472, INTERCEPT3 -12.6362,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE' ,0000
7 LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
5 $ PROBJT VA
* +
* +
* +
«
.
»
«. *
*
.
*
* .
*
.
•
.
*
*
»
.'
*
*
7.
6.
6*
6.
.6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
•
4.
4.
4.
4.
3*
3*
3*
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
9
8
7
6
5
n
"
3
2
1
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
•••
+
+
+
*
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
•f
+
•f
•*•
*
+
•f
+
+
+
+
^
^
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
*
+
+
+
+
+
•f
* ' + 4- * + + *
3.QOO 3.100 3.201 3.3Q1 3,401 3.502 3.602
-------
7
J. R» GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-1
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOG(IO)*~ """
24 HR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE SIZE » 20. « DEATHS
i. NATURAL MORTALITY
200.
250.
300.
350.
400.
DOSE
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
ODOO
LOG DOSE
SAMPLE
M DEATHS
RATE(ADJt
PROBIT
450.0000
2.3010
2.3979
2 . « 7 7 1
2.5441
2.6021
2.6532
0.0 OR
20.
20*
20.
20.
20. .
20*
1 .0 AT POINTS
0.
0.
2.
2*
8.
16.
1 2
.0001
.0001
.0315
.0315
,3544
.7310
1*2809
1 .2809
3. 1 408
3. 1408
•U6268
5.6154
-
CONSTANTS
IN PRORjT CALCULATIONS
HFTEP-OGENI
N U M R E R
DEGREES
TOTAL NUMBER
SUMMARY STATIST
NATURAL
T STATISTIC
C
B( 25
POINT
P * .01
P = »05
P » »10
P a »20
P 3 »50
P a .fig
P - »90
P a .95
P « »99
ETY FACTOR =
OF POINTS a
OF FREEDOM s
DEVIATE a
G a
OF CYCLES a
ICS
AVG Y a
AVG X =
AVG T =
MORTALITY a
SLOPE a
= SLOPE/SE •
INTERCEPT =
HI SQUARED a
) - B( 2H) a
DOSE
32^.9371
350. 1418
364.3699
382.3780
4J9.3392
459.8731
4B2.6013
502.21 18
541 . 1674
1 .0000
6
4
1 .9600
• 3896
25
4.967285
2.621008
2.012092
.070697 SE
21.001904 SE
3.13996Q
-50.078871
,465868
-.0037003
95* CONF
LOWER
210.3836
255.9397
283*8272
320*9332
393*6359
435*9862
451 .7862
464.2598
487.5290
" ' . \
' • '•'.'• ""' ' ' ' • '.. ' "" :':.
= .028530
a 6,688589 ; ' , <
IDENCE LIMITS
UPPER
361,2935
379.3566
389.7751 ~~ " "
403,7^1 I
445.3803
544.0776
614.9648
681.8751
829.4283 '"
-------
J« R, GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TON5A SAMPLE 9923-1
HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBIT REGRESSION LINE* ^
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES «VF.RE--SLOPE = 21.0019, INTERCEPTS -50.078?,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE = .0707
6 LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
7.0
6.9
6* 0
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.3
6*2
6, 1
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
5. 1
5.0
4c9
4.8
4.7
4.6
4,5
4.4
4,3
4.2
4. 1
4,0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3. 1
3.0
*
e
« •'•'
$ +
c *
+
+
*
*
*
*
*
*
+
*
*
*
V
*
*
+
2«30l
+
2.360
*
2.418
4>
2.477
2»536
4-
2.595
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TQNSA SAMPLE 9923-1 4a HR
INPUT DOSE SCALE is 'TRANSFORMED" to LOG(io). " ~ ~"~ " " """
•
INPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE SIZE = .. .20. * DEATHS = i. ..NATURAL.MORTALITY »_
DOSE LOG DOSE SAMPLE * DEATHS RATEUDJ.) PRQBIT
200.0000 2.3010 20* 3* .0523 3*3771
250.0000 2.3979 20. 2« .0001 1.2809
300.0000 2.'4771 20*.. 8 •. ....•331.1 Mt..5.635..
350.0000 2.5441 20* 8» .3311 4.5635
MOO,0000 2,6021 20* 11« .4983 4.9958
450.0000 2,6532 20« 20« »9*?.? 8 . 7 1 9 |_
RESPONSE RATE = 0.0 OR 1 .0 _AT POINTS_ 6 J_
THERE IS AT LEAST ONE EXPECTED ..VALUE . LESS. THAN 5, _
DOSE « RESPONSES EXPECTED
200.0000 3, 2.007"8 ~~"' " ^ ""' " ^
250.0000 2. 2.&2M3
300.0*000 8. 5*1270 __ _•
350.0COO • P. 9.7427 " " """ "' " ~
MOO.OCOO 11. 14.3750
450.0000 20. 17 •*»> 2.7... .._ „_
CONSTANTS USED IN PR08IT CALCULATIONS ;^ _
HETEROGpNIETYFACTORs 2,'»213
NUMBER OF POINTS =. .. 6. _ ; ; ;
DEGREES OF FREEDOM. = H ' " ' , "• :; " " T
DEVIATE = 2.7760 : .
G = 1.2569 •; _
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES =9
SUMMARY STATISTICS " "" '.
AVGYa 5.1320&I __ _ _
AVG X » 2.571294"
AVG T = 1.682624
NATURAL MQPTALITY = .103077 SE = .070447
SLOPE = 11.496858 SE « 4'643143 "
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/SE « 2.476094
INTERCEPT = -24.429797
CHI SQUARED" 9.685203 " S I GN I F» AT ""• 05
NONSIGNIFICANT REGRESSION
-------
G GREATER THAN 1., CONF J DENCFT . L I M I TSARE NOT
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
POINT
' .01
• 05
! • 10
: »20
' »50
1 »flO
! .90
! .95
! .99
OOSE
2P7.7560
?f 1 .0587
2R0.7618
30A.6263
H29.5509
4f 9. 1221
578.301'!
95« CONFIDENCE LIMITS
LOV-'ER UPPER
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXX
I !->
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-1 48 HR
!
.•15
PLOT OF THF. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBlT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WFRE--SLOPE= u.4969, INTERCEPT- -24.429a,
NATUW/U. RESPONSE RATE= .1031
6 LEVELS OF DOSE WERF ADMINISTERED.
S p R 0 B I T V
7.0 + . * ' '
6.9 * _ *
6,8 + '"' "" '" " "~ "~ ". " " "" """*' "~
6.7 + +
6.6 * . _ __: ,__ _ + _
6.5 * "" " +
6.4 + *
6.3 + . _.... .„ *
6.2* +
6.1+ ' +
6.0 + _ »..,+.. _
5.9 + . • +
!\ 5.8 + « +
<•'••';_ 5.7 + __, _ . ___ _• +_
H 5.6 + . « '+
^ 5.5 + . • +
5.4 + . +
5.3 + ' """ •' ""'"+'
•>c • 4. I + • . +
-" 4.0 + » * '
3.9+ ? _ __. + • • • • •
3.8 + . +
3.7 + , +
3*6 + t ___''*__.
iJO 3.5 + . +
3.4 + . *
i"- 3.3+» . __ '____ *_
!J-'" 3.2 + "' . "' ' "" '" + "" "
3.1 +, +
!'-'. 3.0 + , __ __ +
S •••-". -" - -- - -••""• " "- "- • - pRO"Bi'T"~V'.
N^.—'
' ' 2*301 2.360 2'^IS 2.477 2,536 2.595 2*653 "
-------
J. Rt GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-1
INPUT ROSE SCALE Is' TRANSFORMED TO LOG(IO),
96 HR
JNPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE SIZE
20,
» DEATHS
NATURAL MORTALITY
I/
,S: DOSE
9 !
!"• 200.0000
1": 250.0000
JK 300.0000
ji3; 350.0000
!'-', 400.0000
I'v 450.0000
''=; RESPONSE RATE
LOG DOSE
2.3010
2.3979
2*4771
2.5441
2.6021
2.6532
= 0.0 OR
SAMPLE »
2U.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
1.0 AT POINTS
DEATHS
7.
6.
13,
12*
20,
20*
5 6
RATE( ADJ. )
.291 4
.2369
.6184
,5639
,9999
.9999
PROBIT
4 . 4 5 1 .0
4.2838
5.3009
5,1606
8.7191
8.7191
-
THERE IS AT LEAST ONE EXPECTED VALUE LESS THAN.5,
DOSE « RESPONSES EXPECTED
*'•'• 20C.OOOO
,--• 250.0000
"' 300.0000
'•*• 350.0000
':•• 400.0000
k' 450.0000
"i
i?: CONSTANTS USED I
3J;
"1 HETEROGENIE
i36'. NUMBER
37| DEGREES o
H
«• • TOTAL NUMBER
Lj
421
41! SUMMARY STATlSTI
44i
46
"'i
•"I NATURAL
ao>!
•', T STATISTIC *
it-
i- -
": CH
b^i
'•"[..
">'•',
POINT
7.
6,
13.
12.
20,
20.
N PROBIT C
TY FACTOR
OF POINTS
F FREEDOM-
DEVIATE
G
OF CYCLES
cs
AVG Y
AVG X
AVG T
MORTAL i TY
SLOPE
SLOPE/SE
INTERCEPT
I SQUARED
DOSE
4.0488
8.2115
1 2*6700
15.9987
18.0028
19.0601
ALCULATIONS ; .'.
3.051*
= 6
M • . ' • ••••.•... -:•".. " V .'
* 2.7760
= .9449
= 22
» 5,352813
a 2,489683
= 1,326270
* .082748 SE » ,10499s
= 7,828596 SE » 2,741304 ""
s 2,855792
B -14,137914
a 12,206326 SIGN IF« AT ,05 "*^
95« CONFIDENCE LIMITS
LOWER . UPPER
-------
(19
3o,
\4J.
|46,
"i
4H;
!"
4')-
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
3 '
X
3
3
=
=
3
=
=
•01
• OS
• 10
• 20
.50
• 8Q
• 90
• 95
• 99
1 '< 0 • S 3 0 7
1 7 I . ri 9 3 9
1 9 0 . 9'»5 ?.
217*3266
278.3660
356.5493
H05.8109
4 5 1 . S 7 5 6
551.7856
.0000
.0000
• 0000
«QOQ2
1 .2027
219.7223
3 I 8 • «» 7 I 8
262. 1750
285. 121 1
363.H600
13677.8219
1 201 M 18.98•"!
id.
-------
J. R. GinsON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-1 96 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBlT REGRESSION LINE.
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE* 7,o?Q6, INTERCEPTS -14.13797
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE3 *0fl27
6 LEVF.LS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
" $ " $ P«08 IT "VA
7.0 + +
6.9 * • _ _ _ _; __ ____ _ +
6.8 + *
6.7 + ' • +
6.6 * . "••.. •.'_•__ •+__•
6.5 * " " ~ "•""*".""
6*4 + * +
6.3* . . . _ __._'*_* __
6.2 + • *
'*•! 6.1 + ' • *
"j 6*0 + ' • _ _ • : • • + :. __
I'-" 5.9 + ~ " " ~" ~ , •-" ~ —- +" ~
j»j 5.8 + • . +
k 5.7 + _ _ _ _ __ _. __J '_ +_ __^
!?i| 5*6+ » ..-'.'/ ' . :•' . "•• • ''••'"','' + •;.... - '"'"•
|H 5.5 + ' . ' ' • ' • + '. •
|»j. 5. i + * __ : ; .___ * _ _
!-s: 5.3 + * « +
•; 5.2 + * * ' '
:H 5.1 + . • . _*_
|3'j 5*0 + . "•"•• ' •••,; -•••' :;." :". ' + " ' .y••'•:•.•."
'3-| 4.9 * ' . '" ..•••••• -,••+•••...
i"L *•* + - _ _•_••_:'••__.-••_. , ;.;'^_-' * .-.•-.'.• • '.•
3Jf 4*7 + . * •
4.6 + .
4*5 + .
4.4 +* .
3B| 4.3 + . ' ' ' . ' ."'•„",•' ' i.,-: :' ••• -.'-•. *
39[__ 4*2 + * * • . '_ -._^. .....'•;•.. :•.'•'-:" '"..•':•; 'Z,,'' .• .'' _t_
wi". 4.1 + * """ "" ~"" " '" ' " +"
J'l 4*0 + . +
J-1 3.9*. „ ' •...' '...'"'.'.... _ _, _— _Jl
4"" '3.8 + ' "' " ~~ --•—;—:-:..... .;,,;..--;" :.-.-,. .•••;- *
"j 3.7*' '.••• +
<>\ 3*6 '+ _ ••• ..- ' • _+_
'»; 3.5 + •""" " * "~ " ~" —-:*
,-i 3-1* * 4
|«| 3.3 + *
"i 3.2 + . . *
*! 3*1+ *
»'j 3.0 + • ' *
y-\
2*301 2*360 2.4J8 2.477 2.536 2.595__ 2*653
-------
J. R. GIBSON MK 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-2
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOG(iO).
1 HR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE SIZE <* 20. « DEATHS = u. NATURAL MORTALITY «
DOSE LOG DOSE SAMPLE « DEATHS RATE(ADJ.) PRQBIT
FJ o o • o o o n
I 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0
1500.QQOO
2000.0000
2500*0000
3000.0000
4000.0000
? • 6 9 9 0
3.0000
3.1761
3.3010
3.3979
3.477 l
3.6021
20.
20«
20.
20»
20.
20*
20.
o.
0*
2.
2.
9.
12.
20.
.0001
.0001
.0580
.0580
.5814
,9999
1 .280-9
1.2809
3.'(28 3
3.4283
4.8096
5.2050
8.7191
RESPONSE RATE = o.o OR i.o AT POINTS l 2 7
CONSTANTS USED pJ PRO»iT CALCULATIONS
HETEP-OGENIETY FACTOR = 1.0000
NUMRER OF POINTS = 7
DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 5
DEVIATE = 1.9600
G « .1792
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES = 25
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG Y = 5.068423
AVG X = 3.438975
AVG T = 1.983630
NATURAL MORTAL,ITY = ,045858
SLOPE « 11*183365
T STATISTIC = SI.OPE/SE = 4.630459
INTERCEPT = -33.393632
CHI SQUARED s 4.277163
B( 25) - B( 24) = .Q0051S1
SE
SE
.02321Q
2*415174
POINT
DOSE
95« CONFIDENCE LIMITS
LOWER
P
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
X
s
8
a
&
a
B
a
m
.
.
.
.
.
.
»
•
.
01
05
10
20
50
80
90
95
99
1679
1?32
20P2
?279
27)0
3223
3529
3803
4376
.
*
.
•
.
.
.
.
,
1 424
0450
107Q
5398
8270
7132
3976
5256
3904
1 144
1452
1646
1910
2470
2965
3197
3309
3763
.
*
.
.
•
.
»
*
.
5086
H199
3973
1988
4843
8933
7229
3766
7761
1977
21*3
2322
2495
2943
3739
4325
4896
6206
• 81 10
• 6655
• 1029
.7535
.4753
.8055
.4168
.6872
.6488
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-2 1 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE Op THE PROSIT REGRESSION LINE.
THE MAXIMUK LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE» u.tfl34, INTERCEPT* -33.3936,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE= .0459
7 LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
*
.$ PROBIT VA
7.0 * .+
6.9 + • +
6.8 + . +
6.7 + « * '
6,6+ . +
6,5 + . * +
6,4 + . * +
6.3 + . +
6.2 + . +
6.1+ » +
6,0+ » +
5.9 + . +
5.8 + * +
5.7 + • +
5.6 + . +
5»5 + » +
5.4 + ' t +
5.3 + ' . +
5.2 + .* +
5.1+ • +
5.0 * » +
4.9 + * +
4,8 + *. . +
4,7 + » +
4.6 + • +
4.5 + ' • +
4.4 + * +
4,3 + • +
4.2 + • +
4,1+ . +
4,0 + * *
3.9 + . . +
3.8 + * *
3.7 + . +
3.6 + . '*.
3.5 + * +
3*4 + • •* +
3.3 + * +
3.2 + • ' +
3.1+ • *
3.0 + • *
$ $ PROB-^VA
+ + + + + + +
2*699 2.849 3.000 3.151 3.301 3,152 3*602
-------
/7
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-2
INPUT DOSE SCALE 15 TRANSFORMED TO LOG(IO).
4 HR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL? • SAMPLE SIZE
20.
« DEATHS
o. NATURAL MORTALITY
DOSE
LOG DOSE
SAMPLE « DEATHS
RATE(ADJ. )
RESPONSE RATE » o.o OR 1,0 AT POINTS
CONSTANTS USED IN PROBJT CALCULATIONS
HETEROGENJETY FACTOR = 1.0000
NUMBER OF POINTS = 7
DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 5
f>EV I ATE = 1 .9600
' G ° .1005
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES = 7
SUMMARY STATISTICS
s
AVG Y
AVG X
AVG T
NATURAL MORTALITY
SLOPE
TATISTK = SLOPE/SE
INTERCEpT
CHI SQUARED
5
3
S
S
s
s
s
=
5.01*270
3.369816
3.009834
.000052
6*350874
6. 102595
-16.385002
4. 159465
SE n .001218
SE = 1.027218
PROBIT
500.0000
1 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0
1500.0QOO
2000.0000
2500-0000
3000.0000
4000.0000
2.699Q
3.0000
3.1761
3.3010
3.3979
3.«77 1
3.6021
20.
20*
20.
20*
20.
20.
20*
o.
0.
4.
6.
10.
14.
20.
.0001
.0001
.2000
.3000
.5000
.7000
.9999
1 »2809
1 .2809
4. 1584
4.4759
4.9999
5«52'40
8.7191
POINT
DOSE-
95* CONFIDENCE LIMITS
UPPER
P
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
a
=
a
a
3
a
3
a
a
.01
•05
• 10
• 20
• 50
• 8Q
• 90
• 95
.99
1002.
12P3.
1 463.
1716.
23?9.
3160*
3707.
4229.
5414.
2062
0672
7069
864Q
4483
6Q51
2516
1855
3840 .
663.
945.
1 139.
1422.
2092*
2812.
3215.
3575.
4344.
2120
7295
9798
7566
0581
8019
1 169
7102
1328
1252
1521
1691
1932
2590
3796
47J5
5707
8136
.5668
.41Q8
• 6428
.5044
. 14<48
«69Q6
.7958
.1557
.5277
-------
j. R. GIBSON MR 2149 'ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-2 ** HR
PLOT op THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WF.RE--SLOPE* 6.3^09, INTERCEPTS -i6»38bO,
NATUHAL RESPONSE RATE" .0001
7 LEVELS OF DOSE K£RE ADMINISTERED*
-------
J. R. GIPSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-2 8 HR
INPUT DOSE: SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO
INPUT DATA
CONTROL^ SAMPLE SIZE
20
DOSE
LOG HOSE
SAMPLE
DEATHS
DEATHS
BOG. onoo
1 ODD. 0000
150Q. QOOO
2000- OOOC
2500.0000
3000.0000
MOOO.OOOO
2.A99Q
3.. 0000
3. 1761
3.3010
3.3979
3.^77 1
3»*>02l
20*
20.
20«
20.
20.
20.
20.
0*
o.
6.
6*
14.
16.
20.
o. NATURAL MORTALITY
RATE'ADJ. )
.0001
.0001
.3000
.3000
.7000
.8000
.9799
PROSIT
1 .2809
1 .2809
4,4760
4.4760
5.5240
5.8414
8.7191
RESPONSE PATE = o.o OR i.o AT POINTS
CONSTANTS USED IN PROpjT CALCULATIONS
HETEPOGENIETY FACTOR = 1.0000
NUMBER OF POINTS = 7
DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 5
DEVIATE a 1.9600
• G a .0944
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES = 7
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG Y = 5.116717
AVG X = 3.341926
AVG T = 3,345420
NATURAL MQRTALITY a ,000021
SLOPE « 6.443944
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/SF = 6.378254
INTERCEPT = -16.418458
CHI SQUARED = 5,364687
SE
SE
,000893
1*010299
P
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
PO
a
X
a
s
a
a
a
s
•
INT
• 01
.05
• 10
•20
• 50
•80
• 90
»95
.99
DOSf
917.9227
1 170.9781
1333.2982
1560*3012
7107.714J
2847. 1801
3331 .9317
3793.8014
4839.6870
95* CONF
LOWER
6j 1,7459
863*8072
1036. Q831
1 286*2682
1885*5561
2548.8395
2916.5003
3244*2104
3939*6920
IDENCE LIMITS
UPPER
1 148.0123
1391 .9997
1545.8817
1762. 1457
2335. 49g9
3356.7516
4151 .4730
4971 .301M
7008.9857
-------
J« R. GIBSON MR 2119 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-2 8 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE= 6.M139, INTERCEPT" -16.1J
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE* .0000
7 Lf.VF.LS OF ROSE WERE AOKI^lSTERE0»
S PRORIT VA
7.0 +
6.9 +
6*8 +
6.7 *
6.6 +
6.5 +
6.1 +
6.3 +
6.2 +
6. 1 +
6.0 +
5.9 +
5.8 +
5.7 +
5.6 +
5.5 +
5.4 +
5.3 +
5.2 +
5. 1 +
5.0 +
H.9 '+
<4.8 *
1.7 *
M.6 +
M.5 *
4.M +
1.3 *
M.2 *
It I +
H.O +
3.9 +
3.8 +
3*7 *
3*6 +
3.5 +
3.H +
3.3 +
3»2 +
3.1 +
3.0 + .
S
+ •*•+ + + + H
+
2*699
+
+
»+'
* •»•
. +
* +
. • ' *
« +
. +
« *
• ' *
• +
i , •* *
• +
• +
*. +
. +
. +
. +
« +
» +
* +
* •«•
• +
* . +
. +
* « • *
. +
* t
. *
* +
. +
. +
+
. +
. +
. +
, *
+
. ' *
*
S . . !
H. + > + ^4^ + + ^. + + 4.^.^ + + ^ + ^i.^ + 4.-H. + -f + *-f + -t- + + -». + + -f + -». + + + 4-4- + ** + > + 4.+
•»• + + + + +
2.819 3*000 3*151 3.301 3,152 3.61
-------
J. R« GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-2
24 HR
30
31
i
32_
33;
3J;
35
L.
JO,
jl'
4?
43'
: .14
45
I''.
INPUT DOSE SCALE IS TRANSFORMED
INPUT DATA
CONTROL1 SAMPLE SjZE a
DOSE LOG DOSE SAMPLE
300.0000 2,4771 20,
350.0000 ?.^44l 20*
400.0000 2.6021 20*
450.0000
500.0000
550.0000
RESPONSE RATE =
CONSTANTS USED
HETEROfifN!
NUMBER
DEGREES
TOTAL NUMBER
SUMMARY STATIST
NATURAL
T STATISTIC
C
POINT
P = '01
P = .05
pa .10
P a *20
P - *50
P » «80
pa .90
P a .95
Pa ,99
2.6532 20«.
2*6990 20*
2.7404 20«
' 0.0 OR 1.0 AT PO
TO LOG( 10 ).
20. « DEATHS
» DEATHS
1 .
0.
3.
'4*
12*
12*
INTS 2
= o. NATURAL MORTALITY a .
RATEUDJ.) PROBIT
.0338 3.1725
.0001 1.2809
.1355 3.8994
. 1864 4. 1089
.5932 5.2354
,5932 5,2354
• ....
IN PROBJT CALCULATIONS
ETY FACTOR a t .
OF POINTS a 6
OF FREEDOM a 4
DEVIATE a 1 ,
G a ,
OF CYCLES a 20
ICS
AVG Y a 4
AVG X = 2
AVG T a 2
MORTALlTv a
SLOPE a 11
= SI.OPE/SE = 3
INTERCEPT a -26
HI SQUARED = 3
DOSE
369.2857
396,4001
43J.9J81
508*9606
599,7455
653.4836
701 »4649
801 * 161 2
0000
9600
2574
.659512
.677845
.800446
.016726 SE
.806487 SE
,862893
.956H35
.940106
95« CONFI
LOWER
210*6516
274.7129
315.8650
372* 1854
477.8703
549* 1 160
583*9857
613*5120
671 .8364
a .021747
a 3 •05638-5.
DENCE LIMITS ~~ ' ~"
374*2645
410.4984
432.0844
462.0H87
559.9261
758.1768
898,2751 "
1034. 827H
1351 ,6830
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-2
24 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE op THE PROOIT REGRESSION LIME*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WF.RE-~SLOPE» n.nu65, INTERCEPTS -26.95*..,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE* .0167
6 LEVFLS OF DoSE ftfrtE ADMINISTERED.
7.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5*
5.
5.
5.
4.
4.
4,
4.
4*
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3*
3*
3*
3.
3*
3*
0
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
0
9
0
7
b
5
4
3
2
1
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
*
4-
4-
+
+
•f
4-
+
•»•
+
+
+
+
+
+
4-
+
+
4-
•»•
+
•f
*
+
+
+
+
4-
4-
4-
+
4-
4>
4-
4-
4-
<•
* . * +
« *
. *
• .
o
4>
4-
4-
4>
PROBIT VA
4-
2*477
2.521
2.565
2.60?
2.653
2696
2«710
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-2 48 HR
23 i
25:
26 i
32.
33;
34 i
I
•35
42!
45.,
' 40
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LQG(lO).
INPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE si
DOSE LOG POSE
300.0000 2.4771
350.0000 2,1,441
400.0000 2.6021
450.0000 2.6532
500.0000 2.699Q
550.0000 2.7404
RESPONSE RATE = o.o OR i,
CONSTANTS USED IN PROBlT
HETEPOGE^IETY FACTOR
NUMBER OF POINTS
DEGREES OF FREEDOM
DEVIATE
G
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AV6 Y
AVG X
AVG T
NATURAL MORTALITY
SLOPF
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/SE
INTERCEPT
CHI SQUARED
POINT DOSE
P = .01 3M2.73M8
P = .05 373.7&10
P • « » 10 391 .435H
P « .20 H13.9&H1
P • .50 H60.7303
P = .80 512.7798
P * .90 5M2.2923
P = »95 5A7.9363
P « *99 619.3M89
ZF. = 20. « DEATHS
SAMPLE « DEATHS
20« 1 •
20. 0.
20. 6.
20. 5.
20. tf.
20* 20.
0 AT POINTS 2 6
CALCULATIONS
= I. 0000
a 6
= H
= 1.9600
= .1568
= 8
= 5.1Q9M24
= 2.6&9M81
= 2.099241
= .026657 SE
e 18.105105 SE
= 4,950383 •
= -H3.221985
a 9.141503" '—
•"""• 95* CONF
LO^ER
275.a578
317.6152
342. 1268
373.7832
436*8759
4-89.8049
513.4159
532.4561
568.5780
a o. NATURAL MORTALITY a ,
RATEUDJ.) PR081T
.0241 3.Q234
.0001 1.2809
.2809 4.4202
.2295 4.2598
.6918 5.5006
,9999 8.7191
'. •
- .023584
= 3.657314
I DENCE "CTMTTS "^ '
UPPER
37fl.0f 59
403.2674
417.73^5
436.6249
481.5279
553.6147
603. 1 178
648.9044
746.3441
-------
J, Rt GIBSON MR Z149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLF. 9923-2
48 HR
PLOT OF THF. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE op THE PROBIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE« 10.1051,' INTERCEPT** -43.2220,
NATURAL RESPONSE R.«TE» .0267
6 I
| 3
•>
10
i
7.0
'•-.. 6.9
13i 6.8
6.7
15 . 6,6
" 6.5
i i
"[. 6,3
19 6.2
j* 6 » 1
2' 6»°
I'- " 5.9
'"! 5.8
?> 5.7
M 5.6
H 5. 5
5.4
'" 5.3
" 5.2
3i 5.1
31 5.0
M 4,9
33 _. f»8
|31 **»7
35 4.6
36 4.5
37 4.4
\ll 2; 2
4.1
4.0
4?i 3.9
« 3.8
44 3.7
«i 3 . 6
«r " 3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
s' 3.0
IV
13
y-
.E
+
+
+
*
•f
*
*
+
+
+
•f
+
+
•f
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
•f
*
+
+
+
•f
•f
+
•f
+
+
*
*
•»•
*
•f
•«•
*
t
OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
$ PROSIT V/
'f *
+
+
„..
*
*
•»•
"+"
*
+
PRO 8! -
2.477
2.521
2.565
+
2.60'
*
2.653
+ •
2.696
*
2.740
-------
J. R. CiinSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-2 96 HR
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOGUOY. ""
INPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE SIZE = 20. » DEATHS a o. NATURAL MORTALITY
:;: . DOSE LOG DOSE
'•' i
300.0000 2.4771
350.0000 ?. 5-441
400.0000 ?.602J
13 450.0000 2.A532
500.0000 2.6990
i:. 550.0000 2.7404
M
RESPONSE RATE = o.o OR i.
,9"
K
'' THERE IS AT LEAST ONE E*P
2?
?3 DOSE * RESPONSES
r-4
75 300,0000 ^,
• •- 350.0000 3»
400.0000 .8,
_^ 450.0000 1 1 .
" 500.0000 20.
21 550.0000 20.
31
32!
3-! CONSTANTS USED IN PROBjT
34
3S HETEROGENIETY FACTOR
3"i NUMBER OF POINTS
3i DEGREES OF FREEDOM
38 DEVIATE
*i • G
40 . TOTAL NUMRER OF CYCLES
41
4?|
«; SUMMARY STATISTICS
JJ
-i AVG Y
«! AVG X
" . AVG T
j»i NATURALMOP^ALITY
^ SLOPE
^; T STATISTIC « SLOPE/SE
!51: INTERCEPT
CHI SQUARED
^ B( 25| - B( 24)
y
SAMpLE « DEATHS RATEtADJ,) PROBIT
20. 4. ."1833 4.Q971 " '
20. 3» .1322 3.8640
20« 8. .3875 4.7145
20. 11. .5406 5,1017
20. 20. .9999 8.7191
.20. 20. .9999 8.7191 ___,.
0 AT POINTS 5 : 6
ECTED VALUE LESS THAN st
EXPECTED
1 ,S2'82 ' " •
4.6674
9.7575
14.5444
17.6127
19.1076
CALCULATIONS :
= 3.4252
= 6
4 ,
= 2.7760
,72A2
» 25
» 5,179752
a 2.622106
a 1 ,82'<209 '
a .028619 SE a .055747
a 13*099450 SE a 4*021239 " ™" " --;"
a 3.257565
a -29,183540
= 13.70088S SIGNIF. AT .05
a .4179155
952 CONFIDENCE LIMITS
-------
?6
I?
,35;
40 i
4'. '
42:
43'
I :
l-Si
!,,;•
i.:!
JM
P
P
P
P
P
POINT
! .01
1 .05
! . 10
! »20
: .50
» «flO
! »9Q
•• .95
' .99
DOSE
270.3662
304.7683
324.8656
350.9886
406.9489
471.8315
509. 7722
612.5303
LOWER
18.8184
*»1 .9487
64. 131,5
106«6093
262.4626
M41 .81
'*64.3?
502.9058
UPPER
342.225T
368.2437
384.0281
406.433&"
'i B 6 . 4 1 3 1
922.4013
1'»97.8600
2271 ,96&8
5032.27Q6
... !...,„„._._ _„
i:
-------
Jt R. GIBSON MR 2M9 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-2 96 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROB1T REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES ^ERE--SLOPE= 13.0994, INTERCEPT* -29.1835,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATES .0286
/
8
V
in
1 1
i?
ti
!.;
li
16
\7
IV
**(:
21
r:
23
?4
25
26
fc^_^
:-9
30
31
3:
33
3J
35
3e
37
.13
31/
40
4'
.!?
43
J.1
45
46
4/
.:f
41
51
"5T
is
6 L
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6*6
6*5
6.4
6.3
6.2
6* 1
6*0
5.9
5.8
5.7
5*6
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
5. 1
5.0
4.9
4*8
4.7
4.6
4.5
H . q
4.3
4.2
4. 1
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3*6
3.5
3*4
3*3
3*2
3*1
3*0
/
EVELS OF D
*
+
+
+
+
+ .
+
+
+
+
+
*
+
+
+
+
•f
+
+
+
+
4-
4-
•f •
+
+
+
4-
4-
4-'
4>*
*
+
* *
* *
4- .
+ *
+ •
+
*
*+++++++++
2*477
$ PROBIT VA
•f
* *
_» .+_
_.«..._ * *
• '.-.'••• +
• * ' .. • . *
•.'",.• - *
'» ------ ^-
*
*
+
•4.
2*521 2*565 2.60? 2.653 2.696 . 2*740
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 21H9 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-3
INPUT DOSE SCALE IS TRANSFORMED TO LOG(IO).
1 HR
INPUT DATA
CONTROLS SAMPLE SjZE *
20. « DEATHS -
DOSE
LOG DOSE
SAMPLE
tt DEATHS
500.0000
1000.0000
I 5 0 0 . 0 o 0 0
2000.0000
2 5 0 0 . 0 o 0 0
3000.0000
3500*0000
2.A990
3*0000
3*1761
3.3010
3.3979
3.«477J
3.54M1
20.
20*
20*
20*
20*
20*
20*
0.
0.
6.
8,
12*
20*
20*
o. jNATURAL MORTALITY
RATE(ADJ* )
.0001
.0001
.3000
.'(000
.6000
.9999
.9999
PROBIT
1 .280.9
1 .2809
H.7470
5.2529
8.7191
8*7191
RESPONSE RATE = D.o OR i.o AT POINTS 1267
CONSTANTS USED p'N PROBlT CALCULATIONS
:.. • $'
HETEROGENIETY FACTOR a '1*0000
NUMBER OF POINTS = 7
DEGREES OF FREEDOM a 5
..DEVIATE » 1*9600
G 3 . .0906
TOTAL MUMPER OF CYCLES a 11
SUMMARY STATISTICS
1
A V G Y a •
AVG X o
AVG T =
NATURAL MORTALITY' =
SLOPE =
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/SE *
CHI SQUARED s
5.238328
3.332035
2.630H54
.000062
7*637281
6.512277
20*209358
9.30867H
SE
SE
.001258
1*172751
POINT
P
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
s
=
3
B
S
=
8
=
8
•01
• OS
• 10
»20
»so
»80
.90
• 95
.99
DOSE
95* CONFIDENCE LIMITS
LOWER
UPPER
991 .
1217.
1358.
1551 .
1999.
2576.
29«M .
32«2.
*»031.
3587
MM99
3772
0738
0736
M698
9628
512P
1287
698
932
1085
1301
1801
2346
2638
2891
3 'US
,7786
.3780
.5693
• 3557
.2231
.3982
.3171
.9677
• 108H
1205
1419
1551
1732
2187
2933
3M92
H054
5393
.6lQ5
.6091
.3798
.5303
• 0276
.3568
• 5351
• 0513
.7672
-------
J. R» GIBSON MR 21M9 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-3
1 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBlT REGRESSION LINE.
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES «E«E—SLOPE- 7.6373, INTERCEPT- -20.2094,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE= toooi
7 L(rVELS OF DOSE WERE ADM INI STEREO •
$ . $ PROSIT V/
PROBlT V
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2119 ACARTlA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-3
• V '*
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO
1 HR
INPUT DATA •: • '
CONTROL: SAMPLE SIZE « 20* « DEATHS
DOSE
LOGlnoSE
SAMPLE » DEATHS
soc.onoo
1000.0000
1500*0000
2000.0000
2500.0000
3000.0000
3500.0000
2.699Q
3..0000
3.1761
3.3010
3»3979
3.1771
3.5111
20'
20*
20*
20*
20.
20*
20.
Ot
2.
12*
12.
16.
20.
20«
o. NATURAL MORTALITY • .1
RATEUOJ* )
.0000
* 1000
.6000
.6000
.8000
.9999
.9999
PROBIT
• 9095
3.7181
5.2530
5.2530
5.8115
8.7J9J
8.7191
RESPONSE RATE « 0«0 OR 1.0 AT POINTS 1 6 7
CONSTANTS USED IN PROBlT CALCULATIONS
HETEROGENIE-T*- FACTOR a
NUMBER OF POINTS «
DEGREES or FREEDOM »
DEVIATE a
• G a
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES •
1.0000
7
5
1.9600
.0857
25
SUMMARY STATISTICS
' .:/« ; ' '- '. '.•
AVG Y
AVG X
AVG T
NATURAL MQRTALITY
SLOPE
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/SE
INTERCEPT
CHI SQUAP^D
B( 25) - B( 2MJ
' 3.259072
2.893277
.000022
5.915191
6.69M216
•13.923680
6.325305
,0060771
SE
SE
.000000
.883623
POINT
DOSE
95* CONFIDENCE LIMITS
LOWER
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
a
9B
a
2
a
8
a
a
•
.01
•05
•10
•20
• 50
• 80
.90
• 95
.99
639
833
960
1 139
I5fll
2195
2605
3000
3912
• 5710
.8157
.5113
• 9573
.8538
.0182
.1265
.8681
• 3H78
107
588
715
902
1377
1957
2285
2577
^201
.0129
• 5928
• 2222
.7815
• 6071
• 8311
• 1603
• 5098
.6111
826
1020
1111
1319
1770
2550
3177
3339
5521
.
*
.
.
*
.
•
.
.
3892
9137
8001
1871
1096
27J2
65>(3
1379
1170
-------
Jl
J. R. GIBSON MR 21H7 ACARTJA TONSA SAMPLE 9723-3 H HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIM"M LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE—SLOPE- 5.7152, INTERCEPT- -13.7237,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE= .0000
7 LFVf.LS OF DOSE WERE AD** I N I
-------
1L
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTlA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-3
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOGMQ).
8 HR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL? SAMPLE SIZE = 20. M DEATHS = o. NATURAL MORTALITY
DOsE LOG DOSE SAMPLE » DEATHS RATEUOJ.) PROBIT
500.0000
1000*0 C1 DO
1500.0000
2000.0000
250D.OOOO
3000.0000
3500.0000
7.A99Q
3.0000
3. 1761
3.3010
3.3979
3»t»77 |
3.5441
20.
20*
20.
20"
20"
20*
20*
8*
10*
12*
20.
20.
20.
20.
.4000
.5000
.6000
,9999
.9999
.9999
.9999
4.7471
5. QOQO
6.2529
8.7J91
8. 7191
8.7191
fl.7191
RESPONSE RATE = n.o OR i.o AT POINTS
CONSTANTS USED JN PROBjT CALCULATIONS
2,9137
7
5
2,5710
.5150
,7
HETEROGENIETY FACTOR =
NUM0ER OF POINTS =
DEGREES OF FREEDOM »
DEvj ATE s
G =
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES =
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG Y
AVG X
AVG T
NATURAL MORTALITY
SLOPE
T STATIST^ = SLOPE/SF
INTERCFPT
CHI SQUARED
5.656787
3.092627
1.063578
.000000
3.337525
3.58274Q
-4,664934
14.568391
SE a
SE =
.000042
.931557
SIGNIF* AT .05
POINT
DOSE
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
B
S
a
s
s
a
a
=
a
*
.
•
.
.
.
.
.
•
01
05
10
20
50
80
90
95
99
158
252
3?4
440
786
1406
1904
2447
3916
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
061 t
9230
9687
2260
7533
0523
7401
3090
0848
4
9
28
193
834
1229
1537
2!62
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7936
1 168
8534
1081
941 1
8155
0417
4088
9733
95S CONFIDENCE LIMITS
LOWER UPPER
398,26&4
533.4014
626.4280
767.7662
1219.4155
3'104.505l
7372.55Q7
16566.7288
81811.8242
-------
J. P. GIBSON MR 2149 ACAR.TU TONSA. SAMPLE 9923-3 8 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROFIT RECESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOO ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE= 3.3375, INTERCEPT^ -4.6649,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE= .0000
7 LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
$ . $ $ $ PROHIT VJ
. • *
•¥
•f
• + •
t + + *
3.122 3.262 3.403 3.544
-------
' J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-3 24 HR
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOGJIO).
INPUT DATA .
CONTROL: SAMPLE SIZE = 20. » DEATHS = o. NATURAL MORTALITY • -.
i ' ' * ~ .._... .................
; DOSE LOG DOSE SAMPLE * DEATHS RATE(ADJ») PROOIT
20n.OPOO 2.3010 20. 0. .OOOl 1.2809
2BO.OOOO 2.?979 20. Z» .1000 3.7183
300,0000 2.^771 20» V.» •05°0 3»35.48
" 350.0000 2«S4M1 20* 5. .2500 4,3258
1;! 400.0000 2.6021 20. 4. .2000 4,1585
'": 450.0000 2.6532 20*--- - ..-.:.?•..— - ..•..4.500 4 . 87.46.
14.
'••.. RESPONSE RATE = 0«0 OR 1,0 .AT POINTS . L __ . . :
w: . '
''•: CONSTANTS USED IN PROBIT CALCULATIONS . _,.. ..._1 _._ .
•\ HETEROGFNIETY FACTOR = 1*0000
'•".. NUMBER OF POINTS = 6
DEGREES OF FREEDOM =4
:> DEVIATE = 1.9600
- G = .3063 ^ __ _'
^ TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES =25 " " " ~ "
V?
3 "
;•' SUMMARY STATISTICS " """ " "" '"T~" r"" " ——
AVG Y
AVG X
AVG T
MORTALITY
SLOPE'
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/SE
INTERCEPT
CHI SQUARED
B( 25) - B( 2M)
H. 189020
4.2H1 139
-.000000
5.505771
3.5^1563
9.a72*fOa
3.692055
.0031514
SE
SE
1.55M616"
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
POINT
' .01
= .05
> . 10
: »20
' *50
' .80
'• »90
• «95
' .99
DOSE
95s5 CONFIDENCE LIMITS
LOWER UPPER
189.
252.6273
29H.Q800
353.4937
502.6197
714.6563
859.0400
999.9969
1329.7186
8**»9029
158O349
217.89Q5
.2895
.7190
.4613
6J9.78Q3
684.9235
'0525
296
333
M06
793
171M
2578
3616
6826
.9310
.2371
.59J3
.0369
• 1580
• 3121
• 68|2
• 0150
• 4675
.
V.J.
-------
3S
J. R. GIBSON MR 21M9 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-3 2H HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROQlT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WF.RE--SLOPE = S.SOBS, INTERCEPT* -9,8721,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE* -.0000
6 LEVEL? OF DQSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
'i
"i 7.0
"i 6.9
>?i 6.8
.3 6.7
i
6.6
*
+
+
•»•
+
*
+
+
+
*•
+
•«•
+
t
4-
+
+
+
+
+
+
*
+
+
*
+
+
+
+•
+
*
*.
f A
.
«
$ _ PROBIL y*
+ ** + + + +
w! 2.301 2.360 2.M18 2^77 2.536 -2.595 2.653
f : : " ~ "
, V.
-------
1 J. R. GlRSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-3
H8 HR
1
J
.1
s
A
9
1'
1 1
1?
13
14
15
16
I/
1"
IV
"0
21
22
23
?4
25
76
27
23
29
30
31
32
3J
3-1
36
37
3S
39
40
4!
42
43
4.1
46
47
48
''
ill
51
S3
') .'l
S6
»
! INPUT DOSE SCALE
INPUT DATA
i
( CONTROL:
DOSE LO
1
j
; 200.0000
! 250,0000
300.0000
i 350.0000
i .400.0000
! 450.0000
!_.. CONSTANTS USED I
HETEROGENIE
NUMBER
DEGREES 0
-
TOTAL NUMBER
._ .
SUMMARY STATIST!
'
— "'
T STATISTIC =
CH
POINT
P = .01
P = .05
P = • 10
P = »20
P = .50
P = .80
P = »90
P = .95
P = .99
IS TRANSFORMED TO LOG(lO).
SAMPLE sj
G DOSE
2.3010
2.3979
2.5441
2.6021
2,6532
N P ROB IT...
TY FACTOR
OF POINTS
F FREEDOM
DEVIATE
G
OF CYCLES
CS
AVG Y
AVQ X
AVC, T
MORTALITY
SLOPE
Sl.OPE/SE
INTERCEPT
I SQUARED
DOSE
125,7325
173.7207
254.3159
379. 1291
565. 1983
827.41 36
1 143.2120
ZE = 20. « DEATHS
SAMPLE » DEATHS
20. 2. "
20. &»
20. 3.
20. 6.
20. 14.
20» 13»
CALCULAT JONS
= 1.0000
a 6
= 1 .9600
a .2096
a 10
=" 2.51 8 363 "'";""
= 2.027917
= .000000 SE
= 4.853135 SE
a 4.281618
= -7.5l5203
= 7.405735
95S CONF
LOWER
54.8692
98.8935
134.9015
194.5700
337*6680
465. 0736
54Q.3840
610.3148
764.8818
o. NATURAL MORTALITY » ,i
RATE(ADJ») PROBIT
. 1000 ~" 3.7183
,3000 4.4760
,1500 3.9636
.3000 4.4760
.7000 5.52*10
.6500 5.3849
^
=> .000003 '•• /;;- .- ' .-'•'•^. • '•'•" •
s 1 .133481
./•'*'.!'
IDENCE LIMITS
UPPER
172,7627 v ;;
217.2021 ; \'"
246.2771 .
289.5756
458.27Q9
913.8287
1333. 77Q9
1826. 58Q9
3302.5648
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-3 48 MR
!
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PRORIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE= 4.nssii INTERCEPTS _7fbi52T
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE= .0000
6 LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
! 9 i
| . . .. , _ . .. .._....,.._ ._ ,. - -
'"'-"'. 7.0 + . . . *
i"! 6.9 + ' +
j'": 6.8 + _ _.._._. '._. + .,.
I". 6.7 + " " """ --- — - +
!ui 6.6 + ' *
j"; 6.5 + ' _ ....._.._•.._..__ _. , _. : *...
!">:" 6.4 + ' """ " *
'.'"" 6.3 + .. ' *
K. 6.2 + _..__ .... 1 *..
K 6.1+ •••'•. ' *
:2-i 6.0+ • •': . • ' *
J2'L 5,9.+ : .' _.. _. _.:.._/ _ :___ _._._±,
!"' 5.8 + ' . . .. *
;«; 5.7 + . . . *
I- 5.6 + __ • *
i»r 5.5 + ' " , " '"';•* ~ *•
!;ti 5.4 + *
'-! 5.:3 + . . ... _; • ••.... _.__.;..^_._ •*!.
" 5.2 + • ' " "" "" • *
": 5,1 + *
13:-... 5,0+ _._.. _.._ _ _•___ _ _*_
j3'; 4,9+ • *
:3:j 4,8 + ' "• . *
'; 4,7+ . _ .t_ _ __ J.__ __....*..
4,6 + " " " »' """• " *.' " '* "*
4,5 + • •••'.+
4.4+ « . _ _'*''__' _'_*_
4.3 + '' •' . """" "~r "'' " : ' *~
i 4,2 + . +
: 4.1+ . _•_'__'•__' I '•_ ______ _ _ ___. A
4.0 + . " ----- - - - - - - - •- +-
.3,9+ , * '' ' ' ' *'
3.8 + . ....._. : *..
3.7 +« « *
3.6 + *
3.5 + ;*_
i 3.4 + +
••••• 3.3 + _ *
:•"•' 3.2 + _ +
K 3.1 + "' " " " - ----- - -+-
,,'": 3.0 + *
* + * + + * +
2.301 2.360 2.418 2,477 2,536 2,595 2.653
-------
! J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-3 96 HR
['" INPUT DOSE SCALE IS TRANSFORMED TO LOG (10 j,
INPUT DATA
»' CONTROL? SAMPLE SIZE = 20. w DEATHS .» .I.V_..NAT^JRAL MORTALiTY_a_.
; i
[
f': DOsE LOG DOSE SAMpLE » DEATHS RATE(ADJ.) PROBIT
'" 200*0000 2*3010 20* ** • .0001 1*280.9
250.0000 2.3979 20* 8t ,2309 1.2643
1 • 300.0000 2 * « 7 7 1 20* 5 , _ .0386 _ 3 . 2326
I3I 350.0000 2.5441 20* 12. .4873 4.9681 .
400.0000 2.602J 20. 17. ,8077 5.8694
'*!.. 450.0000 2,6532 20*. 2 0 . »?999_. 8«.71.?1 :_
lo!
I?' •
i «
'••J.. RESPONSE RATE = o.o OR i.o AT POINTS 6 __ : ^
J • .'•••..;.''•
J;: CONSTANTS USED IN PROBlT CALCULATIONS _____J _._,,__ __._.._ ,_...
*\ HETEROGE.-NIETY FACTOR = i »oooo
", _ , NUMBER OF POINTS = __*>..._ , , „
«• DEGREES OF FREEDOM a 4 vf v'- '...
K! ., DEVIATE = 1 .9600 ,:••>•'
17, .' G a *3173 • __'''•'!__ _^1-1__^_._ :'-^' ' _
Js" TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES a 25 " •-----• - - - --- -
!^ _ '___'__
U SUMMARY STATISTICS .. - :;: ...
32 "'•'..'.••".-'
33 AVG Y = 5.459048 ' ' ;_ _ ^ /
'*"" AVG X = 2.572912 '. "":'"~ " ".'"""""
|3> AVGT= 1.378705
p" NATURAL KORTALITY = .219872 SE a .051516 _
\v SLOPE' = 20.743703 SE a 5 .96i"| 683" " ~~"
|J: T STATISTIC = SI.OPE/SE a 3.179504
39; I N T ER CEPj .a -47.91 26 68 _ _ _ .
«f CHI SQUARED a 7.795070
J1 B( 25) - B( 2H) ° -.0027611
4? .
NONSIGNIFICANT REGRESSION
4;! ' ' 95* CONFIDENCE LIMITS
«•; POINT DOSE LOWER UPP.E-? .
4V
so p a .01 274.5599 180»ll96 310.8251
s>: p a ,Q5 296.1322 213.6293 327.0756
>•/"'" p » .jo 308,3184 233*8084 336,3231"
L-! P « .20 323.7507 260*4922 348.3067
w! P a ,50 355,H529 317.HQ5 376.J858
s,; p m .so 390.2594 368.Q377 426.1644
J p » .90 409,7931 386.6968 467.9923
-------
!*!-
f i; •
P =
P °
• 9B
• 99
42&.656S
399.8838
509.31 12
601.1&22
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2119 ACARTlA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-3 96 HR
PLO'T op THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE» 20,74371 INTERCEPT* -i7.9i2~>,
NATURAL RESPONSE RAT£ = .2199
6 LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
7 ""' .$ PROBIT"VA
7.0 * . • *
6.9 * , _ _ __.. _*
6.8 + • *
6,7 * . • + •
6.6+ _•._•_.* •_
6.5 + ~'~* " " " • — V ~"
6.1+ . +
«t. 6.3 + ...... _ - '. .•.__"__ .„*•_
"!' 6,2 + '"" . . '.':' •"•" • ~"' ' " •+"
?o; 6, I + . !" -' * • *
"i 6.0 + •.._ __-....• _±.
5.9+ .«...*
5.8 + . • +
5.7 + _ • +
5.6 + • *
-6! 5.5 + ' ' - »//..:> . . +•
"j 5.1 + ••" -. • '.__:_ _ +
5.3 + • +
' 29j 5 . 2 + » '+
5.1+ _ * '__ *
s.o +. ' • :"~' " v •»'"""' );iv; - ""+'"
Y< 1.9 + *«.-.'.- •':•••.'' . *
" 1.8 + •' _l_^'_ - t
:>••"" 1.7 + . " " '.' » '""" "' " " +"
|" 1.6 + • ......... ^
1.5 + » *
1.1 + ' "•' :""'" "" "^/V; ~ ' ' ">"
1.3 + • *
1,2 + , _'___- __^-*_
1.1 + "" ~"; " " " " "• *"" ' ' ' '"*"
1.0 + • ' '*'
3.9 + • . *
3.8 + •••"• ' " « " '•" • .~: • "*" »'
3.7 + » +
3.6+ » _>
3.5 + " "" "•"""" " " ~""~ +'
3.1 + • +
3.3 + . '__•_*
3.2 * » * " " " *
3» 1 + * ' *
3.0 + ' *
»; S
j
•'I + + + + + * *
i 2.301 2.3AO 2.118 2.177 2.536 2.595 2.653
-------
J. P. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-4
INPUT POSE SCALE: is TRANSFORMED TO LOGOO).
I HR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE SIZE •
20. « DEATHS =
o. NATURAL MORTALITY
DOSE
LOG HOSE
SAMPLE « DEATHS
500.0000
1000.0000
150C.OQOO
2000.0000
2500.0000
3000*0000
4000.0000
2.6990
3.POOO
3. 176" 1
3.3010
3. 3979
3««77l
3.602 i
20.
20*
20.
20*
20.
20*
20«
0.
o.
2.
8.
7.
10.
18.
RATE(ADJ*
.0001
.0001
. 1000
.MOOD
.3500
.5000
.9000
PROBIT
1 .2809
I .2009
3.7183
1.7471
1.6151
5.QOOO
6.2817
RESPONSE RATf: = 0.0 OR 1.0 AT POINTS 1 2
CONSTANTS
IN P R 0 B I T CALCULATIONS
IETY FACTOR = 1.0000
NUMBER OF POINTS = 7
DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 5
DEVIATE * 1.9600
G = .1178
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES « 25
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG Y = 4.829682
AVG X = 3.390B26
Avr, T = 4.297367
NATURAL MORTALITY = -.000000
SLOPE = 5.289955
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/SE = 5.7102H8
INTERCEPT - -13.106047
CHI SQUARED a 4.875936
B< 25) - B( 24) « -.0063013
SE
SE
.000001
.926397
POIMT
DOSE
95« CONFIDENCE LIMITS
LO^ER UPPER
P
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
a
s
a
e
s
B
=
B
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01
05
10
20
50
80
90
95
99
961
1293
1515
1831
2646
38|7
4623
5415
72P5
.
.
.
.
.
*
.
.
.
5328
5233
1359
9661
8056
825Q
7309
8900
8457
576
898
1133
1491
2353
3276
3819
1320
5421
.
.
.
.
.
.
*
.
.
8059
2716
5862
2155
0215
6645
4273
091 1
4550
12*7
1569
1779
2088
3036
5003
6626
8384
13088
.4959
.2298
.6640
.4371
• 81 1 1
.7267
.69Q5
.9461
• 8878
-------
y/
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-H I HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PKORIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE= 5.7900, INTERCEPTS -13.1060,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATES -.0000
7 LEVELS OF HOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5
6M
. f
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.1
5.3
5.2
5. 1
5.0
U • Q
" • 7
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
H.2
4. 1
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3- *4
• *t
3.3
3*2
3.1
3.0
+
*
•f
+
+
•f
•»•
+
+
+
•f
+
+
+
•f
*
4-
•t-
+
+
^.
+
•«•
4-
•f
+
+
f
+
+
* +
+
•»•
.+
* +
« +
« •*•
f +
* +
» +
« ' +
« +
* +
* * A
• ^ .V
* ' *
* . +
. • +
. *
^
• . T
• *
* +
• +
. +
. +
» +
»» +
• +
« *
. . 4
f T
• *
• +
• +
. *
$ « PROSIT
+ + + * + +' +
2*699 2.8*19 3.000 3.151 3.301 3.^52 3.602
-------
J, ». GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TOMSA SAMPLE 9923-4
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO
4 HR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE SIZE » 20. « DEATHS » o. NATURAL MORTALITY
DOSF LOG DOSE SAMPLE «* DEATHS RATE(ADJt) PRQQIT
500*0000
1000.0000
1500.0000
2000.0000
2500.0000
3000.0000
4000.0000
2.6990
3-. 0000
3. 1761
3.3010
3.3979
3. «77 1
3.AQ21
20.
2Q«
20»
20*.
20.
20*
20.
o.
2.
2*
8*
9.
14.
20.
.0001
.0529
.0529
.3686
.4212
,6843
.9999
1 .2809
3.3827
3.3827
4.6650
4.8017
5.4794
8.7191
RESPONSE RATE = o.o OK i.o AT POINTS 1 7
CONSTANTS USED IN PROfljT CALCULATIONS
HETEROGENIETY FACTOR = i.oooo
NUMBER OF POINTS = 7
DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 5
PEv l ATE = 1 .9600
G = .1628
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES = 25
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG
AVC,
AVG T
NATURAL MORTALITY
SLOPE
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/SE
INTERCEPT
CHI SQUARED
B( 25) - B( 2H)
5. 128573
3.101HU
1.791223
.049687
7.306C10
M.858177
-20.016489
5.3851H5
.000077M
SE
SE
.028106
1*520326
POINT
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
a
=
s
a
a
3
a
a
a
.01
• 05
• 10
•20
• 50
• 8Q
.90
•95
• 99
1 180
1459
1634
1875
2437
3169
3635
4071
5034
OOSE
.4545
•8383
•9Q43
•2725
•8643
• 2367
• 1867
•1238
• 6563
681
967
1 163
1450
2141
2839
3184
3479
4081
95« CONF1
LOWER
.1731
.0008
.4563
• 3795
• 2805
• 6626
• 46Q8
• 3088
• 7350
IDENCE L
1505
1761
1918
2136
2708
3821
4729
5673
8032
IMITS
UPPER
• 5131
.55fl«»
• 9963
• 2370
.0210
• 67(j9
.2368
• 28Q8
.7491
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 21M9 ACARTJA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-H H HR
PLOT OF THE 'MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBIT REGRESSION LINE.
THF; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WE;RE--SLOPE« 7.3H60, INTERCEPT* -20.0165,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE» .0497
7 LEVELS OF DOSE W£RF ADMINISTERED.
S PROBIT
7.0 + ' +
6.9 + +.
6*8 + +
6.7 + +
6.6 + .+
6*5 + , +
6.4 * . . +
6*3 + . +
6.2 * . +
6.1+ ,+
6.0 + • +.
.5.9 + . +
\^ s • a + • +
f 5.7 + , +
5.6 * . +
5.5 + . +
.5.1 + . • +
5.3 + . +
1 5.2 + . *
',5.1+ . *
•5.0+' . +
' .4 . 6 + * . 4-
M.5 + • . . *
M.M + .; . +
H.3 + . +
H.2 + . . +
Mt 1 + . +
H.O + t +
3.9 + . +
3.8 + . +
3.7 + * +
3.6 + « +
3.5 + . +
3.H + . +
3.3 + * .» +
3.2 + . *
3.1+ • ' *
3.0 + , +
5 '
2»699 2«8«49 3.000 3.151 3,301 3.H52 3.602
-------
J. P. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-4
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO
8 HR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE SIZE
20*
DEATHS »
o. NATURAL MORTALITY = -.
DOSE LOG HOSE SAMPLE « DEATHS RATEUDJO
soo . OOOH
looo.oooo
1500*0000
2000.0000
2500.0000
3000.0000
4QOO.OOOO
?.699Q
3.POOO
3. 1761
3.3010
3.3979
3.«77l
3.6021
20.
20.
20»
20..
20.
20.
20.
0.
2.
7.
8.
14.
18.
20.
RESPONSE RATE - o.o OR 1,0 AT POINTS i 7
CONSTANTS USED IN PROiilT CALCULATIONS
HETEROGfNIETY FACTOR = J.OOOO
NUMBER OF POINTS = 7
DEGREES OF FREEDOM = .5
OEV I ATE » 1.9600
G = .0912
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES = 25
.0001
. 1000
.3500
,4000
.7000
,9999
PRQBIT
1«28Q9
3.7183
4.6151
4.7471
5.5240
6.2817
8.7191
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG Y = 5.180862
AVG X = 3.309959
AVG T = 3.058541
NATURAL MORTALITY = -.000000
SLOPE * ' 5«428868
T STATISTIC - SLOPE/Sr = 6.490285
INTERCEPT = -12.788469
CH! SQUARED = 3.836403
H( 25) - B( ?4) = -.0029279
SE
SE
.000000
.836461
POINT
952 CONFIDENCE LIMITS
UPP£R
P
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
3
a
s
m
s
c
3
a
m
t
•
*
«
.
.
.
.
*
"I
05
10
20
50
80
90
95
99
704.
94 I .
1097.
1323.
189Q.
2701 .
3256.
3798.
5071 .
9180
1369
9255
1863
7935
8875
2328
7038
6539
436
655
812
1049
1658
2386
2803
3183
4012
.
.
•
*
.
.
.
.
.
181 1
4179
5776
9294
9754
5239
9412
7483
8675
I
1
1
2
3
4
5
920
156
309
S28
122
235
152
134
7694
.2875
•8871
.8313
.5608
.0816
.9023
.9332
• OOQl
• I 172
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTJA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-4 8 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PRONIT REGRESSION LINE.
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE= 5.4239, INTERCEPTS -12.
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE= -.0000
7 LEVELS OF DOSE W£«E JADMIMI STEREO•
f
$ PROBIT V*
7.0 * *
6.9 + +
6.8 + +
6.7 + » +
6.6 + . *
6.5 + . +
6.4 + . +
6.3 + « +
6.2 * * • *
6.1 + • +
6*0 + « +
5.9 + . +
.- 5.8 + "• • +
5.7 + . +
•, 5.6 * '' » +
; 5.5 + . »* +
' 5.4 + , *
5.3 + • • • . +
„. 5.2 + '-• . +
''5.1 * "" . +
•5.0 * . . +
4.9+ • ' ; ' * +
4.8* ,„ « • *
'?••
.4.7 * V; * * +
4.6 * ";' •.;«.'•' * . *
: 4.5 * . • +
;4.4 + . ' +
,'4.3 + . *
• 4.''2 + » +
4.1+ . . +
4.0 + . *
3.9 + . +
3.8 + . *
3.7 + * . +
3.6 + . *
3.5 + . • +
3.4 + , +
3.3 + '. + •
3.2 + . *
3.1+ • ' +
3.0 + * *
« PROBf^VA
+ * + + + + +
2*699 2.849 3.000 3.151 3.301 3,452 3.602
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 21M9 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-H 2H HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKFLIMOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PRORIT REGRESSION LINE.
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WF.RE-^SLOPE= 3.3972, INTERCEPT= -4
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE= .0000
A LEVFLS OF DOSE ft'ERF ADMINISTERED.
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-4
INPUT DOSE SCALE IS TRANSFORMED TO LOG(IO).
24 HR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE SIZE =
20. « DEATHS =>
DOSE
20!?.nnon
250.0000
300.0 000
350.0000
MOO. 0000
450.0000
LOG POSE
2.3979
? » « 7 7 I
2»544i
2.6021
2.A532
SAMPLE
20.
20-
20»
20.
20«'
20»
o. NATURAL MORTALITY
» DEATHS
*»•
2.
3.
3,
IN
10.
RATE(ADJ»
.2000
. 1000
. 1500
. isoo
.5500
.5000
PROBIT
4.
3.7183
3.9636
3,9636
5. 1251
5.QOOO
IETY FACTOR =
NUMBER OFr POINTS a
DE<;^EES or FREEDOM =
' DEVIATE =
G =
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES =
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG Y '=
AVG X =
AVG T = ,>.
NATURAL MO
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-4 . 48 HR
33.
134
'35
i
36
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED
INPUT DATA
CONTROL '•
DOSE L
200.0000
250.0000
300.0000
350.0000
400-0000
450.0000
CONSTANTS USED
HETEROGfNI
NUMBER
D E G R E E' S
TOTAL NUMBER
SUMMARY STATIST
NATURAL
T STATISTIC
C
POINT
P = .01
P = .05
P s • 1 0
P = »20
P = .50
P = .80
P » .90
P = »95
P » .99
SAMPLE SIZE *
OG DOSE SAMPLE
2.3010 20.
?O979 20.
?.<477l 20*
2.5441 20*
2.6021 20.
2.6532 20*
IN PROBIT CALCULA
ETY FACTOR = 1.
OF POINTS = 6
OF FREEDOM = 4
DEVIATE = 1 »
G =. «
OF CYCLES =» 3
ICS
AVG Y = 4
AVG X = 2
AVG T = 1
MORTALITY =
SLOPF = 3
= SLOPE/SE = 3
INTERCEPT = - 1
HI SQUARED = 1
DOSE
83, 1 140
128.6794
162,3544
2 1 5 » 2 4 7 0
369. m3 j
633.0710
839.31 60
1059.37MO
1639.5157
TO LOG( 10 ).
20. « DEATHS
« DEATHS
4.
5.
7.
8.
13.
12.
TIONS
0000
9600
3227
.7851 17
,507304
.686163
.000000 SE
.592626 SE
.450393
,222971
.434065
9 5 * C 0 N F
13.8186
37.7238
64.2247
121.1914
317.6564
4P1 ,4188
580.9867
676*6371
897.8688
a o. NATURAL MORTALITY =
RATE< ADJ. ) PROBIT
.2000 4, 1585
.2500 4.3258
.3500 4.6J51
.4000 " 4.7471
.6500 5.3849
.6000 5,2529
'
.' •. -•
= .000305
s 1.041222
'.-•''•. •' .
IDENCE LIMITS
UPPER
I 37 •6891
183.1470
213.95Q5
260.7265
489.1260
1586,9988
3023.9521
5163,9968
' 14131 .2307
-------
j J. R. GIBSON MR 2119 ACARTlA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-1 18 HR
,("•! " " ; "~"
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE Of THE PROBIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE* 3.5926, INTERCEPT* -4,22'-^,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE= ,0000
6 LEVELS OF DOSE WERfT ADMINISTERED.
7.0 + *
": 6.9 + +
": 6.8 + ..' . . ..' _ .; _ *
"! 6.7 + +
!>••; 6.6 + . • +
h: 6.5 + •. . _ +
j"i 6.1 + ' +
i ! 6.3 + /. . ' ." *
''•-•: 6.2 + . ..... _ • . _ '_ * +_
"! 6. i + ' '. •'•''" • +"
H 6.0+ . +
?ii 5.9 + • : _ .*__.
»; 5 • 8 + . . * ' "
"! 5.7 + +
?-'!. 5.6 + ' .__ '_ ,.' +_ ..
'•' 5.5 + ' • ..'.'.'•.'*
i'*! 5.1 + '.••• +
|7',. 5.3 + -. ' ; ..._ ...«......„_._ ,._. + ..._-.
i38' 5.2 + • * +
!" 5.1 + . • +
I*"', 5.0 * . _ _ _JL r __*..„..
i" 1.9 + . . '» : '•..:'--- .. " +
J3\__ 1.7 + "' _ • _*.: -__; _*____
|^' 1.6+ , ' ** "' - - - • - i—•
!:l 1 * 5 + "' . +
' '•"• 1«1 + * +
!3':" 1.3 + .•» "" :; " " ~"~ ~ --i—•
; J-i; 1.2+ . . .'•.-'.*
'": 1.1 +* . •••'•______'•' :, * '
i.o +. " " " ~~ """+"
3.9 + +
3.8 + +
3.7 + ' ' ~ ' ~ • ~" ; *;"~
3.6 + • +
3.5 + . .+ '
'- . 3.1 + ' " ' "" ' : ~'~ " * "
!"i 3.3 + *
i'1"' ''3.2+ , '_ _ +
|4v:' 3*1 + ~ "" "~ '" '" *~"
I"1' 3.0 + • *
'v; + 4. + + + ~" ""+ ""' " + """
|».| 2.301 2.360 2.118 2.177 2.536 2.595 2*653
M| ' '' "" " "" ""
-------
J. R. GIHSON MR 2149 ACARTU TONS* SAMPLE 9923-4
96 HR
INPUT DOSE Sc
INPUT DATA
'' CONTROL
] DOSE
2 on. OP, no
25n«oonn
';' 300. onoc
35o«onon
400*0000
: 450*0000
i .-
1
ALE IS TRANSFORMED
• SAMPLE SIZE »
LOG DOSE SAMPLE
7.3010 20*
? . ? 9 7 9 20*
2.'i77l 20*
2.5441 20*
2.6021 20*
2.6532 20*
CONSTANTS USED IN PROBlT C.ALCULA
19
HETEROGE
V ' •
M U M f^
r
;r OEf'KEF
;;:
„,
:'. TOTAL NUMp
r^ SUMMARY STATj
hi-:.
?'."'
I3"' MAT Us
|3.
T STATIST I
36
13,-
1 3"
.3'-
1
POINT
P = .01
i°~ P = *05
:' P a • 10
!*' P = *20
:', . P = »5n
P = »«0
4'-'
s P • »90
P « .95
n B .OO
N I E. t Y FACTOR = 1 .
ER OF POINTS ~. 6
S 0 F F R E E D 0 M s" H
DEVI ATE = I •
G = *
ER OF CYCLES = 5
S T 1 c S ' ;, •
AVG Y =9:; &
Avr, x =',; 2
AVG T *•[ '"• 1
SLOPE =:'\ 4
C = SlOPE/SF = 4
INTERCEPT = -7
C-H I S Q U A p E D = 7
,
DOSE
I 101.3612
1 139.6318
: 165.6359
203.6965
3n2«5533
4^9.3867
552*6 M8«
655.5705
onl./ioio
TO LOGl 10) .
20. » DEATHS
« DEATHS
6.
5.
10.
9.
14.
19.
TIONS
0000
aoV-'
-,
9600
1822
.077 CO 4
.49654Q
. 4 Q 2 2 9 1
.oonooo . SE
. 8^8 I9 5 S£
.592032
.151451
.713995
95* CONE
LOWER
M3. l^O*
75.0678
100*671 1
143.0488
264-7463
388.8153
H55»0406
515*71 15
xuo« ?? tn
» o. NATURAL MORTALITY = ,
RATEUDJ. ) PROBIT
.3000 4.4760
.2500 4.3258
.5000 . 5.QOOO ...
.4500 4.8746
.7000 5.5240
.9500 6.6452
„ _
k
• • • • •
i •
i, '
'.
= .000276 ..:... ..
= 1.066673
. „ . . . _. ..._ . ..
IDENCE LIMITS
UPPER
1M3.9<>32
181.Q869
205.0318
239.2880
340.2217
609*5864
863*789.3
1 157.27M4
•>ni7.lli-7 .
-------
Jt R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTlA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-4 9& HR
1 / .
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBIT Rt:r,Rrssi
ON
THF. f A X I M I' M LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES VvFRE--SLOPE =
-------
J, R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-5
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO
1 HR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE SIZE = 20. » DEATHS » o. NATURAL MORTALITY •
DOSE . LOG DOSE SAMPLE « DEATHS RATEtADJ.) PROSIT
500. noon
IOOO.OOOQ
1500.0000
2000-0000
2500.0000
3000.0000
4000.0000
5000.0000
2 « A 9 9 o
3.0000
3 « 1 7 6 1
3.3010
3 o 3 9 7 9
3. "771
3«602l
3 « 6 9 9 n
20*
20.
20.
20*
20*
.20.
20.
20«
0.
0»
o.
6*
9.
12*
14.
20.
.0001
.0001
.0001
. 3000
.4500
.6000
.7000
.9999
1 .2809
1 .2809
1 .2809
4.H759
4.8746
5.2529
5.5240
B.7191
RESPONSE PATE c n.O OR 1.0 AT POINTS I 2 3
CONSTANTS USED IN PROBlT CALCULATIONS
HETEROGENI
NUMBER
DEGREES
TOTAL MUMPER
SUMMARY STATIST
NATURAL
T STATISTIC
ETY FACTOR s
OF POINTS =
OF FREEDOM =
OEV I ATE =
G =
OF CYCLES a
ICS
AVG Y ~
AVG X =
AVG T -
MOPTALITY »
SLOPE =
= SLOPE/SE »
INTERCrPT =
CHI SQUARED =
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
POINT
= .01
= »Q5
» • 10
= »20
= »50
a .80
3 .90
3 .95
» .99
DOSE
1136.0974
1471.1911
1688.5695
1995.282Q
2745.6744
3778.2765
4464. 5&46
5124.2342
6635.6334
I .0000
8
6
I .9600
.0834
7
4.974712
3.434483
3.267531
.000036 SE
6.070191 SE
6.785341
-15.873256
6.728146
95X CONF
LOW£R
7B1 »381 1
1 1 15*61 12
1345.4032
1679. 6B31
2472*0735
3357.3855
3867.7854
4330.84.47
5330*0377
= .000965
a .894604
IDENCE LIMITS
UPPE«
1 409.0520
1734. 69Q4
1943.0274
2240* 1645
3054.7140
4514.0160
5639.8834
6R03.8754
9717.2532
-------
J. R. GlRSON MR 2149 ACART1A TONSA SAMPLE 9923-5 1 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PRORIJ REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES »VF;RE--SLOPE = 6.^702, INTERCEPT* -15.8733,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE* .0000
s LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADM IN i-
7.0
6.9
6*8
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.4
6*3
6.2
6. 1
6.0
5.9
5*8
5.7
5.6
5.5
6. u
. t
5.3
5.2
5. 1
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.7
4*6
4,5
4*4
4.3
4.2
4. 1
4*0
3.9
3*8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3*0
+
4-
+
+
+
+
+
•f
+
+
*
+
4-
+
4-
4-
^
+
4
4-
•f
4-
4-
•f
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
+
4-
4-
4-
. 4-
4-
+
4>
4-
4-
+
4-
5
4-4- 4-4- + •(
4-
2»A99
s PROBI r
+
4-
4-
4-
.+
. +
. +
• +
• +
« 4-
• 4-
« 4-
: * *
• +
« +
* * , +
» +
• ' 4>
* 4-
» +
• +
* +
*. +
• 4-
. ... ^
• +
* . +
. . 4-
• ' +
• +
• +
• +
. +
t 4>
« *
• +
. . 4-
. +
• +
« +
* +
$ $ PROBJ^
l-4-4-4.4-4.4-4-4.-«-4-4-4-4-4->4- + 4-4.4-4.4-4-4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.44.4.4.4. + 4.4. + 4. + 4.4.4.4.4.4. + 44.4. 1
+ 4- + 4- 4> 4>
2.8A6' 3*032 3.199 3.366 3,532 3.699
-------
J, R. GinSOM MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-5
INPUT OOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOG(iO).
4 HR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL? SAMPLE
20,
DEATHS
DOSE
LOG POSE
SAMPLE « DEATHS
o. NATURAL MORTALITY •
RATEUDJ.) PROOIT
5 0 P • 0 0 0 0
1000.0000
1500. OnQO
2000.0000
2500.0000
3000.0000
4000.0000
5000.0000
?.*990
3. neon
3. 1 76 J
3.3010
3.3979
3. t«77 1
3.6021
3« *99Q
20.
20»
20*
20.
20«
20.
20.
20.
o.
2.
2.
10*
15.
18.
18.
2.0.
.0001
. 1000
. 1000
.5000
.7500
.9000
.9000
.9999
1 .2809
3.7183
3.7183
5.0000
5.6712
6.2817
6.2817
8.7191
RESPONSE RATE = 0.0 OR l.G AT POINTS 1
CONSTANTS U$FD IN PROBlT CALCULATIONS
HETEROGFNIETY FACTOR = 1.0000
NUMBER OF POINTS = 8
DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 6
DEv [ ATE = .1 .9600
G = "" .0788
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES = ..10
Uf
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
IMARY ST
NA
T STATI
POINT
= .0 1
a .05
0 • 10
= *20
* »50
a »80
= .90
= .95
B ,99
ATiSTICS
AVG Y
AVG X
AVG T
TURAL MO'?TALITY
SLOPE
STIC = SLOPE/SE
INTERCEPT
CHI SQUARED
(
DOSF.
771 .7100
1021 • 1332
1 1R5.5792
1 420*5924
2007.6735
2837.3743
3399*8170
3947.3321
5223. 1434
« r • "
• :..r _ - -
= -^ 5.202172 •',
= lx 3.338781 s
= 3.247017
a :t .000000 v"
= •'' 5*602317
= • 6.984406
= -13.502734
s 5.888789
95« CC
LO'AER
504*3419
739*4262
904*8866
1151.2784
, 1773*4518
, 2524.1419
2958*6427
I 3353*6278
4213*6041
•"!'•
*..;•$
Ti &--V
•j..-...^^.
.JWr*"?*
- **•'•
-: >
;
SE a ,000009
SE = .802118
)NFIDENCE LIMITS
UPPER
988.6043
1238. 5209
13V9.5459
1628.9435
2240.7693
3336*0508
4214.6268
5141 .8552
7516. 77H7
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTJA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-5 4 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBIT REGRESSION LINE.
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPEO s.6n23i INTERCEPTS -13.5027',
NATURAL RESPONSE R/\TE» .0000
OF OOSE
7.0 +
6.9
2»699 2.866 3.032 3.199 3.366 3.532 3.699
-------
J. Rt GIBSON MR 2119 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923"5
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOG
-------
B( 25) - B(
,00*7957
POINT
P =
P -
P =
P =
P *
P =
P =
P =
P e
•01
.05
• 10
•20 .
•50
.80
• 90
•95
.99
1
1
1
2
?
3
4
6P9
897
033
225
697
351
7«B
209
179
DOSE
• 4 9 3 R
.7276
.3635
•3576
•5529
•710?
•6472
i977R
• 4 2 2 2
9
5* CONF
LOWER
I
1
2
2
129.
252.
360*
549.
1 46.
855.
173«
428«
2931'
0176
8793
H36Q
1606
1539
8501
0079
2963
3735
IOCNCE LI
HITS
UPPER
1 0 6 1 .
1267.
1399.
1591.
2179.
30M9.
5693.
8018.
155^9.
4975
7883
8M3A
2393
8648
17Q1
4»571
3161
1 173
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-5 8 HR
•LOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PRORIT REGRESSION LINE.
HE MAXiMUH LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WE^E—SLOPE" 5.9452, INTERCEPT' -14.2018,
JATU"AL RESPONSE RftTE= .0000
8 LF.VFLS OF DOSE WERE AD*IIN I STERED*
S $ PROBjT VA
7.0 * ' ' *
6.9 + • *
6.8 * • *
6.7 + *
6.6 * • *
6.5 * *
6.4 + « . *
6.3 + • *
6.2 * V • * *
6.1+ ' . *
6.0 + ' '*
5.9 + . +
5.8. * * *
5.7 + • _. *
5.6 + • "' *
5.5 ••• • *
5.4 + . • . *
5.3 * ' . • , *
5.2 * V -^:
5.1 + ' *
5.0 + . • *
4.9+ _ • ,;_.:.. . *
4,8+ ^ » '•'• • *
4.7+ • *
4.6 + * *
4.5 + • *
4.4 + * *
4.3 + • *
4,2 + • +
4.1+ * *
4.0 + . *
3.9 + . • *
3.8 + . . *
3.7 + •• *
3.6 + . *
3.5 + . ' *
3.4 + * *
3.3 + . *
3.2 + . *
3.1 +• *
3.0 * • . *
$ PROBIT V
+ + + -f + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +' + + + + + + + + +' + + + + + + +' + + + +
* + + + + + +
2*699 2*866 3..032 3.199 3.366 3.532 3.699
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2119 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9723-5 21 HR
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOGUO).
.1
•>
/>
,
H
5
in
l;
U'
1.1
J
»
16
17
IB
»
M
71
22
rj
24
75
26
27
28
2*
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4,
42
JJ
44
45
4A
47
4,
4V
ill
SI
«
53
5J
"
£
INPUT DATA
CONTROLS SAMPLE Sj
DOSE LOG DOSE
300.0000 2.1771
350,0000 2.5111
100.0000 2.&02I
150.0000 2.6532
500,0000 2.6990
550.0000 • 2*7101
RESPONSE RATE = o.n OR i«
CONSTANTS USED JN PROOlT
HETEPOGENIETY FACTOR
NUMBER OF: POINTS
DEGREES OF FREEDOM
DEVIATE
G
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES
SUMMARY STATISTICS
. • ' AVG Y
.: AVG X
" AVG T
NATURAL MORTALITY
SLOPE
T STATISTIC = SlOPE/SE
INTERCEPT
CHI SQUARED
NONSIGNIFICANT REGRESSION
POINT DOSE
P = .01 221*0790
P » .05 ' 312.0306
P » .10 372.2755
P » .20 161 .0179
P » »50 693*9382
P « »80 1011.537Q
P = .90 1293.5318
P « .95 1513.2788
P « .99 2119.0197
ZE * 20. » DEATHS
SAMPLE » DEATHS
20. !•
20. 3.
20. _:__.?.«_..
20.. 0.
20. 6.
20* „ 8.,
0 AT P.OJNTS 1
CAUCULATIONS
= 1,0000
a 6 :
= 1
e 1.9&00
= .5212
9
e 1,085091
= 2.618217 i
= 3.79B893
s .000000 SE
1.738658 SE
= 2. 707122
m -8.161018
= 7.027221
. 958 CONF
LOWER
36.1031 -— •
118.8890
218.9827
391.3819
560.0169
719.2715
816.6120
906*1608
1100.3M76
n o. NATURAL MORTALITY * j
RATE( A'DJ* ) PROSIT
.0500 3.3518
.1500 3.9636
.1000 , 3.7183
.0001 1.2809.
.3000 1.1760
.1000 1.7171 :
..... ^ . . . i .
' ' ' '' •'"•'- ^\"''-;:- ."•• :' '..^ : ' •- ' • . * '
'.-.-'•-''.•;'- — »
3 .0000*0
= 1 .750111^;
IDENCE LIMITS
UPPER
301. 35 3H " " :
371*8108
127.3763 '
587.38Q2
2290.16QI
9917.5815
21522.7622 "
10735.6577
131923.5879
-------
/ •
IJ
J. P. GIBSON MR 21M9 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-5 2H HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROOIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WF.RE--SLOPE* q.7387, INTERCEPT- -8
NATURAL RESPONSE RAT£ = .0000
6 LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED*
7.0 + . . . *
" 6.9 + +
'••_. 6.8 + ' ..._ ...._ _„_ +_
13 6.7 + . , ';. .V.. ' •; •' ' *
'-: 6.6 + • '•'••' • ;,;;'' ' .••.;"•• *
'\ 6.5 + ' ' .___, __.._2__^_ ._:___... +..
'=• 6.H + +
' 6.3 + \ +
6.2 + - ' ^ _" +
"-:' 6*1 * , • "" ' ' " "•',;.,'.• 'f'••-'" -"-••""•- • *
'"-. 6.0 + '! . . ' "~'^.v .• • -;;. . +
"; 5.9 + , _ _. . • ' , = .;. •;:'...".., •.. .. ..:;. +
» 5.8 + ' ' • • *
" 5.7 + • • +
5.6 * • ' ^ *
" 5*5 + ' '•••' ::; •-:?••,'•'• ' ' ';:•=:• .^ '' +
:": 5.1 * c . ' ' . -•;• .,.>.*> . ''•'*
5.3 + • _ -^L^Ji:£__: : •'•__ *
r- 5*2 +
!w 5.1 + .. +
:30_ 5.0 * '._.._. .... _ , *
3. ««.9 + . •'••'"•'. ":'T ' . •-•"':•: ' +
J3; H.8 * - ' ' ' • :-':. •-;*.•: ' .. : :. *
I" H.7 + .' • -t- ;::?-:: ••.'.;•• **
I**" H.6 + .... ^. - - -.. ~ .^-_ .... . .._
| a*' 1.5 + . ' " *
!36 M.H + • » +
i3>: H.3 * .••••.-;
;w; H.2 + . . 'v«"
I*'"". H.O + " " ~~ •' " +
'•t^ 3.9 + • ' . . +
142' 3.8 * ; . . ^ ' +'
4j"" 3.7 +• """•'." " • " " ^T~- «>.'. • ~~~~'*•
•": 3.6 + . . '.'•• •'•"•'• •'.''• +
|4>. 3.5* '. ._ • _ _ '. :;;-.. _^_ >
j«' 3.M * • --..,-•,• -.-.-,..-..- ...-. ._ ---
;•>••' 3.3 +*. • ' ' +'
' 3.2 * . : • \ ' _ _ _'+
3.1 + ' '" " '~ :•' -—— — ; -+-
3.0 + • ' +
$ _p^°8jj__y
w + 4- + + + +"+ ^•-+~ £-+ + +-+ + -~~^ -£ -
2.M77 2.521 2*565 2.6Q9 2.653 2.696 2.7MO
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-5
48 HR
31
3?
33
K
3i
30
37
3£
39
40
!a,
•«?
i»;
INPUT DOSE SCALE
INPUT DATA
CONTROL •
is TRANSFORMED
SAMPLE SIZE »
DOSE LOG DOSE SAMPLE
3ocuncioo
350*0000
400.0000
450*0000
500.0000
550,0000
CONSTANTS USED I
HETEROGENIE
NUMBER
2.4771 20.
2.5441 20*
2.6021 20.
2.6532 20*
?.699Q 20*
2.7104 20.
M PR08IT CALCULA
T.Y FACTOR = 1.
OF PO INT«5 a 6
TO LOG( 10) *
20. •» DEATHS
» DEATHS
1*
6.
M.
7.
9,
12.
TIONS
0000
- -•
•i o. NATURAL MORTALITY = -,i
RATE( ADJ. ) PR08IT
.0500 3.3548
.3000 4.4760
.2000 4. 1585
.3500 4.6151" '
.. .4500 4.8746
. .6000 5.2529 :
*
DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 4
TOTAL NUMBER
SUMMARY STATISTI
NATURAL
T STATISTIC =
.
CH
POINT
P a .01
P a .05
P a * 10
P a .20
P = »50
P • »8Q
pa »9Q
pa .95
P = .99
DEVIATE = 1.
G = . .... •
OF CYCLES = 3
CS
AVG Y = 1
AVG X « 2
AVG T = 2
MORTALITY a
SLOPE = 5
si OPE/SF = 3
INTERCEPT = -10
I SQUARED = 3
DOSE
198. 1313
261 .9*429
3n3.99?t
3AM.OH25
513.9M07
725.5610
868.902M
1000.3688
1333* 1318
9600
2710
.583633
.636832
. 18M45
.000000 SE
•619625 SE
.765036
. 2 3 '» 3 J M
.3H6790
95Z CONFI
LOWER
83.6795
1*18. 8f 39
201 .5854
287.6047
462.4437
597.2285
675.4853
746.7123
899.6972
:- .
= .000379 '
= 1*492582
DENCE LIMITS
UPPER
262.1727
317.0549
352.1835
404.7991
648.4028
1293.0982
1874.0374
2551 .46Q5
4555.1695
It.
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 21H9 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-5
18 HR
.Slj
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE" 5.6196, INTERCEPT" -10.2343,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE8 -.0000
6 LEVELS OF DOSE
ADMINISTERED.
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6*5
6.1
6.3
6.2
6. 1
6*0
5.9
5*8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
5. 1
5,0
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4,4
4.3
4. 1
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
•f
+
+
+
+
4-
+
+
*
+
•»•
*
+
+
+
+
+
+
*
•f
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ *
+
+
4-
• »
•f
•f
•f
* *
•f
•f
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-5 96 HR
I 15
16
I'
IMJ
!
•"*!
27!
'•KM
K
|3S
39
40
41
i I
"L
^i!
i?
53
^i
'.•e-
INPUT DOSE SCALE IS TRANSFORMED TO LOG(lO),
INPUT DATA
CONTROL! SAMPLE s i z F
DOSE LOG DOSE SA
300.0000 7.4771
350.0000 2.. 5441
400.0000 7./S021
450.0000 2.6532
500,0000 2*6990
550,0000 2.7404
CONSTANTS USflO IN PROBJT CAU
HETEROGfNIETY FACTOR a
NUMDER OF POINTS a
DEGREF.5 OF FREEDOM a
DEV I ATE =
G =
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES =
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG Y a
AVG X =
AVG T «
NATURAL MORTALITY =
SLOPE =
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/SF. =
INTERCEPT =
CHI SQUARED a
POI
P = •
P = .
P = .
P =
P = •
P = .
p a .
P a »
P a .
NT DOSE
01 213.7871
05 262.9233
10 293.5843
20 335.5445
SO 433.2328
80 559.3615
90 639.3075
95 713.8409
99 877.9328
= 20. » DEATHS ••= o. NATURAL MORTALITY » .
MpLE « DEATHS RATEUDJ.) PROBIT
20. 3. .1500""'" 3.9636"
20. 6. .3000 4.4760
20. 5. .2500 4.3258
20. 10* .5000 5,0000
20. >M. .7000 5,5240
20* 17* .8500 6.Q364
CULATIONS
1.0000
6
4
1.9600
. 1500
7
4.930497
2.627557
1.719033
.000000 SE = ,000077
7.583950 SE a 1.498666
5.060489
-14.996763
3,185886 " " :::;:" " ; -
952 CONFIDENCE LIMITS"
LOWER UPPER
137.2376 261.4887
1 91 ,5663 304,8009
228.4615 331,3132
281,7037 367.9362
401 .1371 471 ,3946
505.8594 681.9619
560*8276 842.313H
609.2339 1005. J6Q9
709.7744 1403. 81JI
•
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTlA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-5 96 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROSIT REGRESSION LINE.
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WFRE--SLOPE= 7.5839t INTERCEPT* -14,99681
I NATURAL RESPONSE RATE= .0000
6 LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
" 7.0 + *
"I 6.9 + . *
'•I. 6.8 + _ _ _. _ +_
11 6.7 + *
'••: 6.6 + ' ' *
151 6.5 + • . _ . ___. . _ _ *
>» 6.4 + +
<•' 6.3 + +
'" 6.2 + . _ _ ^ ; *
'"!'" 6.1+ . '•'••:'.'. " +
?o 6.0 + **
"I 5.9 + . . ' ....__ _.; , _____._.__ !_,_*_-_
- 5.8 + +
» 5.7 + . +
'•'_.. 5.6 + .._ • *
"5.5+ * , +
*' 5.4 + . .-•• .t. •:'•.• '-..4.
5.3 + • • . •_ i^iii/'L.': •_. . „*_._
_ 5.2 + . +
r 5. I + • *
;i" 5.0 + _ _.., •_ +
1;" 4.9 + " • •" T "•'.? ~ ~+ "'
4.7 + •__ _____,„_:_ • *_„...
4.6 + • " " +
4.5 + . *
4.3 + - . . "" *" """ '."' ":' ---——--—-r-r-,-—-,;--...-—•-.-i-
,.* 4.2 + . •.-.••.. ';; .••;•:•:;.•• . •. .;.-.:*
!3': 4.1 + . _ _ ^_ _ ' . ••::• - ..' ' .•;':-.;:' •_____.± _
•>c". 4.0 + . ' " ""~" " ' """ ' "*"
j! 3*9 +» . ' ' +
« 3.8 + . _ ^ *
oj 3.7 + " "" """" " "";" '"' "• ' ••••'••:• '" *—---47
3.6 + .' ' +
••s 3.5 + - _ _ : _ _ '*
U1' . 3.4 + ' —.---..- - - ..-- _. ^ ... .._...__..
'"' 3.3 + . - . ^
;•»••' 3.2 + _ _ +
!'-" 3.1 + - - - .-.-.- — . ^
j1 3.0 + *
4 4 . 4 4 4""" "4 4~
_ 2.477 2.521 2.565 2.6Q? 2.653 2.696 2.740
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-6
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOG(ioj.
1 HR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE SIZE = 20. « DEATHS •- o. NATURAL MORTALITY
DOSE LOT, DOSE SAMPLE » DEATHS RATEUDJ.) PRQBIT
500*0000
jnoo.oooo
1500*0000
2000«,0000
2500.0000
3000.0000
3500.0000
P.699Q
3.0000
3.1761
3.3010
3.3979
3.H771
3.5441
20.
20»
20«
20..
20.
20*
20*
0.
0*
2.
12*
1 1«
16.
20*
.0001
.0001
. 1000
.6000
.5500
.8000
.9999
1 .2009
1 .2809
3.7lflQ
5.2529
5.1263
5.8414
8.7191
RESPONSE RATE = o.c OR 1,0 AT POINTS i 2 7
CONSTANTS USED IN PROBjT CALCULATIONS
HETERCGENIETY FACTOR = 1.0000
NUMBER OF POINTS = 7
DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 5
nEVJATF = 1.9600
r, = .0943
TOTAL NUMBER OF CvCLES = 9
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVf, Y
AVG X
AVG T
NATURAL MORTALITY
SLOPE
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/SE
INTERCEPT
CHI SQUARED
= -
5.173838
3.353719
2.753739
.OOOOH8
7.369503
6.381211
i9.5«tiHOo
6.81027M
SE
SE
.001107
POINT
DOSE
95S CONFIDENCE LIMITS
LOWER UPPER
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
8
a
a
E
3
a
s
B
a
• 01
.05
• 10
•20
•50
• 80
• 90
• 95
• 99
1033.86^8
1279.1630
1432.9256
16MM. 1035
2138.5999
2781.8257
319J .7981
3575. M702
MM23.798? .
7I9.29JM
972.5937
11100I92
1378. J753
1930«9787
2526.1122
2815.8971
3125.6562
3706*7332
1262, 768^
1491.4623
1637.7822
1835.81 17
2341.7922
3199.3839
3«47.2M48
4500.8445
6073.3978
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA .SAMPLE 9923-6 I HR
t
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PRORIT REGRESSION LINE«
THE MAXIMUM- LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE= 7.3695, INTERCEPT- -19.5414,
NATURAL RESPONSE KATE = .0000
7 LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.4
6*3
6*2
6. 1
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.7
5*6
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
5. 1
5.0
M O
4 » 7
4.8
4.7
4.6
4*5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4. 1
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3*6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
+
+
*
+
•f
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+•
+
+•
4-
+
+
•••
+
4-
•»•
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
s
$ PROBIT VA
' *
*
*
*
.+
i *
• . • *
• *
*
• *
* i *
. j *
« * ' *
• +
• *
. *
• *
• ' +
. +
. * • ' +
» *
•
• *
• *
• +
• *
« *
• *
• *
• *'
.« +
• *
. +
» *
» *
. *
*
+
PROBIT V;
3.544
-------
J, R, GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-6
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO
4 HR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE
DOSE LOG DOSE
20. » DEATHS
SAMPLE
» DEATHS
5 o n • n o o n
IQOOtOOOO
1500*0000
2000.0000
2500.0000
3000.0000
3500.0000
2.699Q
3.0000
3. 1 761
3.3010
3.3979
3.^77 1
3*5441
20.
20*
20.
20*.
20.
20*
20.
o.
o.
8,
16.
15.
IB*
20.
NATURAL MORTALITY = -.<
RATEUDJ.)
.0001
.0001
.3999
.8000
.7500
.9000
.9999
PROBIT
1 .2809
1.2809
4 . 7 '4 6 9
5.8414
5.6741
6.2817
8.7191
RESPONSE RATE = 0.0 OR 1.0 AT POINTS
CONSTANTS USED IN P R 0 8 I T CALCULATIONS
HETEROG.FMETY FACTOR = 1.0000
NUMBER OF POINTS = 7
DEGREES OF FREEDOM a 5
DEVI ATE = 1 .960°
G = ,0882
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES = 25
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG Y
AVG X
Aye T
NATURAL MORTALITY
SLOPF
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/SE
INTERCEPT
CHI SQUARED
8( 25). - B( 2*0
i 5.3C9288
3.207047
2.792943
-.000041
6.660351
6,598868
•16.583148
6. 178421
-.0249423
SE » .002077
SE a 1.009318
POINT
DOSE
95* CONFIDENCE LIMITS
LOWER UPPER
P
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
tr
a
s
3S
a
a
a
e
a
• 01
• 05
•10
.20
.50
.80
.90
.95
• 99
778
985
1117
1300
1739
2327
2709
3072
3888
.5109
•3070
• 1673
.7108
.9646
•5rs55
.9580
• 622M
.8042
519.
722*
859,
1057.
1539.
2096.
2403.
2672*
-237.
7629
4137
5636
8100
0493
8213
2393
6323
7957
977
1178
1305
1480
1926
2676
3260
3861
5344
.
*
.
•
.
.
.
.
•
3*<66
906?
0775
5252
3833
7358
46J2
7633
25t»3
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA T°NSA SAMPLE 9923-6 M HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBIT REGRESSION LINE.
THE MAXIMUM. LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WE*E--SLOPE= 6.6604,' INTERCEPTS -t6.s83i,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE = -.ocoo
7 LEVELS OF OoSE WERE ADM INJI STEREO.
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6*6
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.2
6. 1
6*0
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.^
5.3
5.2
5. 1
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4 • H
4.3
4.2
4. 1
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
A • M
j • »
3.3
3.2
3*1
3.0
+
+•
+
*
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+•
+
+
+
•*•
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
*
+
+
+
4-
4-
+.
+
+
+
4
*•
+
*
•f
S PROBJT VA
« +
. *
• +
« +
• +
• +
. . +
* +
• * *
. ' *
* +
. +
* . +
. +
• * . *
. +
« +
. +
. +
. +
. +
. +
. +
• . *
. *
. +
. +
•
. +
. * •
... *
. *
. +
*
. *
*
+
. +
*
*
*
*
$ PROBIT V
* + + + * + + * + + -»-* + + + 4. + + * + '
* * *
2»699 2.840 2«98l 3.122 3.262 3.403 3.5M4
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-6
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO
8 MR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL! SAMPLE SIZE
20,
tt DEATHS
NATURAL MORTALITY
DOSE
LOG POSE
SAMPLE » DEATHS
RATE ( ADJ« )
RESPONSE RATE = O.C OR ItO AT POINTS 1
CONSTANTS USED 'IN PROBjT CALCULATIONS
HETEROGENIETY FACTOR = 1.0000
NUMBER OF POINTS = 7
DEGREES OF FREEDOM a 5
nEVlATF = l»9600
G = .1232
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES = 8
PROBIT
500. noon
1000. GOOD
1500.0000 .
2000.0000
2500.0000
3000*0000
3500.0000
2.6990
3.0000
3-1761
3.3010
3.3979
3»*»77 1
3.5441
20.
20.
20.
20..
20.
20*
20»
0.
4.
12*
20.
20.
20.
20.
.0001
• 2000
.6000
.9999
.9999
.9999
.9999
1 .2009
4.1585
5.2529
8.7191
8.7191
8.7191
8.7191
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AV5 Y
AVG X
AVG T
NATURAL MORTALITY
SLOPE
= SLOPE/SE
INTERCEPT
CHI SQUARED
T STATISTIC
5.285354
3.144049
4.606222
.000004
9.099302
5. 473959
-23.323273
2.722478
SE
SE
.000640
1 .662289
POINT onSe
p =
p a
p 3
p =
p =
p =
p =
p =
p =
• 01
• 05
• 10
•20
•50
• PQ
• 90
• 95
• 99
719.4977
854,8979
937.2175
1047.6006
1296.2428
1603*8989
1792. 8c22
1965.434Q
2335.3036
95« CONF1
LOWER
487*7082
633.9438
727.7543
857.4598
1 i48»3259
1450^6472
1603.7994
1732*2577
1987.3402
:DENCE LIMITS
UPPER
873.8975
998.5384
1074.054Q
1 176.8745
1432*3969
1848.2099
2158.2219
2467.3398
3194.2148
-------
J. ». GIRSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-6 8 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PRQBlT REGRESSION iJNE.
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WF.RE--SLOPE= 9.0^93, INTERCEPT^ -23*3233,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATES ,ouoo
7 LF.VELS OF DOSE WF:RF ADMINISTERED*
s PROSIT VA
$
7.0 + ' •
6.9 .+ »
6.8 + «
6«7 + »
6.6 * •
6.5+ »
6.4 + «
6.3 + *
6.2 + •
6 * 1 * V
6*0 + *
5.9 + *
5.8 + .
5.7 * •
5.6 + •
5.5 + ' *
5.4 + • ,
5.3 * *
5.2 + • •
5.1+ »
5.0 + . »
4.9 + .
4.8 + «
4.7+ .
4.6+ .
4.5 + .
4,4 + .
4.3 + .
4.2 + .
4.1+ *.
4.0 + .
3.9 + •
3.8 + .
3*7 * *
3.6 + .
3*5 + .
3.4 + .
3.3 + .
3.2 + .
3.1+ .
3*0 + *
S
+ 4> + + + + + + + + + + + +++4- + * + 4 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ 4- 4- + +
2*699 2-840 2»9Hl 3.122 3.262
$ $ S f
+
+
+
+
+
4-
+
+
4-
+
*
' +
+
4.
4-
•f
+
•
+
+
+
+
+
+
4.
+
•«•
+
+
4.
+
+
>'
+
' +
+
4>
+
+
+
t
1
4.4. + + + 4. + + + + 4. + 4.+
+ +
3.403 3.5
PROSIT VA
-------
72-
J. Rt GIRSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-6
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOG(io).
24 HR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL! SAMPLE SIZE = 20. * DEATHS « o. NATURAL MORTALITY
DOSE LOG DOSE Si
300.0000
400.0000
450.0000
500.0000
550.0000
? . 4 7 7 1
2.A021
2.6532
2.6990
2.7404
,MPLE
20,
20.
20.
20*
20*
20*
» DEATHS
i.
0.
2*
8.
6*
9,
RATEUDJ, )
.0500" "~
,0001
. 1000
,4000
.3000
.4500
PROBIT
" 3.3548
1 »2809
3.7183
4*7471 "
4,4760
4.8746
RESPONSE RATE = o * o OR i.o AT POINTS
CONSTANTS USED IN PROfllT CALCULATIONS
HETEROGF.NIETY FACTOR =
NUMBER OF POINTS.=
DEGREES OF FREEDOM a
DEVIATE =
G »
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES =
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG Y =
AVG X =
AVG T =
MORTALITY a
SLOPE a
= SLOPE/SE =
INTERCEPT =
CHI SQUARED a
1,0000
6
4
1.9600
.2486
6
32|.
33
34
35
3E
39
.10
41
4?
43
.-
45
<-y • P
47 p
•"••: ' • p
ocl p
>.. p
p
"s;! P
53 p
Si
P
NATURA
T STATISTIC
POINT
= .01
» .05
= . 10
• »20
a ,50
« ,00
a ,90
»' • 9 5
» .99
4.321096
2.656907
3.518424
.000000
7*317760
3.930684
-15.121505
5.435821
SE =
SE a
000248
DOSE
270.2608
334.887,6
375.4442
561*9283
732.2996
841 .0398
942.8940
1 168.3656
95Z CONFU
LOWER
159.1525
24 1 .8922
300*4300
381 .8167
507.3235
615.1857
676.94Q8
731 .9172
846.3817
)ENCE LIMITS ' ; '
UPPER
325.65)6
379. 1450
413.8425
470.7326
716.93J7
1196,4381
157 1,7980 ^
1970,7727
3015.7324
-------
J. R. GIPSON MR 2M9 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-6
2M HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE« 7.3178, "INTERCEPf=""-"i"5."i2"i5T"
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE= .0000
6 LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
7.0 * +
6.9 + ' . +
6.8 + ' .._..._ *
|1J" 6.7 + ~ : ,' * ." .
!'••: 6.6 + ' . . ::- •• ' +
!'- 6.5 * • = _ -j •'•___* • _
K 6.1 + • ™~~ '."" ~~+ " ".~.
|" 6.3 + *
k 6.2 + ._ ' +
M 6.1 + ' " . + *
K 6.0 + ,'.';••' '*.'.-
I71' 5.9 + _..; :___::_-_^ „..+ _.__
" 5.8 * +
'". 5.7 * +
!21 5.6 + ' __ +'
!"r 5.5* ' "" I" "T7^-~ " :'* " "
:= 5.M * ' . - - 1 • . . '•.. •..••' ' , • • +
5.3 * . .: . . _-_i:. _ • *_
~, 5.2 * +
'''"• 5.1 + *
K 5.0+ . *
:'•>' M.9 + • ; "';':. • •+• . • .. \.\.
|3= M,a + • ' .: .•;'••;;•'••»+.' .'•''.,
|53'_. M.7 + • _ * -j :,'J_ .»_ .__'_; * __T;_
]3' H.6 + ' '" "»' " "*
," H.5 + •" *
•'j° H.H + , _ _ •» « +_
|2- 4.3 + ' '; " " ""•"'. •" r" \.'".^' •"•:•-." •—-^..— - : _-^-
!:-» M.2 + ' » • '"y:A:" '. ,.+ •'•..• ••-'•'•:
'|39| H.I + • '• :. '.'•••• •. • .;' •..-•» •'..,,1/'
!
-------
7f
f'\
i'i
IJL
1.11
!
21;
21
"
3o;
I '"
h
'3F.|
I..
41:
i i
J. R. GIBSON MR 2119 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-6 18 HR
INPUT DOSE SCALE
INPUT DATA
CONTROL •
DOSE 10
300.0QOO
350*0000
lOO'.OOOO
150.0000
500.0000
550.0000
CONSTANTS 1-' S E D I
HETEROGENIE
NUMBER
DEGREES o
TOTAL NUMBER
SUMMARY STATJSTI
NATURAL
T STATISTIC =
CH
POINT
P « .01
P = «05
P = .10
P = .20
P a .50
P a .80
P « »90
P • .95
P « .99
IS TRANSFORMED
SAMPLE SIZE =
G DOSE SAMPLE
7^771 20«
2*5111 20.
2.6021 20.
2.6532 20*
2.699Q 20.
2.7101 20.
M PROBIT CALCULA
TY FACTOR a 1.
OF POINTS •» 6
F FREEDOM = 1
DEVIATE - 1 •
G a *
0,F CYCLES = 5
1
cs
AVG Y = 1
AVG X = 2
AVG T = 1
MORTALITY =
SLOPE = 7
SLOPE/SE = •*
INTERCEPT = -1H
I SQUARED = 3
DOSE
217.51 19
268.1573
300.3327
3t»<*.Q«<&6
«<««6. 165fl
578.5958
662.81 l
-------
i • 'If
J, R. G1RSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-6 4fl HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROSIT REGRESSION LINE,
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE= 7.4558 , INTERCEPT" -14.7540 ,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE = .0476
6 LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
7.0 + . . +
6.9 4 *
6.8 4 ' ^ __ _ _ __ t ___+_
6.7 4 *
6.6 * *
6.5 * • __ __ . :_...*...
6.44 +
6,3 + +
6.2+ 1 _ *_
6.1 + "'"• "" ---•-. - --.:-:,,-- —-:;.— --
6.04 : +
5.9 4 „....•„___, • _i.^_^__. '; *„..
5.8 + . +
5.7 + +
5.64 ' - ,__ ^ ^ .___+_
5.5+ . '•''•' : •;--~<:;-::;:V •' '+'
5.4 + * • «*
5.3 + ' _. •«.''. •.. _..±_
5.2 + • +
5.1+ • +
5.0 + . _ ....A , _*_
4.9 + • • • •' •:*-;.:• ' -'''• +•
4.8 + * ..+
^•7 + _ t _ .; i .:•. ,._^ •__+
4.64 . " "" "" * 4"
4.5 4 . » +
4.4 + •• . _ '_ ______ _+_
4,3 * . :"""": ~ "' ~" "' ~ '+,
4.2 + , ••'.'. *
4.1 + . . ._• . +
4.0 + . * " """" "" " " "~ " "" " "+""
3.9 +. +
3.8 4 " *
3 , 7 + • . " - • ~ ~ : ••"' -— *r
3.6 + . +
3.5+ +
3.4 4 +
3.3 + +'
3.2 + _. +
3,1 + " "" " *
3.0 +• ' +
4 4 4 + + 4 + .
2*477 2.521 2.565 2.6Q9 2.653 2.696 2*740
-------
'it,
J. R« GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-6
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED to LOGiio).
96 HR
2
Ji
INPUT DATA
CONTROL:
flj DOSE L
">• 300.0000
": 350.0000
'/ 400.0000
13; 450.0000
"••I 500.0000
'i! 550.0000
IS RESPONSE RATE a
J
7: CONSTANTS USED
M; HETEROGF.NI
?4' NUMBER
H DEGREES
26 j
J8 TOTAL NUMBER
29.
30 '
31 , SUMMARY STATIST
32J
"i
34 j
35!
36| NATURAL
3*j T STATISTIC
40i £
J
42L
H POINT
-i .
« • p = .01
"i . P = .05
48i ' ' P a , J 0
-v| p 3 ,20
50j pa .50
si! P a .80
"i P» »90
531 ' pa .-95
w|. .. P * »99
SAMPLE SIZF. a
OG DOSE SAMPLE
2.477J 20.
2.544 l 20*
2.6021 20.
2.6532 -2P«
2.6990 20*
2.7404 20.
0.0 OR 1,0 AT PO
IN PROBlT CALCULA
ETY FACTOR = 1*
OF POINTS - 6
OF FREEDOM a 4
DEVIATE = 1 «
G = •
OF CYCLES = 23
ICS '
AVG Y a 5
AVG X a ' 2
AVG T = 1
MORTALITY a
SLOPE a 12
= SLOPE/SE • i
INTERCEPT a -28
Hi SQUARED = 6
DOSE'
277.2129
335.4721
363.5362
423.9213
535.6906
572.4309
648.2716
20, « DEATHS
» DEATHS
4.
8.
15.
14.
20.
INTS 6
TJONS
0000
9600
1965
.229132
.645455
.597838
,095658 SE
.610597 SE
.M21618
.131636
.589073
95S5 CONF
LOWER
*
|83»7758
229.1344
257.5140
296. 1752
381 .7150
463* 1855
497.4584
524.3783
575.3847
e i, NATURAL MORTALITY a .1
RATCUDJO PROBIT
. 1 154 3.8015
.1154 3.8015
.3365 4.5785
.7236 " 5.5931" "
.6683 5.4347
.9999 8.7191
•
'•''". '. .:-: " ' •
a .05569^
a 2*852032
IDENCE LIMITS •
UPPER
326.7029
357,1464
374.8386
398.0560
452.5242
546.9775
622.0357
696.0426
864.6048 ' ' _ '
-------
GIOSON MR 2119 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-6 96 HR
\,:
3V
iJC
LOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PRODI
HE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WF.RE--SLOPE" 12.61
ATURAL RESPONSE RATE= .0957
6 LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
7.0 +
6.9 + .- _ __ ._ ;..
6.8 +
6.7 +
6.6 +
6.5 +
6.1 +
6.3 +
6.2 +
6.1 +
6.0 +
5.9 +
5.8 +
5.7 +
5.6 + •
5.5 * * *
5,1 + •«.'•:
5.3 + • •
5.2 + •
5.1+ ,
5.0 + »
1.9 + «
1.8 + ,
1.7 + ,
1.6 + .
1.5 + . *
1.1 + «
1.3 + , , -.-'•.;:
1.2 + • . • •;/.. ; ,-;
1,1+ .
3.9 + .
3.8 +• ••" ', « " • •.•;•.'•"••
3,7 + ,
3.6 + *
3.5 + .
3*1 +
3.3 + •
3.2 + .
3,1 +,
3*0 +
+ * * + +
2.177 2.521 2.565 2.6Q9 2.653
T REGRESSION LINE*
06, INTERCEPT" -28*1316,
S PRODIT VA
'*•'.'."'•
. . '+ ' ., :•';-. •
. +
" , •> - : ; . • ..
• + ' "':: ': 'v •.'.
, +
V:'::.'! * . -.•';\; ••>.••.-
"'•.' , \ . • - *'•'.•'.. •' •:?•
.•''*••• - ~- +•:•.'•.•••;,'.
+
-•-•'• ',••-' + <:';':? X-:-*.';
'.'"••-.•'•• ' • * ' •'•:"''^' '''^
-.-. ':•-.. . ' ' *•'-.> :':?'~ ft--:
"••'•• t . . ' • . ' ..
•»> ' .
*
":-••>•'•"' : • • .••••' +^.r- .pT7'.-:;.\-
.';v,'.'i ' + /V'.. •Yi-''-':^
'•.•r'.-.- -•". ! : . •" :- ' * :. .-.- -.-.'V'" •'>'•'•'
+
'••••' •• ' :'•'• . • +:.•::•.••,-.. .-.;:-
•+ •.'.•'.
»
. . • '.
• + + + + •»• + + + + + + + + + +
' * ' +
2,696 2*710
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-7
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOGMO).
t HR
INPUT DAJA
CONTROL' SAMPLE SjZE = 20. » DEATHS = 0. NATURAL MORTALITY
DOsE LOG nOsE SAMPLE » DEATHS RATEUDJ.) PROBIT
500.0000
1000.0000
1500*0000
2000.0000
3000.0000
3500*0000
4000*0000
?.*990
3. GOOD
3-1761
3. 3010
3.4771
3.5441
3 • 6 0 2 1
20.
20*
20*
20*
20»
20*
20*
1 .
2.
4.
6.
16*
14.
13*
.0384
.0890
* 1902
.2915
.7976
.6963
.6457
3.2301
3.6530
^•1231
4.4513
5.8328
5.5135
5.3734
CONSTANTS USED IN PROBlT CALCULATIONS
HETEROGfNJETY FACTOR = 1.0000
NUMBER OF POINTS = 7
DEGREES of FREEDOM = 5
DEVIATE = 1*9600
6 = .1583
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES = 25
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG
. AVG
AVG
NATURAL MORTALITY
SLOPE
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/SE
INTERCEPT
CHI SQUARED
B( 25) - B(
Y
X
T
Y
E
E
T
D
)
=
=
=
=
=
B
S •
&
a
4.922639
3.376585
2. 109094
.012123
' 3.289242
4.926558
-6. 18391 1
5.920975
.0018528
SE « .02118&
SE = .667655
POINT
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
a
=
s
=
s
a
a
a
s
•01
.05
• 10
•20
*5Q
• BO
• 90
• 95
• 99
493.
794.
1024.
1394.
2512.
4529.
61*2.
79^7.
128P5.
DOSE
0642
4H47
BQ64
0685
7458
1 1C5
8M I
5516
41 14
163
357
540
684
2057
3595
4570
5533
7862
958 CONF
LOWER
• 5195
.5257
.4947
• 2456
•7315
• 777Q
• 8964
• 6418
• 2858
IOENCE L
I
MITS
UPPER
804
1 143
1383
1758
3064
7109
1 1627
17575
38424
.
.
.
*
.
.
.
.
.
7006
2127
8312
5315
01 10
5477
3580
6897
2227
-------
7?
J. P. GIBSON MK 21^9 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-7 1 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WF.RE--SLOPE= 3.2B92t INTERCEPT- -6.1339,
NATURAL RESPONSE R/\TE = «oi2i
7 LEVELS OF H 0 S F WERE ADMINISTERED.
7.0
6.9
6*8
6.7
6*6
6.5
6.1
6.3
6.2
6. 1
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
5. 1
5.0
4.9
4.8
1.7
4.6
1.5
4.4
•4.3
4.2
4. 1
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3. 1
3.0
+
4-
+
4- .
+
*
+
4- .
*
4-
+
4-
+
+ '
+ i
4-
+ ' i
4-
4-
+
4- <
4- . *
+ *
+ .
+ *
4- .
4- . *
4- »
+ »
+ . •
4- .
4. .
* .
4- .
+ ,*
4- .
+ *
4- «
+ • .
4- .
4- .
4-4-4.4'4-4.4-4' + 4- + 4-4-4' + 4- + 4--»-4-*4'*4.4- + + 4-4-4-4'4.4'4'4-4- + 4'4' + 4'4-4'4- + + + H
+ 4- 4- * +
2*699 2.849 3»000 3.151 3,301
4>
4-
4-
*
+
+
+
4-
+
+
4-
+
* 4-
4-
; +
•» *
. 4-
. »4>
. . *
. +
• +
+
4-
+
4-
4-
4>
4-
4-
4-
+
+
+
+'
+
+
•»•
+
•f
>
4>
H-4-^ + 4. * + 4-4- + + + *
4- 4-
3.452 3.602
-------
J. R.« GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-7
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO
H HR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL! SAMPLE SIZE = 20. « DEATHS a
o. NATURAL MORTALITY
DOSE
LOG DOSE
SAMPLE
DEATHS
RATE(ADJ. )
RESPONSE RATE = o»o OR uo AT POINTS
CONSTANTS USED IN PROfllT CALCULATIONS
HETEROGENIETY FACTOR = i.oooo
NUMBER OF POINTS = 7
DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 5
DEVJATF a 1.9600
' G = .1017
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES = 8
PROBIT
son. QOOO
1000.0000
150Q.OQOO
2000.0000
3000.0000
3500.0000
4000.0000
2.6990
3.COOO
3.1761
3.3010
3.4771
3 . Fs 4 4 1
3.6021
20.
20.
20*
20*
20*
20*
20*
1*
2.
4.
14.
18.
18.
20.
.0243
.0757
. 178**
.6919
.8973
.8973
.9999
3. 0276
3.5648
4. Q785
5.5008
6.2665
6.2665
8.7191
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG Y =
AVG X =
AVG T =
NATURAL MORTALITY =
SLOPE »
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/SE s
CHI SQUARED
5.314131
3.322272
1.778980
.026337
6.015M95
6.145976
14.670980
4.849266
SE
SE
.024837
.97877Q
POINT
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
s
s
=
=
s
c
a
3
s
.01
•OS
• 10
• 20
»50
• 80
.90
•95
• 99
DOSE
7 A 4 . 4 2 2 «4
992.2189
1 140.2538
1 349.4164
I862«307l
2570.13*2
3041.5928
3495.3857
* 4537.0049
952 CONF
LOWER
459.5192
66^.2756
816.2653
1034.6993
15*0. 004a
2267.5299
2644. Q9Q5
2975.7895
3676.4669
IDENCE LIMITS
UPPER
1005. 1417
1233.4546
1378.3520
1 r> 8 2 . 0 8 0 2
2109,2792
3030. 1862
3780.9177
4578. 62Q7
6623. 7M3Q
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2M9 ACARTU TONSA SAMPLE 9923-7 4 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PKOBIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM i. IKEI IHOOD ESTIMATES WF:RE;--SLOPES: 6.0155, INTERCEPT= -i4.6?io,
NATURAL RESPONSE RAT£= .0263
7 LEVELS or DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
* P R 0 B i T VA
7.0 + •+
6*9 + • +
6.8 + » *
6.7 + * *
6 .6 + » +
6.5 + » +
6«H+ • . +
6.3 + . +
6 . ? * » * +
6.1+ • . +
6. n * » «• •
5.9 + . +
5. « + • *
5.7 + . . +
B.6 + • +
5.5+ * . +
5.M + . . +
5.3 + . *
5.2 + . +
5.1+ t +
5.0+ . • +
4.9 + t . +
4.8+ » *
M.7 + * - ' +
4.6 + . ' +
4.5 + « +
4.4 + ' t +
4.3 + • *
4.2 + « +
4.1+ . +
4.0+ • • +
3.9 + . +
3.8 *• . +
3.7 + . +
3.6 + . ' +
3.5 + « . +
3.4 + . *
3.3 + , +
3.2 + . +
3.1+ . +
3.0 +» . +
.+.
2*699 2.849 3.QOC 3.151 3.301 3,4B2 3»602
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-7
INPUT POSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO
8 MR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL! CAMPLE SIZE =
20
DEATH
0. NATURAL MORTALITY =
DOSE
LOG POSE
SAMPLE « DEATHS
R A T E ( A D J • )
RESPONSF R A T F = o.o OH i.o AT POINTS
CONSTANTS USED
PROBjT C ft L C UL A T I HNS
HETEROGEK'IETY FACTOR = l.COOO
M U M F • E P OF POINTS = 7
DEGREES OF FPEEDOM = 5
n. F V I A T F = 1 • 9 6 0 0
G = • I 120
TOTAL MUMPER OF CyC(ES = 8
PROBIT
50C
1000
1500
2000
3000
3500
4QOO
• o n u o
. o n n o
• oooo
• 0000
• 0 0 0 0
• oooo
• 0 0 0 0
?
. A99
0
.1 . r o 0 0
.1
3.
3
Tl
3
. 1 76
• 301
.177
• S44
. /-C2
1
0
1
1
1
20.
20.
20«
20*
20*
20«
20.
1 .
2.
6*
16.
18.
20.
20.
.
.
•
»
.
.
«
0247
0760
2813
7947
8973
9999
9999
3
3
4
5
6
8
8
.
.
.
.
*
.
.
03MO
5673
M21S
0225
2667
7191
7191
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVr, X =
AVG T =
NATURAL MORTALITY'S
SLOPE =
T STATISTIC = 5I.OPE/SE =
INTERCEPT =
CHI SQUARED =
5.2R72B7
3. 27° '1 61
1 .a?5830
.025967
6.807632
5.857117
16.976813
M. 455172
SE
SE
.02471?
1 . 1A2204
POINT
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
=
s
s:
=
=
s
s
S3
a
•01
.05
• 10
•20
•50
•80
• 9Q
•95
.99
770
9A9
1 0^6
1272
1691
7248
7609
2950
3715
•
.
•
.
*
.
.
.
.
DOSF
0896
6942
4818
432M
4^59
4675
7757
4381
1814
?5* CONFI
LOWER
1
1
2
2
3
<*77
670
801
992
456
993
7*2
532
0^9
.3*52
.2272
.5732
• 1990
.8828
.6638
• 561 1
• 6287
.2726
OENC
1
1
1
1
2
3
E L
988
183
304
473
905
644
729
3 8 3 «
5
357
I M I T S
UPPER
.6358
.2785
.8432
.9072
.7905
• 1047
• 0^67
• 1230
.0^38
-------
J, P. GIBSON MK 21M9 ACAR'TIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-7 8 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTlMAT£ OF THE PROiJlT REGRESSION LINE*
THE * A x i'•'u M i. IKLI.IHOOO ESTIMATES WF.RE--SLOPE)! 6.8076, JNTERCEPT= -16.9768,
NATURAL RESPONSE R*TE = .0260
7 LEVELS OF OoSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
$ $ PR08IT VA
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6> 6
6.5
6.M
6.3
6.2
6* 1
6*0
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5(1
• H
5.3
5.2
5. 1
5tO
H.9
/i n
*t » b
4. .7
H.6
H.5
M.H
M.3
H.2
<4. 1
M. n
• u
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3i|
• "
3.3
3.2
3. 1
3.0
•»•
+
+
+
+
+
•«•
•«•
+ .
+
+
>
+
•»•
*
«•
•f
•*•
+
+
+
*
v
•f
+ »
+ »
+ . *
+ *
+ *
4- •
+ •
•*• •
+ *
+ «
+ •
+ • .
A «
T •
+ •
+ «
+ »
+ * .
. •»•
. +
* +
f +
* +
. +
t +
» " +
• * +
• . +
• +
. +
+
+
*
+
+
4
•f
*
+
+
+
*
+
+
+
+•
*
*
*
+
+
•»•
+
+
2*699 2.849 3«000 3»151 3.301 3,452 3*602
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 214? ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-7
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOG
-------
ff
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TON5A SAMPLE 9923-7
24 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROnlT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE= 9.2349, JNTERCEPT= -20.3254,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE" -.0000
6 LEVELS OF DOSE V-ERE A DM I M I STEREO.
7.0 + . - *
6.9 * *
6,8 + *
6.7 + +
6.6 + +
6.5 * . .. ' . +
6.4 +• +
6 . 3 + •*
6.2 + " *
6. 1 + *
6.0 + +
5.9 4. ; _ __ + .
5.6 + . , ' *
5.7 + *
5.6 + : . • *
5.5 +• *
5.4 * *
5.3 + ... _ *+
5.2 + • *
5.1 + • +
5.0 + .. _ • _. +
4.9 *. .» 4-
4.8 * » +
4.7 + ' • _ *
4.6 + . » *
4.5 + » ' +
4,4 + • * _ + .
4.3 + • • .'""."" "" '*'" "
4.2 •»• » . *
4.1+ • • ______.*_
4.0 * " . " """" +
3.9 + . * *
3.8+ . _' ^ ___*__
3.7 + . , "" " "" " "" : '*"""
3.6 + , • *
3»5 * » __ *
3.4 + . ,•:••'.' "" " " *
3.3 + *
3.2 + . *
3.1+ ' '" " " *
3.0 * * '
$ PROB.IT Vj
+
2*544
4>
2.5R3
4>
2.622
+
2*661
4>
2.700
4-
2.73V
•4.
2.778
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTU TONSA SAMPLE V923-7 4fl HR
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOGOO).
INPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE SIZE = 20. » DEATHS •» o. NATURAL MORTALITY
DOSE LOG DOSE SAMPLE « DEATHS RATE(ADJ.) PROQIT
350.0000 2.5441 2U« 4. .2000 4.1585
400.0000 2.6021 20« 7. .3500 4.6151
450.0000 2.A532 20» 6. .3000 4.4760
500.0000 2.A99Q 20* 9« .4500 4.8746
550.0000 2.7404 20* 12. .6000 5.2529
600.0000 2.7782 20* 20. .9999 8.7191
RESPONSE RATE = o.o OR i.o AT POINTS 6 ;
THERE is AT LEAST ONE EXPECTED VALUE LESS THAN 5. __ _ __ _ _.__
DOSE « RESPONSES EXPECTED
i?i 350,0000 4, 2.7983
'H 400.0000 7. 5.4696
••-"'; 450.0000 6. 8.5687
;-; 500.0000 9. 11.5625
'"" 550.0DOO 17. . 14.09 80
.-; 600.0000 20. 1^.0482 _ __
:31'
:H
.••"• CONSTANTS USED IN PROBlT CALCULATIONS _
| 3.;
•35; HETFROGFNIETY FACTOR s 2*4652
i I '
Uf DEGREES or FREEDOM = 4 ~. -..-.-- - —-—
\^ DEVIATE = 2.7760
h'j G= .7629' ._
V. TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES =" 10 "~ " ' " "
a:{" SUMMARY STATISTICS - - -
44i
«j__ AVG Y = 4.985564 __ __ _ '
"6; AVGX= 2.673327
AVG T = 1.593782
NATURAL MORTALITY = .000000 SE = .00002M _ ___
SLOPE « 8.249049 SE « 2.595551 ~'
T STATISTIC «= SLOPE/SE = 3.178150
INTERCEPT = -17.066841
CHI SQUARED = 9.860773 SIGNIF* AT .05 "~" "" " " """
95« CONFIDENCE LIMITS
POINT DOSE LOWER UPPER
-------
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
a
=•
=
a
=
=
=
=
s
•01
.05
. 10
•20
•50
• 80
•9-0
•95
• 9V
2^7.^1 15
299.Q007
3 3 0 . 9 1 2 P
3 7 1 . 1 5 6 3
473.235I
598.5506
676.76PP
7H8 .9998
906.9104
2.8173
12.5625
27.7790
72.00SO
3 5 2 • 1 0 <4 8
9,08. 1090
5B1 .9625
5*7-0872
655.0157
3^0.7032
380.2M3
MOM,53Q7
'I39.8&8M
A b 2 . 7 «* 8 5
3282.4873
8516, MM 18
18837.7192
84019.0732
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 21H9 ' ACARTIA TOMSA SAMPLE 9923-7 H8 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PRORlT REGRESSION LIME.
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES V\ERF:--SLOPE = a.2^90, INTERCEPT** -I7.o'66n,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE" * 0 D 0 0
6 LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED*
S PKOBIT VAi
,
33.
7*0 *
6.9 +
6.8 +
6,7 +
6.6 +
6.5 +
6.M +
6.3 +
6.2 +
6 . I +
6.0 *
5.9 +
5.8 +
5.7 +
5.6 +
5.5 +
5.3 *
5.2 +
5. 1 +
5.0 +
H.8 +
4.5 +
M.4 +
M.3 +
4.2 - +
M.I +*
M.O +
3*9 -f .
3.8 +
3.7 +
3.6 +
3.5 *
3.3 +
3.2 +
3.1 *
3*0
+
2.6M4
+
2.583
2*627
+
2.661
+
2.700
+
2.739
•*•
2.778
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-7 96 MR
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOGHO).
I N P U T 0 A T A
CONTROL; SAMPLE
DOSE LOG HOSE
F = 20. it DEATHS = . .. p«. NATURAL. MORTALITY....?.
SAMPLE « DEATHS RATEUDJ.) PROOIT
3.50. OD.nn 2.5441 20. 7. .3500 4.6151
MOO.Ot-OO 2.6021 20. 8. .4000 4.7471
450.0000 2 • * 5 3 2 20* 12. . & 0 0 0 _ 5.2529
500.0000 2.699Q 20* 11* .5500 5.J254
550.0000 2.74Q4 20« 17. .8500 6.Q364
600.0000 2.7782 20» 20. •"" _.8»7191
RESPONSE RATE = n.O OK 1,0 AT POINTS & ___________ ......... _ ........ "..._._
CONSTANTS USED IM PROBjT CALCULATIONS
HETEROGFNIETY FACTOR = 1. 0000
NUMBER OF "POINTS = 6 ......... .....! ...... . _____ ________ .: _________________ . _________
DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 4 •
DEVIATE = 1.9600
•Q = .160Q.. ...... ................. ........... ....... . ...... ________ ......
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES =8 •
SUMMARYSTATISTICS ~
AV.6 Y = 5.29<>022
AVG X = 2.65B029 ......... ....... ........... "" ....... "
AVG T = 1.18HI86
NATURAL MORTALITY = .000000 SE = .000003
SLOPE = 8.150023 SE= 1'i 663495" ..... """" : ........
T STATISTIC s SI OPE/SE = 4,899336
INTERCEPTS -16.366979
CHI SQUARED » 6.706818 " ............ ""
p a
P =
P =
P =
P =
P =
P =
POINT
.01
• 05
• 10
•20
•50
.80
• 90
•95
.99
DOSE
216.9067
262.95^1
291 .3779
329.9M7Q
'«! 8 . 5 1 1 8
530.8492
601 , 1 166
666.0937
807 ..4998
95S CONFIDENCE LIMITS-
LOWER UPPER
131.
180.
213.
261 .
377.
491 .
543.
588.
678.
2776
4483
6113
572l
9701
7938
9772
2797
3211
270
310
335
368
448
607
738
872
I 196
.2351
.9241
.3692
.2176
.8660
• 6720
.6182
.0814
.1355
-------
J. Rt GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTJA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-7 96 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE op THE PROBIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE= H.ISGO, INTERCEPT* -16.3&70,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE= .0000
t> LF.VELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
-------
j, i?. GIBSON MR 21-19 ACARTU TONSA SAMPLE 9923-8
INPUT DOSF SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOGUO).
1 MR
INPUT
CONTROL: SA'-'PLK SIZF. = 20. u DEATHS = o» NATURAL MORTALITY
DOSF LOG DOSF: SAMPLE « DEATHS RATEUDJ.) PROBIT
s o o . n n o c
i n o o • n n o o
I'bOC.UCnG
2000.0000
2SOO.OHOO
3000.0000
3 5 0 n • 0 (? 0 0
7. A
-------
J. P. GlRSON MR 2149 ACARTjA TON5A SAMPL^ 9923-8 I HR
PLOT op THE MAXIMA LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PRODIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES HE^E--SLOPE= 3«?o70, INTERCEPTS -6.4315.
NATURAL RESPONSE R A T E = -. o o i a
7 LEVELS OE DosE WERE ADMINISTERED.
7.0 +
6*9 +
6.8 *
6.7 *
6.6 +
6.5 +
6.4 +
6.3 *
6.2 *
6. 1 +
6.0 +
5.9 +
5.8 +
5.7 +
5.6 *
5.5 +
5.4 +
5.3 +
5.2 *
5. 1 +
5.0 +
4.9 +
4.8 *
4.7 +
4.6 +
4.5 *
4.4 +
4.3 +
4,2 +
4.1 +
4.0 +
3.9 +
3*8 +
3.7 +
3.6 +
3.5 +
3.4 +
3.3 +
3.2 +
3.1'*
3.0 *
S
T ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H
+
2*699
+
+
+
+
+
+
•»•
+
•»•
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
*
« *
. +
* , • +
, +
* , +
. * + •
. +
* *
. *
. +
. +
, +
« +
* +
* *
* +
. *
*
+
+
4
. ' *
$ . PROBIT VAli
k**A**A**O.X**** + ***4- + + + + + + -f + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
^TTVTT + TTTT^TTTTTT™»»*TT ..... * ~v r w
+ + + + + *
2.840 2.981 3*122 3,262 3.403 3.544
-------
J,. R, GIBSON MR 21M9 ACARTIA TOMSA SAMPLE 9923-8
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOG(toj.
1 HR
INPUT DATA
'CONTROL' SAMPLE SJZE a 20. « DEATHS = o. NATURAL MORTALITY »
DOSE . LOG OOSE SAMPLE » DEATHS RATEUDJ.) PROSIT
5 o o.o no n ?.*99o
looo.uooo 3.0090
I 5 0 G » 0 0 0 0 3.176J
2000.01)00 3.3010
2500.0000 3.3979
3000.0000 3 » '' 7 7 i
3500.0000 3 • 5 M 'U
RESPONSE RATE = o.o OR 1,0
20* 0» .0000
20. 2. .1000
2Q. 8. .'1000.
20» 19. .9500
20. 15. .7500
20* 20. ..9999
20« 20. .9999
AT POINTS 1 6 7
• 5 '1 1 3
3.7183
M.7M71
6 . 6 M 5 2
5.A742
8.7191
8.7191
THERF is AT L^AST ONE FXPECTFD VALUE LESS THAN 5.
DOSE « RESPONSES
500.0000 0.
1000.0000 2.
1500.0000 «.
2000. OCOO 19.
2500.0000 15.
3000.0000 20.
3500.0000 '20.
CONSTANTS USED IN P R 0 B I T C
HETEROGENIE'TY FACTOR^
NUMBER OF POINTS
DEGREES OF FREEDOM
OEvi ATE
G
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG Y
AVG X
A VG T
NATURAL MORTALITY
SLOPE
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/5E
INTERCEPT
CHI SQUARED
B( 25) - B( 2M)
EXPECTED
.0109
2.0179
9. 1 1H5
15.257^
18.2517
19.MOCO
19.79B7
ALCULATION.S
= 2.31^9
= 7
= S
2.5710
= .3505
n 25
5.359971
= 3. 2 '17323
= 3.329820
= .OOOOOM SE » ,000000
6.62221M SE » 1»52M8M&
a 4.342P7M
= -16. 1M4522
11.57M369 SIGNIF. AT .05
= .00^8053
-------
POINT
DOSE
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
=
s
s
a
s
s:
=
=
•01
• 05
• 10
•20
•50
• PO
• 9Q
•95
69^
« P 0
99«=1
1 163
15r>9
20*9
2 'IT 5
27A2
• 5l43
• 1918
•7072
• 8675
• '* 3 9 7
• S 6 5 M
• 0 0 0 '»
• H<,5P
99
3 5 0 1 • 5 1
95» CONFIDENCE L!
172
303
409
5^4
1Q94
1/^7
1 ^53
21 6ft
2574
LOWER
• 1 4 9.5
• 837A
• 8090
• 8MO
• MM38
• 5726
• 9 «U 6
•3777
• 6752
IMIyS
UPPER
1022,
1 201 .
1314
1475
1941 ,
31UO«
42«8 ,
5709,
995?
,6957
• 8288
• 7015
• 5073
.4373
•0935
.5797
>7307
• 9902
-------
r
J. R. GIRSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-8 4 HR
\
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES ^PR^-SLOPE* 6.6222, -INTERCEPT* -16.1445,
NATUF?AL RESPONSE RATE= .0000
7 LEVE|_S OF OQSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
$ $ PROBjI VA
7.0 + . +
6.9 + . +
6.8 + . +
6.7 + • . . +
6.6 + ' * » . +
6.5 + . «•
6.4 + * . +
6.3 + • *
6.2+ » +
6.1+ . +
6 • 0 + » +
5»9 + * *
5.8 ••• . +
5.7 + . +
5,6+ « » +
5.5 + . +
5.4 + . +
5.3 + . • +
5.2 + . +
5.1+ . +
5.0 + . +
4.9 + . +
4.8 + • +
4.7 + .» +
4.6+ • *
4.5 + . +
4.4 + « +
4.3 + . +
4.2+ • +
4.1+ * +
4.0 + » +
3.9 + . +
3.8 + , +
3.7 + • +
3.6 + . +
.
3.5 +
3.4 + , +
3.3 + . +
3.2 + . +
3.1+ . +
3.0 + . +
« PROBIT VA
+ + + + + + + + + + + -f-4--f + -f44--«-4>-f-f-l-.f-f4--f4--f + + + + + + + -f + + +-f + + -f-«- + + -f-t- + 4>
+ + + + + + +
2»699 2.84Q 2.9H1 3.122 3.262 3.403 3.544
-------
J. «• GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-8
INPUT DOSE. SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO
8 HR
INPUT DATA
CONTROL' SAMPLE SIZE » 20. « DEATHS a o. NATURAL MORTALITY
DOSE LOG HOSE SAMPLE « DEATHS RATEUDJ.) PROBIT
5 o o • n o n n
IOOO.OPOO
1500*0000
2000.0QOO
2500.0000
3000. ooon
3500.0000
? • 6 9 9 0
3.0000
3«l76i
3.3010
3.3979
3.«77 1
3 • "• 4 4 1
20.
20.
20.
20.
2Q«'
20.
20»
1 •
4.
16.
20.
20.
20.
20.
.0251
.1790
,7948
.9999
.9999
.9999
.9999
3. Q4Q8
4.0809
5,8228
8.7J91
8.7191
8.7191
8.7191
RESPONSE RATE = n.o OR i.o AT POINTS
CONSTANTS USED IN PROBIT CALCULATIONS
HET£ROGF.MIETY FACTOR = 1.0030
N U M q E R OF POINTS = 7
OF FREEDOM =
DEVIATES
6 =
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES =
5
I .9600
.1693
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG Y =
A V G X =
AVG T 3
NATURAL !"OPTALITY =
SLOPE =
T STATISTIC = SI..OPE/SE «•
INTERCEPT =
CHI SQUARED 8
3. 1 1373M
1 .790920
.025572
10« 790053
4.763371
•23.340786
1 .763603
SE
SE
. 024912
2« 265214
952 CONF1
POINT
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
jj
=
=
=
=
a
9
a
3
.01
•05
• 10
•20
•50
• 8Q
•90
•95
• 99
748
865
935
10?7
1230
1472
16)7
1 747
2Q?0
DOSE
.7879
• 9834
• 7923
.9162
• 1428
• 1541
•0302
.4367
.7343
1
1
1
1
1
L
496«
631 •
716-
832«
084-
332.
45 I <
547.
734'
.OW£R
• 6001
'6322
• 7176
.5842
• 8102
.4169
. 1686
.9296
.3^55
10ENCE L
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
899
003
065
150
360
706
964
219
2811
IMITS
UPPER
.4605
• 6189
• 9823
.40Q7
.5485
.9386
• 8055
.99Q5
.8898
-------
J. R» GIBSON MR 2119 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-8 8 HR
PLOT op THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROFIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKEI.IHOOO ESTIMATES ^RE—SLOPE" 10.7901, INTERCEPT18 -28.3ioa,
NATURAL RESPONSE K /» T E 3 .0756
7 LEVELS 0F POSE WERE ADM I M I STEREO.
$ $ S $ pRQBlT VA
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5 '
6.1
6.3
6.2
6. 1
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.7
5*6
5.5
5.1
5.3
5.2
5. 1
5.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.1
tt •%
" • 3
1.2
1. 1
1.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.1
3.3
3.2
3. 1
3.0
+
4-
4-
4>
4-
+
4-
*
4-
4>
4-
+
+
4-
4-
4-
+
4-
4-
4-
4-
+
4>
4-
+
4-
4-
A
T
*
+
4>
+
4-
+
+
+
4-
4.
4>
+
4-*
4" + 41 + ^ 41 H
4-
2*699
. +
. +
* +
. +
i . " ' +
. +
• 4>
W » *^
+
. +
» ' *
A
* *
. *
* 4>
. +
. +
. +
. +
. +
, • +
+
. *
+
+
+
+
*
+
4i
.
*
*
* *
4.
4.
," . ' *
*
>
*
4-
! +
+
*
k4''t4'4'4'-*4'*^4i + +4'4-4>4'4.4'*4' + 'f + + + 4>*4"f4'4'4'4' + 4'-f4>4'4'4>'f4'4'4.+ 4'4>4'4>4>4.'f4i4>
4- 4> + * + +
2-810 2-981 3.122 3.262 3.103 3.511
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-8 24 HR
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOGUOJ.
INPUT DATA
CONTROL! SAMPLE SIZE = 20. » DEATHS = o. NATURAL MORTALITY = .<
DOSE LOG DOSE SAMPLE « DEATHS RATEUDJ.) PROFIT
35D-0000
400.0000
450.0000
500.0000
550.0000
600.0000
2.5441
2. #,021
?. 6532
2.6990
2.7404
2.7782
20*
20«
20.
20*
20.
20.
2.
0.
5.
4.
10.
9.
. 1000
.0001
.2500
.2000
.5000
.4500
3.7183
1.2809
4.3250
4.1505
5.0000
4.8746
RESPONSE RATF. = o.o OR i.o AT POINTS 2
CONSTANTS USED IN PROBlT CALCULATIONS
HETEROGFNIETY FACTOR = 1.0000
NUMtjER OF POINTS = 6
DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 4
DEVIATF = 1.9600
G = .2720
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES = 6
3',
4?.
•13:
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG Y
AVG X
AVG T
NATURAL MOPTALITY
SLOPE
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/Sr
INTERCEPT
CHJ SQUARED
POINT
».. ' P
P
JB P
P
p
p
>/ p
v, P
1.' p
=
S
S>
=
a
»
a
s
•01
.05
. 10
•20
• 50
• 80
.90
• 95
.99
DOSE
279.9318
350.81 16
395.6726
457.7533
604.9208
799.4028
924.8283
1 043.Q932
I 307.2086
4.3901 82
2.693974
2.072650
.000000 SE
6.951519 SE
3.757875
J4. 33703J
5.885684
95* CONF
LOWER
148.7853
236.681 9
301 .5&24
396.6613
546.9699
668.2823
737.8521
799.98Q7
929.8921
= .000183
= 1 .049854
IDENCE LIMIT S :
UPPE«
344.3472 "" ~"
402.4349
439.6101
498. 795S "
778.0320
1369,6812
1051 .431?
2376.7393
3801.3045
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2 1M9 ACARTU TON5A SAMPLE 9923-8 2S HR
;•'?
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROOIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES V»F.RE--SLOPE = 6.9515, INTERCEPT* -i'i.33'7a,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE- .0000
6 LEVELS OF DOSE WERF. ADMINISTERED.
7.0 + *
6.9 * . . +
6.8+ .. _ *
6.7 + ~ " " +
6.6 + +
6.5+ . . . . +.
6.4 + *
6.3 + *
6.2 + "... . _.+..
6.1+ *
6*0 + , *
5.9 + ' . +
5.8 + +
5.7 + +
5.6 + . _ _ +
5.5 + " "" *
5.3 + *
5.2 + • " " " " "" • * '""' '
5.1+ * •
5.0 + _ _. _* _
1.9 + * i +
-------
J, R, GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-8 48 HR
INPUT
INPUT
350
4 o n
'(50
500
550
600
CONST
TO
S U M M A
T
P
P a
P =
P =
p =
P =
P =
p a
P ~
P =
DOSE SCALE IS TRANS
DATA
CONTROL! SAMPLE s i
DOSE LOG HOSE
.0000 ?.S44l
.0000 ?.602l
.0000 ?.A532
.0000 2.6990
.0000 7.7404
.0000 2.7782
ANTS US CD IN PR OR IT
HETEROGENIETY FACTOR
NUMnER OF POINTS
DEGREES OF FREE no M
OEVI ATE
G
TAL NUMBER OF CYCLES
RY STATISTICS
AVG Y
AVG X
AVG T
NATURAL MORTALITY
SLOPE
STATISTIC = SLOPE/SE
INTERCEPT
CHI SQUARED
OINT DOSE
.01 109. *1 79
• 05 258.6336
• 10 305. 1820
•20 372.9J21
• 50 5«*7.1492
.00 802.7951
•90 9BO»963l
• 95 1 1^7.51*48
•99 1578.8182
FORMED TO LOG(IO).
ZF = 20. « DEATHS
SAMPLE » DEATHS
20. *»•
20. 3.
20. . . «•
20. 7.
20. 13.
20* 10.
CALCULATIONS
s I ,0000
= 6
= M
= 1.9600
.3671
= 3
M. 697191
a 2.678199
= 1.8G9H5H
= .OOOOOQ SE
= 5.054686 SE
3.23^710
= -8.8M0266
s 4.221 1*8
»
95* CONF
LOWER
45.4R85
99.4893
150.5895
246.6682
490*8007
647.7620
737*4436
819.4542
996»9049
o. NATURAL MORTALITY =
RATEUDJ.) PROBIT
.2000 4.1585
.1500 3.9636
.4000 4.7471
.3500 4.615V
.6500 5.3849
.5000 5,0000
• - -
a .000086
a 1.56264Q
IDENCE LIMITS
UPPER
_,
2 ' 1 . 2485
330.7639
368.67^1
424 .0543
715.8395
1821 .7621
3014.9193
4577.4411
10035.0469
-------
1st
J, R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTlA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-8 ^8 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROPIT REGRESSION LIME.
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE= 5•0547 i ' I NTERCEPT = -8.8103,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE0 .0000
6 LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED*
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.2
6. 1
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
5. 1
5.0
4.9
4*8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4. 1
4,0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3. 1
3.0
•f
+
+
+
•f
+
+
•f
+
•»•
+
*
+
+
+
•f
+
•f
*
+
•»
+
•f
+
+
+
+
*
+
+ •
* .
+
+
+
+
•f
•«•
+
+
*
+
+ +•»• + +
*
*
+
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
+
+'
*
*
*
*'
+'
+
*
*
+
*
+'
+
' +
+
+
+
+"
2*544
-------
J. R. GIRSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-0 96 HR
INPUT DOSF SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOGMO).
INPUT DATA
CONTROL' SAMPLE SjZE ~ 20. « DEATHS = 1« NATURAL MORTALITY = .
DOSE LOG DOSE SAMPLE » DEATHS RATE (ADJ.) PR 0(3 IT
3 5 0 . 0 fl 0 0 ? . 5 4 4 1 20. 5 • .2113 . 4 . l 9 8 3
MOO.0000 3.6021 20* 6. .2639 4,36fl9
4 50.00 (DO ?.532 20. 1 !'• .5260 5. 0670
500.0000 2.6990 20*. 13. .6319 5.3366
550.0000 2.7404 2 0 • 16. .7897 5.8051
600.0000 2.7782 20* .15t V73.7! 5.
CONSTANTS USF.D IN PROBlT CALCULATIONS
HETEROGFNIETY FACTOR a 1.0000
NUMBER OF POINTS =6
DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 4 " ~ " '
DEV I ATF = 1.9600
G = .'2256
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES = 3
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG Y = 5.095573
AVG X = 2.672858 " ":"
AVG T = 1.364201
NATURAL MORTALITY * .OM9048 SE = .048118
SLOPE <= 7.2^2496 SE = 1.764882
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/5E = 4.1?6336
INTERCEPT = -14.3695C6
CHI SQUARED = 1.61043Q ' ;"
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
POINT
.05
• 10
»20
»50
*80
.90
.95
»99
DOSE
218.9259
271.5580
304.6146
350.UR18
456.3Q86
5 9 6 • 0 7 2 H
685*0431
7A8.4306
953. 1724
952 CONFIDENCE LIMITS
LO'^ER UPPER
10*.
159.
197.
255.
404.
537.
597.
649.
755.
1922
4534
7*95
9600
2&41
2787
A535
4506
6286
285,17511-
331.3047
359.3731
397.72QM
500.6755
749.0197
9 6 4 . 4 & 9 2
I 194.0851
1790.3170
-------
'j>5
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTU TONSA SAMPLE 9923-8 96 HR
PLOT Or THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OE THE PROBIT REGRESSION LIME.
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WF;RE--SLOPE = 7.232$, INTERCEPTS -14.3695,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE= .0490
6 L E V K I S or DOSE IVE R E ADMINISTERED.
7.0 +
6.9 +
6.8 +
6.7 +
6.6 +
6.5 +
6.1 +
6.3 +
6.2 +
6.1 +
6.0 +
5.9 +
5.8 +
5.7 +
5.6 +
5.5 +
5.4 +
5.3 +
5.2 +
5.1 + ,
5.0 + • •
1.9 +
1.8 + .
1.7 + .
4.6 + .
4.5 + .
4.4 + •
4.3 + . *
4.2 + .
4.1 +»
4.0 +
3.9 +
3.8 +
3.7 +
3.6 +
3.5 +
3.4 +
3.3 +
3.2 +
3.1 +
3.0 +
4.+ 4- + 4-4-4.4.4.4-4-4-4-4-4-4.4- + 4. + 4.4-4.4. + + + + + -> ++++++•
+ 4- 4- +
2.544 2.583 2.622 2.661
+
4-
4-
4.
+
+
1 *
4-
+
+
+
+
* * +
* +
• **
. +
• +
* • *
. +
4-
+
4-
+
4
+
*
+
+
+
+
*
+
4-
+ '
+
+
4-
+
+
+
+
1.4-4. + 4- + + 4-4- + + 4- + + 4-4- + + + + + 4- + + +
+ * +
2.700 2.739 2.7:
-------
'14-
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTU TONSA SAMPLE 9923-9 24 HR
INPUT OOSE SCALE rs TRANSFORMED TO
INPUT DATA
! iv
I?1 '
DOSE
SAMPLE SIZE = 20. « DEATHS * o. NATURAL MORTALITY
LOG DOSE SAMPLE * DEATHS RATEtADJt) PRQBIT
350.0QOO
M 0 0 . 0 0 0 0
450.0UOO
500.0000
550.0000
600.0000
? . 5 4 41
2.A021
2.A532
2*6990
2.7404
2.7782
20»
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
1 *
0.
6.
5,
8.
S.
.0500
.0001
.3000
,2500
.4000
.4000
3.3540
1 .2809
4.4760
4.3258
4.7471
1.7471
RESPONSE RATE = 0.0 OR 1.0 AT POINTS
CONSTANTS USED IN PROBlT CALCULATIONS
HETEROGEIIIETY FACTOR = J.OOQO
NUMn t; R OF POINTS = 6
DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 4
DEVIATE = 1.9600
G = .2893
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES = 25
i J"
1-
SUMMARY STATISTICS
AVG Y
AVG X
AVG T
NATURAL MORTALITY
SLOPE-
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/SE
INTERCEPT
Chi SQUARED
B( 25) - B( 24)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
POINT
.05
.10
»20
»50
.00
.90
.95
*99
DOSE
2«4.5858
357.2930
403.3736
467.2108
6 1 8.80&9
019.5913
949* 2984
1071.7306
1345.5410
4.337947
2.695549
3.05941 1
-.OQOOQO
SE = .000000
95972 SE
5004J
c. n u ft Q
*3 U T w O
32816 "'••
14179
95» CONF
LOWER
1^7.5073
239. 1333
307.5071
407» 1213
556.0255
678. J635
740.4981
811.3371
942*7451
= 1.889286
-— - —
IDENCE LIMITS
UPPER
349.98Q3
409.1782
447.4613 "
510.7436
823.7868
1487.8458
2037. 1256
2642.8051
4310. 897H
-------
J. R« GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TON5A SAMPLE 9923-9 24 HR
PLOT Op THE MAXJMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROnlT REGRESSION LlNE>
THE MAXIMUM LIKEI.IHOOQ ESTIMATES »VE.RE--SLOPE = 6.nv60, INTERCEPTS -14.2505,
NATURAL RESPONSE «ATE= -.0000
6 LFVEL5 OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
7 .
6.
6.
6.
6.
6 .
6 .
6.
6.
6.
6.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5*
5.
5.
1 .
4.
4.
4.
4.
4 •
4.
4.
4.
4.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3*
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
4-
4-
+
4-
+
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
4
+
4-
4-
>
+
4-
4-
4-
4-
«•
4-
4-
*
4-
4-
4-
4>
4-
*•
4-
+
4-
+
•f
+
4-
*
4-
4.
4-
+
4-
+
4.
4-
•f
+
« +
PROBlT VA
• + 4> *• +• 4- 4- + 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. +. 4, 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4. 4- +
+ 4- 4. 4- + 4- +
2.544 2.503 2.6?? 7.661 2.700 2.739 2.778
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-9 48 HR
INPUT DOSE SCALE IS TRANSFORMED TO LOG(lO).
INPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE SIZE =
20
« DEATHS -
NATURAL MORTALITY * ,c
DOSE
350.0000
400. 0 n o 0
450.0000
500.0000
550.0000
600.0000
CONSTANTS USFD
H E T F R 0 G r N
NtJKRE
C F G R E F S
TOTAL NUMBE
SUMMARY STATIS
NATURA
T STATISTIC
POINT
P ~ .05
P = • 10
P = »20
P = .50
P = .80
P = .90
P = «95
p a .99
LOG OOSE
7.5441
7.6021
2.6532
2.6990
2.7404
2.7782
IN PROli r T C
IETY FACTOR
R OF POINTS
0 ^ FREEDOM
OE V I A TE
'G
R OF CYCLES
TICS
AVG Y
AVG X
AVG T
L MORTALITY
SLOPE
= SLOPE/SE
T NTERCEPT
Cm SQUARED
DOSE
312'JI"
356, 7562
4 1 8. 1565
566 ,5709
767.66 1 4
899.7812
1025.8454
1311 .8587
SAMPLE M DEATHS
20. 2.
20. *».
20. 8»
20» 7,
20. 9.
20. 12.
A.LCULATIONS
= 1,0000
= 6
= 4
a 1 .9600
= .3978
a 6
= 4.6M 302
= 2.692328
2,101522
s .045952 SE
6»379843 SE
3.107552
-12.565330
= 1.568268
95$ CONF
67»8439
I 31 .1^00
185.7028
280*2056
503.7304
640,4446
71 1 «Q206
773.2768
902.7649
RATt ( ADJ. ) PROOI T
.0567 3.4161
.1615 4.01 16
.3711 4.6715
.3187 4.5291
.4235 4.9074
.5807 b,2034
-
.046271
= 2 •053012
IDENCE LIMITS
UPPE1*
330.8498 " '"" "
387,3722
422.8354
474.8621
724.3775
1562.4205
2384.81 J8
3389.4364
6570.6753
-------
AT 7
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTU TONSA SAMPLE 9923-9
M8 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROFHT REGRESSION LINE.
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES WERE--SLOPE= 6.3793, INTERCEPTS -I2.b653,
NATURAL RESPONSE R .« T E = .0160
6 LEVELS OF OOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
5* 1
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4. 1
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3. 1
3.0
+
4
4
4-
4
4
4
4
4
4-
4
4
4-
4-
4
+
+
*
+
4-
+
+'
4
+
4-
4-
4
4-
*
+
4-
+
+
4 .
4
4
4- *
4
4-
4-
4-
4-
2*544
4>
4
4-
+
4
4-
4
4
4
*
*
4
*
4-
4
*
4-
4>
4
4
+
4
4
2.5H3
4-
2.622
2.661
2.700
2.739
2. 778
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACART1A TONSA SAMPLE 9923-9 96 HR
INPUT DOSE SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO LOG(io)t
INPUT DATA
CONTROL: SAMPLE
DOSE LOG POSE
r = 20. « DEATHS - i. NATURAL MORTALITY
SAMPLE » DEATHS RATE(ADJ') PROBIT
3 5 0
400
450
500
550
600
•
t
*
t
*
•
noon
OCOO
0000
o o o o
0000
0000
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
5441
A02 1
A532
699Q
7404
7782
2U.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
3.
6*
12.
9.
13.
14.
.1091
.2663
, b 8 0 7
.4235
. A 3 3 2
,6856
3
4
b
4
5
5
•
.
.
.
*
*
7684
3763
2034
8075
339Q
4829
CONSTANTS USED IM PR 0 B I T CALCULATIONS
HFTEROGFNIETY FACTOR - i.oooo
NUMBER OF POINTS = 6
'•EGRESS OF FREEDOM = <4
r>E V I A T F = 1.9600
G = .2352
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES = 5
SUMMARY STATISTICS
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
NA
T STATI
POINT
= .01
= »05
= • 10
= »20
= .50
= »80
= .90
= .95
= t99
A V G Y =
A V C> X =
AVG T =
TURAL MORTALITY =
SLQPF =
STjC = SLOPE/SF =
I NTERCEP T =
CHI SQUARED. =
QOSE
21^.8575
274.8449
3| 2. 6279
3A5. 4080
4 9 2 . «4 5 4 1
6 6 3 • A 7 2 0
775.7178
802.3561
1 1 ?3.4776
4,915277
2,679321
1 ,555848
,04^924 SE
6.49444J SE
3.670036
-12.485412
3.555260
95* CONFI
LO^ER
83.2312
139*1212
182.6004
252.6825
436.9608
579.5560
647.8007
707.6279
832.2010
s .04662Q
= 1 ,7695«5
DENCE LIMITS ~" "
UPPER
290,7028" "" " " "~ — '
341.91J9
3/3.5327
4 17.6604 " "
556,6059
967. 1345
1338.7790
1757.39Q1
2937. 76M1
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTU TONSA SAMPLE 9923-9
96 HR
PLOT op THE MAXIMUM LIKF.LIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROBIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES AERE--SLOPES 6.4914, INTERCEPTS -i2.4aS4,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATE = .0459
6 LEVELS OF DO^E WERE ADMINISTERED.
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.3
6.2
6. 1
6.0
5.9
5. a
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
5. 1
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4. 1
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3*6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3. 1
3.0
4-
4-
4-
4-
4>
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
+
4-
4>
4-
4-
4-
+
4-
4-
4-
+
+ .
4-
4-
4-*
4-
4>
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
^ » A X
~ T T r
4>
2.544
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
+
4-
4.
#*
+
4-
+
*
4-
4-
4.
4-
4-
4-
4>
4.
' +
4-
2.5P3
4-
2.622
+
2*661
2.700
2.739
2*778
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 21-19 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9723-10 24 HR
INPUT DOSE SCALE IS TRANSFORMED TO LOG(lQ)«
INPUT DATA
CONTROL- SAMPLE SIZE = 20. « DEATHS : Ot NATURAL MORTALITY
DOSE LOG DOSE SAMPLE » DEATHS KATEUDJ*) f'ROBIT
350.
400.
M 5 0 .
r> o P .
550,
600.
noon
oono
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
2.
2,
2.
2.
2.
2.
54')
602
A53
699
77«
1
1
2
0
2
20.
20.
20.
20»
20.
20.
1 •
0.
3.
8.
7»
.0500
.0001
. 1500
.2000
.4000
.3500
3
1
3
4
4
4
• 3548
• 2809
• 9636
• 1505
• 7 't 7 1
• 6151
RESPONSE K A T r_ = n.n OR 1,0 AT POINTS 2
CONSTANTS USF.'O IN pROBjT CALCULATIONS
HF.TEROGf-NIETY FACTOR = 1.0000
NUMnF.R OF POINTS = A
DF.GREFS OF FREEDOM = t
DEVIATE = 1.9600
G = .3030
TOTAL NUMBER OF CYCLES = 7
SUMMAR.Y STATISTICS
AVG Y =
A VG X =
AVG T =
NATURAL MORTALITY =
SLOPE =
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/SE =
INTERCEPT *
CHI SQUARED =
P =
P =
P =
P =
P =
P *
P =
P =
P =
POINT
• 01
• 05
• 10
•20
• BO
• 80
• 90
• 95
• 99
DOSE
3J 1 . ^30
305.0373
4 3 1 • I I 2 5
H94 « 3585
6^2.3270
834.S8H5
957.Q213
1 0 7 1 . 5 M 2 7
1 324.5794
4.21 9653
2.702318
3.751068
.000000 SE
7 »40101 3 SE
3.560944
15.780211
3.066883
952 CONF
LOWER
I 70.H962
270*4983
3H3.Q515
441 .6985
574. 1366
688.5772
754.2061
812*4901
933.3371
*
a .000054
a 2 »078385 ' ""
IDENCE LIMITS '
UPPER
37^.6090
433.8075
473.0952
544.2064
887,4633
1568.5170
2120.9643 ""
2723.0242
4355. 1191
-------
. HI
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTJA TONSA SAMPLE! 9923-10 24 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PKORIT REGRESSION LINE* :
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES «F.KE--SLOPE= 7. MOID, INTERCEPT* -i5.7802i
HATE = .0000
A LEV ELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTER ED.
7.0 +
6.9 +•
6.8 +
6.7 +
6.6 +
6.5 +
6.4 +•
6.3 +
6.2 +
6.1 +
6.0 +
5.9 *
5.8 *
5.7 +
5.6 +
5.5 +
5.4 +
5.3 *
5.2 +
5. I *
5.0 +
4.9 +.
4.8 +
4.7 *
4.6 +
4.5 *
4.4 +
4.3 *
4.2 +
4.1 *
4.0 *
3.9 +
3.8 +
3.7 *
3.6 +
3.5 *
3.4 * .
3.3 **
3.2 + .
3.1 +
3.0 +.
$
2.544 2.583 2.622 2.661 2.700
-------
J. P. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-10 4fl HR
'-i I
.j.
INPUT
INPUT
35P.
400.
450,
500.
550,
600.
C 0 N S T A
DOSE SCAL
DATA
c o N T R n i, :
DOSE L
oooo
Dunn
oooo
oooo
ocoo
oooo
NTS U 5 F. D
HFTE.ffOGF.NI
TOT
5UMMAR
T S
PO
P =
P =
P =
P a
P =
P *
P =
p n
P »
N U M B E R
DEGREES
A L NUMBER
Y STATIST
NATURAL
TATISTIC
c
INT
• 01
• 05
• 10
•70
•50
• 80
• 90
•95
• 99
E IS TRANSF
SAMPLE *iz
OG POSE
7 . 5 4 4 1
? . /- 0 2 1
?.*532
2.6990
2 , 7 4 0 i\
2.7782
IN P R 0 8 I T C
F. T Y FACTOR
OF POINTS
OF FREEDOM
H E V I A T F
G
OF CYCLES
ICS
AVG Y
AVG X
AVG T
AORTAL I TY
SLOPE
= SLOPE/SE
INTERCEPT
HI SQUARED-
DOSE
276.6520
2 R 6 . 4 2 2 4
324.4905
377.4319
503.9^57
672.8663
702*6462
8P6.6668
1 I 70.4896
OR MED TO LOG(lO).
F = 20. « DEATHS
SAMPLE « DEATHS
20. *«•
20. 2»
20. 10.
20* 9.
20. 12.
20. 1M*
ftLCULATIONS
= 1.0000
= 6
= 4
= 1.96CO
.2193
= 7
4.832714
2.677429
1.709583
- .000000 SE
s 6.703568 5E
= 4 * 1 R5263
= -13. 1 15614
4.485715
9 5 S C 0 N F
LO'AER
1 1 6.8335
180*6827
227*5270
299.3197
464*0877
590*7810
658.5264
718.8819
845.6572
-
* o. NATURAL MORTALITY =
RATE ( ADJ« ) PROB I T
.2000 4.1585
. 1000 3.7183
,5000 5.0000
.4500 ' 4.8746
.6000 ^.2529
.7000 5.5240
.. . .
. ...
„
* ,000001
= 1.601706
IPENCE LIMITS "••" * -"' '
UPPER
289.8662 '
341.3921
373.23Q1
4 17.' 8548 "" " '
565. 1817
931 .08^4
1230.25Q8
1551 .4HQ6
2402.2432
-------
J. R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACAR-TIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-10 48 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PROSIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM 1.1 KFI i noon ESTIMATES uFRE--5LOPEa 6.7U36, INTERCEPT* -I3«li&&,
NATURAL RESPONSE RATK = .0000
6 LF.VE.LS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED. •
7.0 *
6.9 •••
6.0 4.
6.7 +
6.6 4-
6.5 4-
6.4 +
6.3 4.
6.2 +
6. 1 +
6.0 +•
5.9 4-
5.8 *
5.7 +
5.6 +
5.5 *
5.44-
5.3 *
5.2 4-
5. 1 +
5.0 +
4.9 4-
4.3 4-
4.7 4-
4.6 4-
4.5 4-
4,4 4-
4.3 4-
4,2 +
4,1 4-»
4 . 0 4- ,
3.9 +.
3.8 4-
3.7 4-
3.6 +
3.5 4-
3.4 4-
3.3 +
3.2 *
3. 1 +
3.0 +
4-
2*544
• *
. +
+
+
+
•f
*
+ '
*
+
+
*
+
*
*
* 4-
. +
. 4-
*' 4-
. 4-
. +
*',... 4-
* • +
, 4-
* . *
t *
. _ *
, *
, +
. *
+
+
+
* +
+
+
+
+
+
*
4-
4- 4- + ' ' + ' " 4- + '
2.5R3 2.622 2.661 2.700 2,739 2.778
-------
J, R. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-10 96 HR
INPUT D o s F SCALE is TRANSFORMED TO
INPUT DATA
CONTROL! SAMPLE SIZE = 20.
DOSE
LOG no s E
SAMPLE
« DEATHS - o. NATURAL MORTALITY «
DEATHS RATEUDJO PROBIT
350
400
450
'JOG
550
600
• ricoo
. o o o n
. 0 0 0 0
.0000
» 0 0 0 0
. 0 0 0 0
2
2
2
2
2
2
.5
• r>
.6
.6
.7
.7
44
02
53
99
40
78
1
1
2
0
4
2
20 •
20.
20.
20*
20.
20.
7
5
I 3
12
15
20
.
.
.
,
,
.
, 3500
.2500
.6500
.6000
.7500
.9999
4
*
5
5
5
8
• 6151
.3258
.3849
• 2G29
.6742
• 7191
RESPONSE RATF = n•o OR 1,0 AT POINTS
CONSTANTS USED IN P R 0 13 I T CALCULATIONS
FN IETY FACTOR = 1.0000
N i.l M « E R OF POINTS = 6
DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 4
OEV I ATE = t .9600
G = «1551
TOTAL MI.IMAER OF CYCLES = 13
S U N M A R-Y S T A r I S T I C S
AVG Y = 5.238501
AVG X = 2.660788
AVG T = 1.250276
N A T U K A I M 0 P T A I I T Y = .000000
SLOPE = 8.238772
T STATISTIC = SLOPE/SE = 4.976132
INTERCEPT = -16.683127
CHI SQUARED B M.239349
SE
SE
.ooooco
1 ,655658
95S COMF1
POINT
? =
P =
P =
P =
P =
P =
P =
P =
P =
,01
,05
• 10
•20
• 50
.80
• 90
• 95
.99
223.
270,
299.
338.
428.
541 •
612.
670.
820.
DOSE
60HO
51 17
421 1
6012
3903
9894
9101
4114
7288
LOWER
139.
1 90.
224.
273.
390«
501 •
553»
598.
689.
1887
0255
1 195
1697
31H1
6106
7408
2856
0102
OENCE LIMIT?
UPPER
276.0729
317,3976
3^2,2344
375,6615
458.81Q4
623*0160
755.0669
888,7321
1211.2719
-------
J. M. GIBSON MR 2149 ACARTIA TONSA SAMPLE 9923-10 96 HR
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE PKOBIT REGRESSION LINE*
THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES IVF.RE--SLOPE = 8.2388, INTERCEPTS -16.603),
NSERATE= .0000
6 LEVELS OF DOSE WERE ADMINISTERED.
2*544 2.5H3
-------
B
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
EN-IOZ9
UTAIUSMIQ ItOt
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY
INCOHPOHATIO
WILMINGTON. DELAWARE 19898
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
June 13, 1975
Mr. Richard T. Dewling, Director
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Raritan Depot, Building 10
Edison, NJ 08817
Dear Mr. Dewling: '
The report attached to R. D. Turner's letter of June 10, 1975,
to you references two other Du Pont reports under the names,
John Ball and D. W. Hood.
Attached herewith are copies of each. Similar copies were
attached to material given to Mr. Paul Bermingham for the
hearing record and to Dr. Paul Lefcourt in New York on June 12.
Very truly yours,
ENGINEERING SERVICE DIVISION
L. L. Falk
LLFrkmt
Atch.
*Note to BCC's: Copies also attached for these recipients,
-------
ENGINEERING REPORT
ON
• ' WASTE DISPERSION AT SEA
'E. I.-DU PONT DE NEMOU.PvS & COMPANY (INC.)
July 31, 1973 . ' '
INTRODUCTION
Ocean dumping permits issued to E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company (Du Pont) for plants at Beaumont, Texas, Houston, Texas, and
Belle, West Virginia required that in situ waste dispersion studies be
conducted. To this end, Du Pont contracted with Dr. John jail, Civil
Engineering Department, Texas A&M University (TAiVIU) to obtain waste
dispersion data from barging operations in the Gulf of Mexico. This
report presents results obtained at a 35,000 Ifa./minute discharge rate.
A planned dispersion test at a 7,000 Ib./minute discharge rate was post-
poned when barging operations were interrupted.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The mathematical model submitted to EPA (March, 1973) predicted
an initial waste concentration (Phase I) of 750 ppm, for a discharge
rate of 35,000 Ib./minute at a speed of 5 knots. • Initial concentrations
found during the test ranged from 250 to 1200 ppm, averaging 610 ppm.
These results appear to confirm Phase I of the model.
-------
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS (CONTINUED)
2. . Phase II dispersion occurred at a slower rate than predicted. The
waste concentration in the wake of the barge was reduced to 40 ppm
after 7 1/2 hours of dispersion. The study data is inconclusive
regarding the validity of Phase II of the model. . .
3. The dispersion characteristics of wastes barged from Belle, West
Virginia and Houston, Texas are expected'to be similar to those of
the Beaumont waste. •
»
4. All dispersion data collected during the study are summarized in
Table I.
STUDY PROCEDURE
Rhodamine WT dye was added to one compartment of the PATCO 100
barge when the barge was filled with Beaumont'plant waste. The resultant
waste-to-dye ratio was 2500:1. TAMU personnel and a Du Pont observer
met the barge in the dump zone on May 15. The barge discharged waste
at 35,000 Ib./minute for 20 minutes while being towed at 5 knots. Waste
was discharged twice from this compartment, and samples were taken at the
center line of both wakes for 7 1/2 hours at depths from 3 feet, to 33 feet.
-------
-3- •
STUDY PROCEDURE (CONTINUED)
\ . .
Samples were transported to TAMU and read with two Turner Model 111
fluorcmsters. Calibration curves were prepared and used to convert fluoro-
meter readings into dye concentrations which were converted into equivalent
waste concentrations based on the 2500:1 waste-to-dye ratio. Appendix
contains the calibration curves for both fluorometers.
DISCUSSION ' . ' . •
'_."'• •
Figure 1 shows the waste dispersion determined from the study and
the calculated dispersion for Phase II of the mathematical model presented
in "Engineering Report on Deep Sea Disposal of Wastes" which was attached
as Exhibit III to our application (3/23/73) for Ocean Dumping Permit 730-DOO?.
The Phase I portion of the model is corroborated by the study data
for initial mixing. The results show some variability as might be expected
in the turbulent mixing zone immediately behind the barge. Five samples
taken just under the surface of the water behind the barge showed a waste
concentration range of 1200 - 250 ppm. The average concentration of •
these samples -.'/as 610 ppm, which compares very closely to the model
prediction of 750 ppm for a 5 knot barge speed and 35,000 Ib./minute
discharge rate.
-------
DISCU5?ION (CONTINUED)
*. ,
. ' Tli3 original study data shows variability in waste dispersion among
the four v/akes. The current study data is compared with the original
study daia in Figure 2. All four wakes in that study showed logarithmic .
decay, and the preponderance of the data forms the basis for the rapid ,
dispersion predicted by the model. However, Wake 3 exhibited a much
slower dispersion rate than did the other three wakes. The decrease in
waste concentration is of the same order of magnitude as the waste
•
concentration decrease in this study.
•
Overall dispersion (following the initial mix) was slower than
expected. Dispersion appears to have been second-order or logarithmic
in nature. The initial dispersion rate closely approximated that of the
model. However, this rate was not maintained and declined steadily.
The study data cannot be regarded as conclusive, since the amount
of data taken was limited by difficulties encountered during the study.
The choppy seas incapacitated most of the sampling party. Neither fluoro-
meter on board the boat operated, necessitating discreet sampling instead
of the planned continuous record. The second wake was discharged four
miles from the first wake, and planned monitoring of both wakes at the same
time was not possible. Because of these difficulties, Table 1 shows that
only five profiles were taken during the 7 1/2 hour monitorin j period from
bo til wakes.
-------
DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)
* •• -
Figure 3 shows that the waste concentration varies considerably .
with depth, time and wake monitored. The 5-minute profile from the.
first wake drops off sharply below the 3-foot depth. Although the boat
captain was instructed to keep the boat at the center line of the visible
plume on the water's surface, the boat may have drifted toward the
edge.or the plume, may have been dispersed diagonally instead of vertically.
Because of profile variability of waste concentration in the wakes, a '•
•
conservative approach to interpreting the data was used, and the high
concentration, indicated by a box in Table 1, was plotted in Figure 1 as
the data point. No Bathothermograph data were available at the time of
the study; however, the thermocline was reportedly well below the 33 feet
depth. .
The Civil Engineering Department of TAMU was contracted through
the Texas A&M Research Foundation to monitor waste discharge at
7,000 Ib./minute discharge rate. However, this, study has not been
•
completed due to the interruption of the Beaumont barging schedule. This
interruption was caused by difficulties with the constituent limits in the
barging permit, and restrictions encountered pursuant to obtaining an
amended barging permit. .
-------
-6-
DISCUS5ION (CONTINUED)
The barge dispersion study was done for Beaumont plant waste .
discharge. The dispersion characteristics of the La Porte and Belle
plant wastes should be very similar to those for Beauincnt since the
density of the wastes from these three plants are nearly the same. TAMU
has indicated that the dispersion characteristics for the three plant wastes
should be similar in a letter to the Beaumont Plant (AppendixB).
WCG/fs
Attachments
-------
E 1
Time After
Di 5 charge
(Minutes)
< 5
<5
5
75
90
195
450
%.
WASTE CONCENTRATION BE
"CONCENTRATION (mo/i)
HIND BARGE
OF
WASTE
. Depth
Wake No. 3' 9'
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
* (sTol
560 580
[500] 160
'60 60
125 130 i
40
25 35
15'
650
200
80
[140
-
35
21' 27'
' -
17401 215 .
'110. 40
110 11501
] 120 30
- • -
1401 40
33'
95
130
10
-
40
* Average of 5 results with range 250-1200 mg/1
-------
'-^ T
•••V:.- r.-i •.•:!•:. L-.:.^--iiL- -.."..± i- ^'..
———j" : , \—r—i-- .;_,___ -I'-irT^-T"^- VT I i- —------i ...^p.__^__4. ;-.._..-.^ j-;-^--j --r— .- : '
! ; ' . : T . •. ; It . , : T. • ' - r _:_;_il.._._l^__jj.l.4_: J J. /. ^Uil \_'_ •.•„.; ._l_L'-".l'-_ ~ •"' s ; —•-;--;--:-•• !-•__•;- :
U:
c-Jzi:
- • [-..•
i -•
.
-------
of
Stizdy 'Jast^ Dispersion vl^h
: -
' '"~'""
'• '. •:"
._. ._ _ .........I u..^. ._...,... *^»-r'.' fr.—•_-*^™»-—• (—-.-^—-•--.-.
—.—[-.....— ~.-—- f^^'~. _r.'".r.nT'^** —*•»-••. " ^^ ^T^-.^T.»~_.
!LL±—
(AX "-...I'
. f ^? — ^«*^-r ' ~^^i>?^
' . ?V -i .• ** '.'.—ra*^**^'
^ . vt.:..^:rl;^':::r:'_i'.:i.:;;_::
:_-— L_A
~ •-'-! i C-L !-• • '-;--i
•. ; i • n^i i • . ppr«
T. 1^ -. iV-i'A'^-r
-;-
4-£lH:
.-:.v:.:.| \i •: : ;
r.: :.-...:-. 1
t— ----q-v--.-'":. --trz,: fr— ---
rf.r:
-jrrr:
"™" ; ~~f~. ~";'"i~
._..^_j
: t '| i" • • i "H~i T
•. \
.-.t - : •-.-. - :
.;,-, .,_,
rLnriE
—rr
--------- -
.^r.-... + •:.•
-LEli^E
:-^:.L:
_:_
• • ' ' _ • _ I : '.I • • :T I : : '.]' "i 7 T i • i • i
'•-^I'l" .L-.:"r_LrL:Li':-'r~;~i"rXQJ-n rr'rr^T^'^i:
• ' ' • I ! i i ! 1 ' : = : i i '!" ! i~' : i ilT'i. i '• i i < • ~
50 100
20-
300
400
500
600 .
-------
1,1.il l« l-Jkl
Pic'
3
Study Waste Concentration Profiles
:i
15
12!-^r
16
20
24
$>'•
!.;.)
i:-:f
r *4
1
\:
23
32
ou
I:
li-
P
-h-
li.il
in i
!il;
iu-i-
:!f!i
4>:
•I-
Hi
f!J
:ti
H-
111
:.-:-»•!•:
«ite;i
rin.i!:r\
.:. .| .'j;
nn'it:i-
:'!^ll;
:^]>i"
ori-r!
;-rri
!)!S
'Hi-
in!
Hij"
' Hi.,
i
itiF
r It
Jlizli
i.,::i
n.;
-;^
rrnj/ -i
;Llfe
;M!;i:ti
^
^liiis
rtii
lit
0
; 3. fflT
FJii-
rtrf Hft
:•! tlF1
:;;i Hi:.
Ti- rr r-rr-f
1
•i-lrl
vbyr
ri.'rf-
100
tt-fe
! f •"'
-r-rVrrr
i-.i-kv,
TTt^t
:X
Steii
^tij.rU±':to-
i •••' i 11;' L! ' •
Uv iTprr
: !'fl. dLF'M!
Vlf
WMSG
m
W
1
'Si'
•!rrr
iii;!
Llil
i;j^
'iffr
m
i|f,'
; t[
•i::c •
-l-lj!
m
m
i]i|
:• -i
!
T
-I - I
;.',;-pJ^
L-uPjr:
;•;.:; j
"Hi
.:. .!.-.
;».r|.
T:T
• (-1 •
;:.:.i;
.Ilk
: • i i r;
:;_: |.il:.
r
irj]
ii
! t|
rrr
irri;:
HI i
• •ill i r '
liiiHUl
-I.! r
It
..y.
-r-iT
P
1-1- :
It
11.:':!., i •;
ii.L;it
;)•)
v-^tf:].
rvi.-.Ll:'l
;.i|i
;-r r T
!:J-|
::U:>
•m
l;;i.|j
>-"T
r
^:T
III-
111
§
rljj
m
1
.!-^:-
i'iifc
pfSJ.
h^^
''^•'•jii
Ifi1
-.. - u
~:rrt|
'-'•' f'j'i
.alLlili
::i: .i;
^t
•dr'
•"rr
1 '
:.:h
i^
•rpl
titr
ij!l
to
:i4
i •
ti:
•I-,
;li-'-
•I'll
m
rtu
>i:i
i
TIT!
~;F
:rii
:pr
U}t
Tilt-
n
Up
:!;J.|;
il^i
iiif
I
200
300
400
500
GOO
700
800
Waste Cone.
-------
Plui
C\ }
MlWa
xibration Cv a
.0
0
• jx'J
: I ",
ilviin
i i i i
1TTT
.-
14
:]-..[
TT
i?
T~
•-i-
4.
TR
"RF
i-ii
.thiT
f
•
T
r:
JT.,1
If
. .!.'
.
r i :•'
m
ni
M"H:
•i Jfl
i
1
•--
W:
I,
1:
If t
i.i-ii
r?f
Ur
JEP
f
I
Mi
II
ildq:]:.!-.
-f-fi : 1 ;—
-
Pi
!|i
"^
111!
)0
it
HH-
JKui,
H|tj
CJi
-i
iO,0
iLU
-t
l •'••
' '
H:i
I
H-
TT
x
..
,4
_i.
I !
ro>-~
.,
.
p-,-.
in
Iffi
TT
I I
TiTj
Hi!
1'
i i
ifV
1
iy
ilif
ii
•l
!
I':
:
•iif
si!-
i'h'J
;-rn
itn
ir IT
'1
<
' '; i
~: ! '
rrr1
'iii
300
-------
oc
1
.. i.. . _.
.,.. ._
'
--M--I1
5C
T.7j-TT:
>c
0i|:H:
) 'kZl-i.L-i---
• --r
'
T
i'.i.!.
ri-H
:W
ii H
it-9
i
.T ,. j.
att
nt
i TI
.4.1
tti
i. .j..:
.i-l'.L'
; !•>•-••
..
l •
--
HH
vir
.......
•T
i-ili
T
4.;.;.
H-n
i'lj.1
it'!
ijli
I I'll
Ii
rr
FlL^romote): ^1-2 Calibration Cw*r
•JT
1
•
l
m i'
1~
m
fff
.!l!
Hii
It
[]T:W
»
i!
LTJ]
j-l !
.i i .
Ti
)T!7
i j':'!
i '
HIT
-jJ
••-i
TT
I • j}:< liii |i
IMlMl
'•*
1
JIT]-
Ji !
1
r:
nf-TTTTTq-qq:
III! .H----I--J
:
!. I'
'! *'•
M
Hil
Ji^L
I
:;:i::
'T"i
007:
--
lit
'
i.'..;. i
.j.:. . j
-
i---!-:
• •^.•j.-r"
o
T-H"
JO
i
i
:rrr.i
• it1
"!~rfr
•i -i-i
,yq
T
' i;
i ' ! l .
ipt,-:
liij
f r
....,r
;:
, . .
rttp
j
"j'i
! ' '
i -'-;
Mi-!
-
.j
W"
'»' OV ' ! .
!tt:
V: 1"
i " ;
ll
lit
::'!
•
X
r.:
1
T
C
nr
r j-
• i'i
Ii!
iii
•Hrr
;:;i
'
i
'-
n
l
!''aoo:!;ia
' ' :
IT !
000
H-IL!]!!:!'!.
-------
APPENDIX B
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
COLLEGE STATION TEXAS 77843
fiV//nOiV.v£.vr-: -^SINSSHINC ANo-EnviaoNtiisNTAL sc/efics-oivisiON
\
' " July 20, 1973
Mr.' David Eoene
Tha DuPoat Corporation
ICD - Technical
P. 0. Box 3269
Beaumont, Texas
Dear Mr. Hoene:
This letter is in answer to a question submitted
.by Mr. Dick Schwer with, regard to diffusion characteristics
of DuPont uastes.
Our preliminary assessment of the diffusion characteristics
of DuPont wastes frcra LaPorte and Beaumont, Texas, and Belle,
West Virginia, indicates that these iraste materials would have
similar diffusion characteristics when discharged from barges
into the' Gulf of Mexico waters. This evaluation is based upon
waste characteristics and initial laboratory, results.
We hope this information will serve your needs.
, . Sincerely,
Rojrw. Hann, Jr., Ph.D., F.E.
Professor and Head
cc: Mr. Dick Schwer
RHH:bj
! COILCCS OF £NGIN£c!itt!G : 7f ACIIIfIG • firSEAHCH • EXTENSIOH
-------
Du PonX Houston Plant
EXHIBIT II
ENGINEERING REPORT
ON
DEEP SEA DISPOSAL OF WASTES
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY (INC.)
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (Inc.) has applied for permits
to transport and dump materials in the Gulf of Mexico. This
report presents additional data on these activities.
Background
Du Pont first began its ocean dumping program in 1961. At that
time, there was little information available on the nature of the
dispersion of wastes discharged from a moving barge. In order to
provide assurance that the dumping program could be conducted
without adverse environmental effects, Du Pont contracted with
Prof. D. _W>_tfoodf Department of Oceanography and Meteorology,
Texas A & M Research Foundation for assistance in the development
of information which would adequately predict waste dispersion
behind a moving barge. A report describing this study is attached,
Appendix A.
Study._, Summary .
The dispersion study utilized the 2000 net ton barge, "K.L. Jacobs",
traveling at speeds of 2 and 5 knots. Material was discharged
at a rate of 6?00 Ib/minute. At a barge speed of 5 knots, a
nearly instantaneous 6633-fold dilution occurred. This initial
mix was followed by a slower, logarithmic decay in waste concen-
tration. Decay rates appeared to be influenced somewhat by-
turbulence from the barge wake, since decay rates at 2 knots -were
slov;er than at 5 knots. The data collected have been used to
construct a model describing dispersion behind a barge.
The Model
The mathematical model constructed from the above study considers
dispersion to occur in two distinct phases:
Phase I - Initial Mixing
Phase II - Logarithmic Decay
-------
-2-
Phase I describes the initial mixing which occurs immediately
behind the barge. This mixing is nearly instantaneous (less than
3 minutes). During the study, a 6633-fold dilution occurred when
the barge was traveling at a speed of 5 knots and discharging at
a rate of 6?00 Ib/minute. The model considers this mix to be a
linear function of both barge speed and discharge rate. The size
of the barge is recognized as an important variable. However,
the manner in which barge size influences the initial mix cannot
be accurately predicted. Since the "H.L. Jacobs11 is the smallest
barge proposed*for use, this factor has not. been included in the
model. Larger barges can be expected to rendar the model more con-
servative. The initial mix is described by the equation:
C0 = (150) AN f yj , where
I x j (67QO)
C0 = the concentration after the initial mix (ppm),
x = barge speed (knots), and
y = discharge rate (Ib/min)
Phase II occurs during the period following the initial mix.
Monitoring of waste concentration at speeds of 2 and 5 knots indi-
cated a first-order decay in concentration. The model assumes this
decay to be independent of barge speed. Phase II dispersion is
defined by the equation:
t = 60 log GO/CI, where
Co = the concentration after the initial mix,
C]_ = waste concentration at time t, • .
t = time after initial mix, minutes
The above equation is applied at barge speed of 5 knots and greater
for times up to 2 hours.
For barge speeds below 5 knots or times beyond 2 hours, the equation:
t = 152 log CQ/C!
is' employed.
Applicatior of..Model
Du Pont's waste barging in the Gulf of Mexico normally employs the
PATCO 100 barge. This barge is a 4800 ton barge which discharges
at a rate of 35,000 Ib/minute. Alternate barges employ lower disr
charge rates and would yield more conservative results. The barge
is towed at speeds of 5 to 10 knots, except when heavy seas require
a speed reduction. Figure 1 shows the predicted concentrations of
waste with time for varying barge speeds.
-------
10,000
:...::\g>'... .\...:.-... r~r."...i"
1,000
100
r--DISPERSION-- BEHIND 'A MOVING "BARGE1
~!'"PREI?ICTED."CON'QEKTH"AT10KTS VS."'TIME'
r
. i •
_?._.KHpts
,___J _J
-------
REPORT
from
DEPARTMENT OF OCEANOGRAPHY
-------
INTRODUCTION
Early in I960 work was conducted by the author as a consultant
to Industrial Waste Disposal Corporation to evaluate the caprolactari
waste stream of the Beaumont works for deep sea disposal- In labors-..
tor>' studies it was determined that the waste matfirialinhibitcd respi-
ration of brine shrimp (Artcir.ia salina) at a concentration of 20 ppm.
Effective toxicity levels to photosynthesis of the plants, PlillviQoa&s _s_n. ,
Nltsschia cloMcriuin, and Prophyridiurn cruontum, wore found to IJG
bct\veen 115 and 235 ppm and lethal levels of throe species of.fish we re-
all over 100 ppm. Based on those delta, coupled with data'on mixing
rates of sirv.ilar materials at sea. it was computed thot sea disposal
would be feasible for this motcrial if conducted under conditions iiivcm!;!••_•
to dispersal.
' " Based on this information a program of sea disposal wo;; u;i
-------
Rhodaminc B which had previously been added to the waste In the disposal
vessel; and, preparation of a report covering the above work.
It is the purpose of this report to present the details of this survey
and to evaluate the technical aspects of the sea disposal operation con-
ducted, Pictures obtained during the survey are presented In the Appendix,
Abbreviated Log of Survey ' ' . " ' •
Monday, 5 June: .
0900 - left College Station with equipment and four technical v/orKcrs,
headed for Galveston, •
1330 - arrived Galveston and boarded the "Thc-lrna J" at Gror-.sos Dock
and set up sampling geor and prepared necessary accessorial
1710 - dcpcrted Galvcstbn to make rendezvous v/ith barge v.-hicn sailo',1
from Beaumont, 4 June.-
1210 - passed the sea buoy and encountered a fr.iily choppy :;c.>a'wjth
four to six foot swells and a 10-12 knot southeast bree/.e.
Tuesday, 6 June:
0300 - contacted the barge about 80 miles south of Sabine Pa <•.<;, The
tug and barge were, proceeding at 5 knots,
0940 - arrived et 400 fathoms depth. Location: 27'27'N., 23*'!5'\V. ,
and began discharging the '.ver.to- The \vc;kc of the: uuqc \vo.s
labelled a brill Idni red and meaT.ui-vi-'.C'nt of the ooncontraticm
of Rhodamine B in the wake was ir.iUoted,
0945 - moving behind, the barge at. a constant ci.'. to rice of 2GO fed \vhi)'e
monitoring tho Rhociamine concnntrol 10:1 in the v/ako,
0953 - dropped back to COO feet behind the barge,
1003 - dropped back to 1200. feet behind tho barge-,
-------
1009 - dropped back to 2400 feet behind the barge.
1021 - dropped back to 3600 feet behind the barge.
1036 - dropped back to 4800 feet behind the barge.
1047 - dropped back to 6000 feet .behind the barge.
1145 - placed floating buoys in wake at about 1200 feet and began
vertical crossings of wake. Continued crossing this wake at
approxi.Trctcly three minute intervals, ..
1244 - barge laid down a second"v/ako at approximately 200 yards
from the first and the survey vessel noi.itorec! both w tikes.-
1411 - the barge? passed again at a reduced speed of 2 knot'j asici ap-
proximately -100 yards from the second wake and this woke was
also monitored. .
1447 - the fourth wake was laid down with the barge moving at 2 knot?
300 yards from the third wake. At this time monitoring of the
first two wakes was chscontined and attention war paid to
wakes 3 and -1. Sampling these wqkcs continued until 1907.
1907 - at this time, the monitoring of the wakes laid down by the: baric
was discontinued and we departed the disposal area for Gal-
' veston, Texas,
Wednesday, 7 June:
0700 - Docked at-Grosses' in G^lvcston.
0900 - Cleared the Thelr.ia J and headed to College Station,
General Information Concerning the furvoy
The disposal vessel was a 9, 000 barrel barge equipped with railio
control valves and t'.ioscl pump system which Was towed at 1?-00 feet behind
n sea-going tug.- The speed of tho barge, which vvns cstoblir.hf:Ci v l.i'o runi.i:.
between ivxcd points, was estimated at five knots. The beige conioi.v:d -.. .:."1'
barrels of caiirolac'.ara wastes and the density of the material v.-ar, 3. '•» pau:v:js
per gallon, giviafj a total weight in the barge of '\ 1 U. T-OO pcnuid:'.. To tiio
-------
entire barge contents 250 pounds of Rhodamine B as a 20% acetic acid
solution was added as a tracer* The concentration of the dye in the waste
was calculated to be 79. G pprr. or 1 part in 12, 270 parts of waste.
Survey Vessel: The survey vessel used was the Thelrrsa J. which is
owned and operated by Mr. Falgout of Galveston, Texas. The vessel was
100 feet long with twin screws driven by two six hundred hor.se power GN-'C
. —*-^*;-,f^fc. _ . . ,
diescl engines. A picture of the vessel is shown in Figure 1 of the appendix.
Equipment: For this survey the measurements of Rhodanine B in the
wake of the ship were made by means of two Turner Model 111 automatic
recording fluorescent meters to which continuous streams of water were
pumped from approximately six and twenty feet, respectively. The pump.1:
used were Doming 3/4 inch gear pumps powered by i/2 hoincpowcr. 110
volt AC motors, From these punps a small portion of the tola! flow was di-
verted to pass, through the absorption cells of the fluorescent ir.etois and
the rest was by-passed overboard The meters woro Etand
-------
Personnel
Ken Mack. Technical Supervisor of the E. 1. Dupont do N err. ours
' • —to,
ond Company's Beaumont Works,
Harold L. Jacobs, Senior vvasto disposal consultant with the E. L
Dupont de Ncrr.ours ond Company of Wilmington, Delaware,
Rudy Marok, Chemist, Texas Game and Fish Cuiarv.ission, Soabrook,
Texas.
W. C. Schilling, Chief of Industrial Waste, Division of Water end
Pollution Control, State Hcohh Department, Austin, Texas,
Sciontilic Party:
D. \V. Hoocl, party chief.
Thonas V\'. Duke, Biological Oceanocirapher.
John K. Noakcs, Chen-.ical OccanograDb.er^
\Y, D. Kirwnn, Physical Occanographer.
Dean I^tr,rino, Technical Observer.
E. A. Tlicriout,
Bill Bocidecr.er, Dec): hand.
T> G. Moore, Cook.
-------
Summary of Data pbtainecl on .Laboratory Studies of Toxiclty of C
Wastes to K'.arinc C'rnani^ms *
Common Name
Fundulus
Gulf Silvcrtidcs
Grass Shrimp
Brine Shrimp
Phytoplankton
Phytoplankton .
Phytoplankton
Organism
Fundulus similis
Men id la bcryllina
Palaornonctes pugio
Artcmia salina
Platvmonas sr>.
Nitzschia closterium
•
Porphyridiurn cruontum
Type TLm Tine
Experiment Values (ppir.) (hrs)
Lethality
Lethality
Lethality
Inhibition of
Respiration
Inhibition of
Photosynthesis
Inhibition of
Photosynthesis
Inhibition of
550
108
030
20
235 :
145
115
96
9G
48
24'
24
24
24
Photosynthesis
For the purpose of studying the dispersal at sea, it scorns advisable to
tak'e the lowest concentration which shows effect on metabolism for compu-
tation purposes. Reasonable adjustments in operation proccduic could then
be recommended for practical rco.sons'without necessarily causing o hoznrdou.
operation. A value of 20 ppm was chosen as a level of dispersal which would
be considered safe from all aspects,
Results and Disc usr-ion
The results obtained during tins survey ore shown in Fiijr.rcs 3 thinucjh
7. The: curves were littcd to the data by th-:; least squares method employ inc;
the formula
N P-x y) - (^:>(i:y)
to 11- I. PuJ^ont
-------
~ FIGURES 1 ar.d 2
Standardization rurves for Shodamlno r using Turner
Model 111 Continuous Recording Fluorescent fc'ctcr*:.
-------
70
60
A METER
10
-------
pom
100
-------
FIGURE 3
Log of Concentration of Rhodairune B in Wake I against
feet from Barge.
Prediction Equation:
d ••= G300 log
\vhero d is distance in foot; C is concentration ct d = 0;
o
end, C, is dcs-ired concentration.
500 ft/ r. in u to (5 knot;-.}
-170 r.nnutos
3, Ml, COO 1L::.
0.41h/C!V: (0, > .. 0 ib:;/
79. 0 ppm
12,270
Speed of tug one1 barge
Total Dispersal Ti:r.c
Tote.1 \Vasic; ?u:r.nod
Pumping R.':te
Concentie.tion of. Dye
Ratio of Waste to Dye
-------
too
• METER A
A METER B
10
r
L-L-
0
m::r
-------
12
'
FiquroQJ'.vns obtained by monitoring the wake of the barge for several
minutes \vhile following at a fixed distance. Each point plotted represents
an average concentration of 15-25 individual readings frorr. the continuous
record of concentration in the wake, As a result of analysis of these data.
a prediction equation was derived as follows:
C
d ---.8300 log ~
Cl
This equation applies to dispcruion rales fit distance;-, relatively close behind
the barce since the maximum distance examined was 6000 feet. At the 5 knot
tug speed .this represents a maximum of 12 minutes after pumping- If we as-
sume thot liio dilution due to pumping from the barge as being repr evented -by'
that dih.tion occurring between that of dye in the waste in the bar go and that
ob.'-.crvcd ir. the wake at 250 feet, the dilution due to pumping would be:
. . Dve concentration in i-ar'jr:
Punvcino dilution = —* -—..~r-,
' • Dye concentration at 2;;0 icet
70 •• :•: JO"3 g/kq _
— ~—,'-•_•,-—/, ;— G633 fold
12x10 ° g/ kg*
Thr concrntration of the waste at 250 feet would then be 1 >7 pp:.i (ratio of
dye to v.-.:-:;te. 1: C. !?V = 7W) fc-.-t
Value: p.a).f:i-, ;IO:H J'igure
-------
WAKE I
« METER A
A METER B
!W I ' : ' I '
-------
FIGURE G
Log of Concentration of Rhocarr.ine B in \Vakc III against
ti:r.e in Minutes from Dumping.
Prediction equation:-.;:
G
t = 495 log -~ at C foot dey.lh (Meter A)
C
t = 225 log ~ at 15 foot daj.tlj (K'.etor B)
Purrri:in Cor.ciition~>: :
Spoou of tug and bor'je esUnvri'csd at 2 y\\oi.-', 200 foot/ n.in-.ilo.
Boat -VGS i:-»ovinrj.n':ioin;;t current of ca- 1 ):not.
Clh-.-r rHi:r.;.Mricj concilia;;? \vorc the <;a:.Tc D.^; those ii;:tccl
under Figure 3.
-------
FIGURE 5
Log of Concentration of Rhodair.ine 3 in Yv'ako II
time in N'iautes from Dur.-pinn.
Prediction Ecu&tior.s:
C
t = 57 log ~- ct (3 foot dovth (Meter A)
Cl
Co
t = 'iG log -rr~- at 15 foot dor-tb. (I'.'cter B)
Cl
•v.-hcrc C i;= co:iccr!tretion at initial tir, c am! C, ic con'.:or:trat:o:i
o 1
Same as thojc.- sj'.o'.vr, in i? inure 3.
-------
WAKE fl
© METER A
A METERB
-------
FIGURE 7
Log of Conccr.lrotlon of Rhodor.vi.nc B in '.Vakc IV against
tir.c in Minutes from Duiv.pinn,
Prediction Ecuctions:
C
t = 131 log -pr" at G foot depth (K'.cter A)
Ul
C
t = 152 loq -~ at IS foot deplh (r.ctcr 0)
Cl
Pumping
Same conditions as those r.hov.-n in Ficuir-) '~ , 1. ut boot
stce.r.:i.-Kj with the current of ca. 1 Knot.
-------
h A
D
Q.
Q.
.0!
WAKE IE
e METER A
A METER B
, L__.__, , ta I J !_._ L.
0 20 40 60 80 lOOK'O K!0 IGO I BO 200 2 ;X:
B>^.
LI.: L.
-------
WAKEEZ
o METER A
A METER B
0 20
j J I !._
100 i:-:0 MO IGO !80?oo :;:;:G'V'0
-------
wakes 3 and 4 and the second, and most likely, that on wake. 3, steaming
was into the current, whereas wake 4 it was with the current The current
was about one knot in a northeast direction.
The rate of dispersal in wake 3 was followed carefully for a period cf
300 minutes. This wake was much heavier than the others and the rate of
dispersion much slower. At the end of the experiment, the wake had widened
to about 1000 foot and the concentration of dye at the G foot level was 1. 5
ppb-and at 15 feet was 0. IS ppb after 300 minutes from pumping time. .In
this wake, based on graphical solution, the time required to reach 20 pom
at G feet depth was about 2GO minutes or 4.'3 hours and at 15 feet was 200
minutes or 3. 3 hours from time of dumping, From the prediction equations
the time becomes 7,2 hours and 3, 3 hours for 6 and 15 feet/ rospectivoly.
Wake 'i showed'faster dispersion than wake' 3, although the pumping
rate was supposedly the same. . In this \yakc the time required to reach the- .
20 ppm level w
-------
19
in the deep sea will cause very little or no sustained damage and/or
influence on the biological community. This statement is made on the
requisite that the barge is towed at a minimum speed of 5 knots with a
pumping rate of less than 7, 000 pounds per minute be maintained and
that the disposal is carried out in waters greater than 400 fathoms.
Modifications of these operating procedures such as to permit disposal
in shallow water seems feasible, but further study of a more detailed itc.itr.ro
will be necessary to resolve some points in question concerning shallow
water disposal.
It is apparent that the ship's speed is very critical in dispersal of
waste at sea and it is therefore cxrrcmely important to keep the- tug -on
maximum power while disposing of the waste so as to induce inlo tl-o
wake a maximum mixing energy and also to pump a minimum amount of vvdi'.te
per unit distance as is possible. The study completed and reported hoc
indicates that to thoso organisms tested, the waste will bo dispersed to
levels ineffective to-metabolism of these organisms after a period of 10-1.5
minutes providing the above rates of pumping and ship's speed ore main-
tained, Data also obtained indicate that faster pumping rates per unit
distance which is caused by slower ship's speed can prolong this time; of
toxic level ii; the son up to several hours. This cniphnrir.os Ihc inpoi'Uinca
of operational procedure in r,ea dir.posol and it is strongly urged that i!K;>:i-
murn ship speed and minimum pumping rate for unit distance be o:r;ph;i.rJv.ec.L
The prediction equations that have been dorivotl in this rcpirt
-------
20
or semi-established Wake that is for situations in which the natural tur-
bulent motion of the sea is the dominate factor contributing to dispersion.
In operations of this type, however, the major mixing occurs during pumping
of the waste into the wake (GCOO fold dilution in this case) and the data
collected did not permit evaluation of these effects, To do so v/ould re-
.quire data for multiple pumping rates at constant speed of the tug as well
as constant pumping rates at different tug speeds. When the prediction
equations are used, however, it is thought that they would always l>c on
the safe side and for that reason they wore used here in computing the
time, required to reach the desired concentration of 20 ppm.
-------
f-_-t Dj*vPont Houston Plant
EXHIBIT III
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ON MATERIAL FOR DISPOSAL
Source: Oceanonics, Inc., Texas A & M College
Organism • Disposal Material ppm by Volume
Top Water Minnows (Furidulus Simulus)
48 hr TLm1 600 3
Brine Shrimp (artemia salina)
24 hr TLm - 8004
48 hr TLm 2004
• "Hnoflaaellate (gvmnodinium breve)
24 hr value2 - 10005
48 hr value 1005
Phytoplankton (platymonas subcordiforms)
48 hr value 306
Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Composite of samples taken during barge loading operations
on April 26, 1972 (Joint Waste Source Survey of the Galveston
Bay and. Tributaries, Field Report on E. I. du Pont de Nemours
and Company,' September, 1972) .
"roaker (Micropagor Undulatus)
24 hr TLm • 1100
48 hr TLm 1000
NOTES:
1. TLm - Median Tolerance Limit
2. Value of maximum concentration which caused less than 50% reduction
of cells.
3. Process "C" - Rubber Chemicals and Fungicides
4. Process "B" - "Lannate" Methyl Insecticide
5. Process "B" - "Lannate" Methyl Insecticide
6. Process "C" - Rubber Chemicals and Fungicides
-------
T Pont Houston Plant
EXHIBIT IV
MAMMAL DATA - MATERIAL FOR DISPOSAL
DU PONT HASKELL LABORATORY FOR TOXICOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL-MEDICINE
Type of Test* Results
Acute Oral >25,000 mg/kg**, Not a Class .B
poison.
Eye Irritation ' No ocular effects in rabbit eyes.
Inhalation Test Not a Class B poison.
Skin Irritation Not a skin irritant.
*Animals tested: acute oral - male rats, eye irritation - albino
rabbit, skin - albino guinea pigs, inhalation - male rats
**These were the highest'concentrations tested. Class B poison is
defined in Department of Transportation Regulations, Tariff No. 19,
11/29/68, page 108, section 173.343
-------
Du Pon}^ Houston Plant
EXHIBIT V
PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS
Supplement to Section 7
A - Uracil Herbicides -
Two similar products are manufactured in this area on a campaign
basis, using the same batch process equipment. Either secondary-
butyl or tertiary-butyl amine'are reacted with methylacetoacetate.
An intermediate sodium salt is then formed by reaction with sodium
methylate.- This .intermediate'is halcgenated to form the product
which is then separated from organic and inorganic by-products by
filtration and drying.' The dried product is blended with formulating
inerts and packaged for sale.
A small stream from the initial reaction step, is combined with
aqueous materials from the filtration and drying step for disposal
at sea. Also included is spent caustic from an off-gas scrubber
used to prevent air pollution..
®. .
Methorny! Insecticide
Kethomyl is produced in a batch process. Caustic potash, methyl-
ir.ercaptan, and nitroethane are'reacted in a series of steps to
form an intermediate salt. This salt i.s neutralized (forming
stoichiometric quantities of by-product potassium chloride) and
steam stripped to remove organic by-products. The intermediate is
extracted from the purified aqueous potassium chloride solution
using recycled methylene chloride solvent and is converted to
methorny1 by reaction with methyl isocyanate. Methomyl is then
solvent-exchanged into water, crystallized, centrifnged, and dried.
The dry product is blended with formulating ingredients and
packaged for sale.
Waste material is separated from the process in the intermediate
purification steps (steam stripping and extraction). Smaller
aqueous streams originate in the initial reaction step and final
solvent exchange. A small purge stream from the centrifuging step
is also included in .the barged materials.
C - Rubber Chemicals and Fungicides
Three chemically related products are manufactured on a campaign
basis in the same process equipment. The.sodium salt of the
intermediate dimethyl or diethyl dithiocarbaraic acid is prepared
by reaction of carbon disulfide with dimethyl or diethyl amine
and sodium hydroxide in aqueous solution. The products (thiuram mono
and disulfides) are then formed by oxidation of the intermediate
with either chlorine or phosgene. The products are recovered by
filtration and drying, mixed with formulating ingredients and
packaged for sale.
Qi •
O>Registered Du Pont Trademark
-------
EXHIBIT Y - Page 2
The barged material is an aqueous purge of by-product inorganic
salts and organics from the filtration step. Although this water
stream is recycled, the salt build-up necessitates a purge.
D - Formaldehyde •
Methanol is' catalytically oxidized in the presence of air. The
resulting formaldehyde is absorbed in water for sale. This product
stream is treated in an ion exchange colxrrm to remove by-product
formic acid. A small dilute aqueous stream is generated in this
final purification step and'is d.isposed of at sea.
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
"
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
. . . ' • • •
- REGION II
. 26 FEDERAL PLAZA . .
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1OOO7
'
-.;>'
'MARINE PROTECTIOJT, RESEARCH, A:-ID
SMCTUARIES ACT (OCEAN DL^GTHG) PERMIT
PERMIT NO. AND'TYPE:
•EFFECTIVE DATE:
EXPIRATION DATS:
REAPPLICATION DATE:
APPLICANT:'
VIASTE GENERATOR(S) :
WASTE GENERATED AT:
PORT OF DEPARTURE:
C " \
]-] .1 O O Q, -. 3 -^-v,-o,
h -. r i
Vf-"? A O'.i •'£•••. '•-.. ^-.Q.. i )iC.
LiMt>eNi'. N.-J. c'"1 O ':!>•'•.
t-^:..iH---s; . :'•-: . ":.' . O'?-!?'?. .'^
WASTE TRANSPORTER (S) : S-r^.;-?*.^.-! JM Ti?.Avt?.-p"rf?-
." r- •..-
,'. ' .
and any parson owning or operating a towing
vassal employed for the purposa authorized
herain.
This parmit authorizes tha transportation and dumping into ocaan
uaCera o'f c'artaia material pursuant Lo the Marina Protection, Research,
.and Sanctuaries Act cc 1972, 33 Q.S.C, 1401-1444, (hereinafter referred
to as. "tha Act"), regulations pronulgatad thereuadar,•and the terzs and
conditicr.o sat forth below.
-------
General Conditions:
1. All transportation and dumping authorized herein shall at all times
be undertaken in a manner consistent x*ith the terms and conditions of this
permit. The applicant, waste generator(s) and waste transporter(s) designated
above shall be tha permittees liable for compliance with such terms and condi-
tions. The liability of each is set forth in the Special Conditions. Com-
pliance by any permittee with one or more but less than all of the conditions
with which such permittee must comply will not constitute a ground or grounds
of defense in any proceeding against that permittee for violation of the pro-
visions of this permit.
2. Any person who violates any provision of the Act, the Final Regula-
tions issued thereunder, or any term or condition of this permit shall be
liable for a civil, penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation. Ad-
ditionally, any knowing violation of the Act, Final Regulations, or permit
may result in a criminal action being brought with penalties of not more than
$50,000 or one year in prison, or both.
.3. a. Transportation to, and dumping at any location other than that
authorized by this permit shall constitute -a violation of the Act and of the
terms and conditions of this permit.
b. Transportation and dumping of any material not identified in or
significantly in excess of that identified in the application for this permit,
unless specifically authorized by a written modification hereto, shall consti-
tute a violation of the Act and of the terms and conditions of this permit.
4. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to authorize, in any way,
the transportation from the United States for the purpose of dumping into
•the ocean waters, into the territorial sea, or into the contiguous zone, of
the following material:
a. High-level radioactive wastes.
b. Materials, in whatever form, produced for radiological, chemical
or biological warfare.
c. Persistent synthetic or natural materials which may float or
remain in -suspension in the ocean. • - .
5. The applicant may not apply for, nor any permittee simultaneously
•hold, a permit from another EPA Regional Office for any of the material to
which this permit is applicable, nor may the applicant or any permittee trans-
fer material from one EPA Region to another if a permit for the transportation
or dumping of such material has been denied by one EPA Region.
-------
6. After notice and .opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be
modified or revoked, in whole or in part, during:its term for cause in-
cluding, but not limited to, the following:
..a. Violation of any term or condition of the permit;
b. Misrepresentation, inaccuracy, or failure by the applicant
to disclose all relevant facts in the permit application;
c. A change in any condition or material fact upon which this
permit is based that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction
or elimination of the authorized transportation or dumping including, but
not limited to, changes in conditions at the designated dump site, and nawly
discovered scientific data relative to the granting of this permit.
d. Failure to keep records, to engage in monitoring activities,
or to notify appropriate officials in a timely manner of transportation and
dumping activities as specified in any condition of this permit.
7. This permit shall be subject to suspension by the Regional Adminis-
trator or his delegate if he determines that the permitted dumping has resulted,
or is resulting, in imminent and substantial harm to human health or welfare or
.the marina environment. Such suspension shall be effective subject only to the
provisions of 40 C.F.R. 223.2(c).
8. The authority conferred by this permit, may, at the discretion of the
Regional Administrator or his delegate, be transferred to a waste transporter
other than that (those) named herein, provided that a request for .such a trans-
fer be made, in writing, by the applicant at least 30 days prior to the requested
transfer date.
9.. If material which is regulated by this permit is discharged due to an
emergency to safeguard life at sea in locations or in a manner not in accordance
with the terms of this permit, one of the permittees shall make a full report,
in accordance with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001, xjithin 10 days to the
Regional Administrator detailing the conditions of this emergency and the actions
taken.
10. Unless otherwise provided for herein, all terms used in this permit
shall have the meanings assigned to them by the Act or the Final Regulations
issued thereunder. . .
11. The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in
either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it
authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of rights, nor any
infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations, nor does it obviate
the necessity of obtaining State or local assent required by.applicable law for
the activity authorized.
-------
12. This permit does .not authorize or approve the construction of
any onshore physical structures or facilities or-, except as authorized
by this permit, the undertaking of any work in any navigable xjater.
13. Each permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order
.and operate as efficiently as possible all facilities, including vessels,
used by such permittee in achieving compliance with the terms and conditions
of this permit.
14. This permit, or a true copy thereof, shall be placed in a conspicuous
place on the vessel which will be used for the transportation and dumping
.authorized by this permit. If the dumping vessel is an unmanned barge, the
permit or true copy of the permit shall be transferred to the towing vessel
or an additional true copy shall be available onboard the towing vessel..
. "15. In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 445, every scow or boat engaged in
the transportation of municipal sludge or industrial wastes shall have its
"name or number and owner's name painted in.letters and numbers at least
fourteen inches high on both sides of the scow or boat. These names and
.'.numbers shall be kept distinctly legible at all times, and no scow or boat
•.not so marked shall be used to transport or dump any such material.
16. The permittee(s) shall provide telephone notification of sailing
to Captain-of-the-Port, (COTP) New York at 212-264-8753 during working hours
.(8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday) and to 212-264-8770 during non-working
hours, weekends, and holidays not later than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the
estimated time of departure. The permittee(s) shall confirm the exact time of .
departure within thirty (30) minutes of the actual departure time, and immed-
iately notify the COTP upon any changes in the estimated time of departure
greater than one hour. Within two (2) hours after receipt of the initial
notification the transporter will be advised as to whether or not a Coast Guard
shiprider will be assigned to the voyage.
17. Surveillance will at times be accomplished by a Coast Guard shiprider
who will be on board the towing vessel for the entire voyage. His quarters and
subsistence xrtiile on board shall be provided by and shall be at the expense of
the permittee(s). He shall be treated courteously and afforded free and immed-
iate access to all navigational capabilities on the vessel which can provide
.information on position, course, speed, depth of water, bearings, etc. The no-
tification procedures which will permit the timely assignment of a shiprider
are specified in General Condition 16. The following information shall be pro-
vided in the notification of sailing:
-------
a. Name of the towing vessel and barge'or tank vessel
b. Name of the transporter
c. Description of the vessel's contents including volume
d. Place of departure
e. Location of the dump site . .
f. The time of departure ; .
g. Estimated time of arrival at the dump site
h. Estimated time of return to port.
18. The permittee(s) shall maintain and submit Coast Guard Form
CCGD 3-278, Monthly Transportation and Dumping Log, to COTP, USCG, c/o
_New York Station, Governors Island, New York, N. Y. 10004. Permittee(s)
shall enter on this form under the column entitled "Dump Site" the latitude
and longitude at which the actual dumping occurred. These forms are to be
mailed to the Coast Guard during the first week of the succeeding month for
x/hich they were prepared. If additional forms are required, they nay be
obtained by forwarding a written request to Commander (mep), Third Coast "
Guard District, Governors Island, New York, N. Y. 10004. Copies of these
logs will be forwarded on a quarterly basis to: U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Surveillance and Analysis Division, Edison, N. J. 08817,
Attn: Marine Protection Program. • .
-------
Special Conditions:
1. This permit shall expire at midnight on
Thii> penr.it is noarenswable. Application for a r.aw pertr.it must be sub-
mitted to E?A at least 150 days prior to expiration of this pernit. -
2. During tha terra of this permit, ths type and quantity of material
.. pernittau for transportation for tha purpose of ocean dumping shall be in
•accordance with the following:
65 *Au.i.itHo G AVv-OM-U VT.fi-r? o? 7.0 J\Ti£V?,
7 ' • . • ..' •
2. . Disposal Site - Transportation for the purpose of ocean dunping
shall, terminate at, and waste dumping shall be confined to, the .area
dascribed below: . . .
Latitude: .
.Longitude :
°
TO
4P.MiuiT5
2 S
.4. Method of Disposal -.(a) The permittee ^-v
,L~o,,,<
shall use only the following vessal(s)/barge(s) for transportation and
dumping of wastes authorized under this perait:
^p^R^iQ:"-' VAT^.'S. TfiA^av?:. S ...Cin^irv,, j\. n.
' '
Crv!-D V?C ". VJ HiT-...ft£';t j.L v ^.l)V*SS t~uAV\'z.
(b) Waste is to be discharged at a utiiforn rate over a distance of
at .least.{^_Q_ nautical niles within the disposal sits designated in Sp'ecial
\ Condition lio. 3. Vessel/barge traverses shall be at least 0.5 nautical
j mile apart. If two or more vessels/barges are discharging simultaneously,
j or if any two or more vessel/barge trips are to occur within one hour of
each other, a distance of at least 0.5 nautical mile is to be naintained
.between discharges.
(c) If the waste cannot be uniformly discharged as required above,
the permittee Sp^.r:o\;'>.?.;^u T;&.^c shall, within 30 days
of issuance of this permit, provide to EPA in writing, detailed technical
information, certified by a naval architect or marine engineer, as to why
this condition cannot be rnet. A time period of not more 'than one year from
the date of issuance of this pernit will be allowed for the installation of
equipment or systems necessary to meet tha uniform discharge requirement.
c OF r^r- M/v F-S>. BI>S>HSY>-fAj1/ A-H.
-------
5. Analysis of Authorized Wastes - (a) Analyses shall oz conducted
Mv\,v.y on a representative sample of a vessel/barge load for the
following "parameters :
Bioassay (nig/l) using the organisms Artania salitia, Skeletor.ama
costatua, Acartia tor. 3 a or Acartia clausii, Hsnidia n:auidia,
and /or any .substitute organism -casignated to be sora. appropriate
by EPA, Region II.
Mercury (ng/kg) , liquid and solid phase .
Cadmium (tag/kg) , liquid and solid phase
Specific gravity at 20 C . .
Oil and grease (ng/I) , using liquid-liquid extraction with
trichlorocrifluoroethana. . • .
Petroleum hydrocarbon (mg/1) , using tentative I'R procedure .
pH . . '
Analyses shall be conducted 'y-u.crvj.Wvx on a representative sample
of a barge/vessel load for the following parameters:
A-«A<£?
-------
(fa) -Analytical da.ta.will be subaittad to SPA/Ragion. II, on a
monthly basis, .with the first report due no later than. 30 days follow-
ing the initial discharge. ... •
(c) All analyses will be.conducted according to ona of the
following:
(1) Specific analytical procedures distributed by
EPA, Region 'll;.
(2) Approved test procedures contained in "Guidelines
Establishing Test Procedures for Analysis of
Pollutants," 40 C.F.R. 136; or
(3) Test procedures selected by the permittee and approved
by EPA, Region II. .
(d) Within 20 days of effective date, the nana and address of tha
designated.laboratory and a description, of all analytical test procedures
baing used shall be provided to the EPA, Region II.
(e) • Any laboratory employed for purposes of performing tha analyses
.specified in Special.Condition No. 5(a) shall maintain a viable analyti-
cal quality control progran. This program will include:
(1) Use of EPA approved analytical test procedures
as listed.in Special Condition No. 5(c).
.(2) Use of the sample preservation techniques and the
holding tine specified in the analytical method
employed or'in SPA manual entitled "Methods for
Chemical Analysis of-Water and Wastes."
(3) Routine use and documentation of intra-laboratory
quality control practices as recommended in tha EPA .
manual "Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in.
Water and Wastewater Laboratories." These practices
will include use and documentation of internal quality
control samples. ;
«.
('f) The laboratory facilities, data, records, and quality control
records are subject to periodic inspection by EPA, Region II personnel.
(g) E.PA may require analysis of quality control samples by any
laboratory employed for purposes of compliance with Special Condition 5(a)
Upon request, permittae(s) shall provide EPA with the analytical results
from such sanplas.
-------
>:'-\.:.':. p^r";!'" , co'C.;:id;icu or. p;ir:u.:.:;ip;:.~:2 j.;.i ••; r.ior.Ltcr L:.i^ yroyraci" c>:; Lhi
:(.;-;-r\c" o^ ::i^ oormxtvsd -../aincs disposal on f;lia ;a^ri.n.:: etiviroa^aut: at ch:
d.-:f:;:.;:-.-.«t-ci aiopa»5.I ttiirc-.^ pursuant: to <-0 C.F.il. 22^.1(f) (Suy.p. 197?.}.-
8. :!.?•=? orbs ana Jilorr^soondanc-;' - All reports , rsquirad. by Sy-3cial
C'jr.dltioa l;'o, 5 and Ger.sral Condi cioa No. 18 shall bg' s ub.iai •_ tad to tbs
fcilovir. o.ddrass: ' •
U.S. rinvircn-iar.t'al Prctoccion Agency, Ragioa II - '" '
Survetllaaci; and Aaalyyis D'j.vision •
Edison, N?.w Jarsey 03317 . .
Au-r.:' Marine Pro^acticr. I'rograa
Ail othsr n-.utarial required by this parsit to ba subaittad to EPA, and
r*'.J.;.-.ted c~T-:i.spond:2r,cs_, shall be. sent, ir, duplicate l:o:
U . ':! . I'.nv;.ronn:srttal ?roc3Ction A'^cicy,' Region II
::;.-./ Yori;, ?iiw Yovk 1.0007
A'.::'.'-. : S LM ;-.;;;.; GO Coi'--r.'J..'l."r.ca ];,-/iach
-------
DuPont
NJ 006
7. .Implementation Plan, Schsdula, or Alternative - In accordance
with 40 C~F.ll. 227.4 (Supp. 1973) the permit tea DuPont shall submit
on or beforr. October 31, 1975 a final plan to implement the most environ-
maritally acceptable alternative to its current practice of ocean dumping
of its waste, based upon the evaluation of alternatives contained in its
previously required engineering report. The implementation plan shall
set; forth a schedule of deadlines, in accordance with the regional goal
to completely phase out ocean dumping by' 1981. The permittee shall sub-
mit quarterly progress reports on this implementation plan beginning
January 15, 1976, and may.be required to submit additional detailed
engineering reports on studies of ocean dumping alternatives.
-------
9. Liability - (a)* Th3 permittees DU j OMT ' «t. S>P5V.vrat,,V;3t«.sn l?.
shall be jointly and severally
liable for compliance with Special Conditions 2, 5(a)-(g), and 6 as wall as
all applicable General Conditions.
(b) The peraittee(s) ^S^r^T^M '~_:^-,'± . | p, p,.i.^, •
shall be solely liable for conpliance with Spacial Conditions 4(a) and (c).
(c) Any parson owning or operating a tewing vessel employed for pur-
poses of the activities authorized by this penait shall be, for purposes o?
each discharge, a joint paraittee herein who shall be jointly and sevarally
liabla together with the permittee(s) ^prry"'••>.;-..'<>'•••.<• ••.v *T^ Ai.1 \
for cotapliance with Special Conditions 3 and 4(b) and all applicable General
Conditions. • . • • .
(d) The permittaa t>t.i <;^? ._.shall be solely
liable for compliance with Spacial Condition No. 7.
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
STATEMENT OF LLOYD L. FALK
ON BEHALF OF
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ON OCEAN DISPOSAL PERMITS
NEW YORK. NY, JUNE 12. 1975
My name is Lloyd L. Falk. I am a Principal Consultant
in the Engineering Department of the Du Pont Company, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The October 15, 1973, Final Regulations and Criteria
under PL 92-532, require the use of bioassays on appropriate
sensitive marine organisms in establishing permissible concen-
trations of wastes during ocean disposal operations. Region II
has specified the appropriate sensitive marine organisms to be
tested are the zooplankton Acart_i.a tonsa, the phytoplankton
Skeletonema costatum, and the finfish Menidia menidia.
Du Pont has tested all three organisms, using
EPA-approved methodology and submitted data to Region II in
May, 1975. The zooplankton, Acartia tonsa, exhibited the
greatest sensitivity to our waste. Thus, we have calculated
the safe release time based on the bioassay data for that
organism.
We have submitted to Region II a report detailing our
calculations of .the release time based on the Acartia data. We
request that that report be made a part of the record of this
hearing.
-------
- 3 -
in 1960 and in 1973. Those studies showed that the initial
concentration in the immediate wake of the barge is directly
proportional to the waste release rate and inversely pro-
portional to the barge speed. Furthermore, subsequent to
initial dispersion, a further 1:10 dilution occurs in 0.5 to
3.5 hours. Then, typically, another 1:10 dilution occurs by
the 6th to 8th hour after release.
In our analysis, we combined the 4-hour LC,-0 and LCQ,
data with the dispersion data. While our report details the
calculations, I shall summarize the results as follows:
1. At all times, the waste concentrations behind the barge will
be less than mean 4-hour LCn,
2. The waste concentration will be less than 0.01 of the mean
LC50 within 1 to 10 hours after discharge at the centerline
of the dispersing waste plume.
3. By using a 5-hour dispersion time at a 5-knot barge speed,
the waste concentration in the mixing zone permitted in
Section 227.73 is less than 0.01 of the mean 4-hour LC,-0
after 4 hours.
One final point. Our analysis shows that extending the
dispersion time beyond 5 to, say, 10 or 20 hours does not
significantly add to the relative differences in the time-
mortality-concentration relationships. Put another way, 5 hours
will allow meeting the requirement of Section 227.71. Additional
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
-------
Tj^I'O: H«'"a, BlLAfrKEigtr^^
?T
•iV/
«\l / •
\ * / JUL $ W'
\ '-'*
•If ».f *•"."»• ANIJI C'fc'i'.*
£«bjcii«: nc£-pons« to 3--S4 K««pj«'J!»: on Occtui jhnnpint: - K.I. Dupout C
From: Acting Director Koologicad liifcctc piviftiou.
Xo: JtJohartl T» !-*ev/ljiJ/'< Oir»M'.lox' S-'^A C'ivj;»i»>n, i<» «'.i<»t| 1(
This m«mo rcspostdy io your Ic/U»/r 'late i June !'»'. l!»*';», r«'.pn:j;ti:tg our
«..»» the MtoruMiv* proposal StiDiiW'UitJ by tin'. !•:. V. OuPoni Co.
Nciv Jersey*
\Vitli respect to your question <1> wu Juwe v.hei:JuKJ \vjth Al WasiJrri ;irjci
conJfirmc'J, Vhat in acct»ricai« conCt-pl !^KJ> v-xhtlMy, Hu-ai Jl n» ay-
be applied io othos* v/a«jtc tilspObiUs j>roviuiog those w^ytx-a arc
.to be uono OR » c«ss-by(»cuSo busia.
2 anU<* if IK-gU^n tf, from w tochntcal Rttui«{|iaPont recommended approach, bi oxi-r opinion, \vc C«:trl that basc-tl
On Ihft inic«n n)mU* id paxivinh: t»t*;t j»ix»Crttl«r<*^ mat
sensitive ;aarl:i4- orj?a)Us>rta. The pj'OCfedureii trtlact^d for uae ^y u
ynuet bo a compromise !>ctw«vn aenaiUvity of toxicolooioai vc
of periormtmct, ecological aignifiuunc': of
of
ORD in rfccomf^«ndinR tho us« of ^^ .
\ &n*S rfl^ytidla ntenidirt, has* inudd a soienixuc juag!n"oiit"n>ar~«!J^«MvTialIy stales
\ conditions, and inturprcting Our rcsuitfl fcocovcUttj; to ttie ocf.J
| I crlt'-*ria? will proviso adoqu&te protection to lh<; taurin*.' !.*nvir<
• . T * • - , . ^ • \^- • . • v ^•-••v •-.. ^
"Hi1*'^.*" ••m*
-------
TO: M. R. BLANKENSHIP - ICD - WILH. (Page 2)
FROX: H, W. / ^DOWELL - ICD - GRASSELLI PLANT
' ' ------ ...... ------ " "'
Clearly there is nothing ftacrfctl anrnti z Ofi brwr fM»?if.' acufim^ with yuvh sub
cffacts as>:
• «
viTMliv?tv»v eCA'.ct on
2. S«>nnory physiology. «. g. . interference With chtjmorcceplion.
rt—
r modification of learned re sponges, ec
i<»M «nd d
i-utes, hAUSmij; succbda, luj-v&J Ut-vt:iopjn«i>r»tf i&i-
n t!»*«
acute loxicity tc.vt&. it is our bts;t scientific judgment that apecifying 06
hours for Wi^ Acftrtift Wonnftay in 'Conjunct ion witli !f»«^ 0:01 a^j;iic.'sfiv»n factor
to obluiii tlio LJ'C* proleclioi* is pryviU^d lc« yliminn?w sub-ielhal effects.
It is important tonw* that <»*••-<* a J !<=•.« I «> nl »H*"«Kv h«;»-f.'. Ao.y p
can only be vindicated by accrufng a firtfot aiuouiu of research
s. It coHtiiiiiy v/««iUi nut hft pruciicai to in Uioir t;cj.M«. In
our cpinlo?! Hit Inform at ion pro\*itJe«l to t'.olo i» inMvffifjtrnt to prove the
ud ftlf^rnativti. !><"»»»« oJ t*»u* specific cbjactionft
to DaPont'a proposea tu*e a« follows:
It 13 unclear furom the appendotf DuPont tt'chnk-ui matct'lul ii u four hcmr
Moneeay aoc^untrt ftj)% iotaiioy or cffclayod mortality «ffoctc or morbidity.
\. .• Thus, the observation of na <>b«crv<-(i Miuiiitiity in a t';»ur hc»ut* tcct Ji»c.y t)e
' mc&J/*hly Jvur times
the value of tlr.ti ol>lai »!«.•«! /U!»u- t)vt- mu> toJii.y
24 hour*.
-------
I <3>.
o
s
H
O
Much Importance is assigned to Hyclroaciencc1:* model work and Its
implication for prv*li'.*ttn<* o*mct'ntration:* at pcrticitiar time periods. Whilo
the matciMal Hydroscienco'rs Mr. ftfuncini j>r«2»'mt»,-«l (at tho Fonaa
10 honr.r; ratliar slum j. to )«.» the time brc«k this ia
what an utintaArelailonshtp. Ny. |«'«cidiori or ;«;«:urar.y ccncvrna yrc
c^cpr*:o«;ver, it la of grc-at»rr
ecoloi{lc*il concern to nut.-: that the mcB.aurrthl*'omlpomi in th« aug^saced
cyun^at«J ticjxth of'a jw>fln
K
H
I
M
O
o
I
M
I-1
s
«^
II
•0
>
o
PI
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
-------
(IIP).
E. !. DU PONT 01: NEMOURS Si COMPANY
Gr?AGOcuLi PLANT
LINDEN, NEW JERSICY O7O3G
IN'OUSTKIAL CHEMICALS DCPAnTMENT
Mr. P. J. Kcrmingham, Hearing Officer
EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10007
July 30, 1975
Mr. Bcrmiughara:
Ocean Dumping Permit No. NJ006
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
Grasselli Plant
Linden, Mew Jersey
In his letter of July 23, 1975, Mr. R. E. Austin of our Legal
Department requested that the hearing record on our application for
a Special Permit be extended. The purpose was to submit to you com-
ments relative to Dr. A. J. McErlean's July 8, 1975 memorandum to
Richard T. Dewling regarding that permit.
Accordingly, we submit the attached comments. We will discuss
these mattors-more fully with you and other appropriate EPA officials
at our meeting in Edison, New Jersey on August 6,.1975, at 10:00 a.m.
Very truly yours,
RDt/rik
attachment
'CC: R- T. Dewling, Director
Surveillance & Analysis Div,
El'A Region II
Edison , N.J.
T. A. Wns-tlcr, Chief
M a r i n c. Protection Branch
AW /t/,8
U.S. 1-1'A
. W;ishinjit:on , D.C. 20460
R. D.
Plant
Turner
Manager
Dr. A; J. McErlenn
ATTN: Dr. Paul Lefcourt
Ecosystem Branch
E c o 1 o g i c a 1 Effects Division
Wnteruirtc Mall (RD 6 8 A)
•Washington, D.C. 20460
I)r', Jnn Pragcr
EPA
N n t i on n 1 M a r in c W n t c. r
Q vi a 1 i. t y I- a h o i: a t o r y
Sout.h 1'crry Road
Nnrraji.'uisot, R.I. 0288?.
n iHiur.'-, ror< Mfirr.n uvtt/c;
TM(.'OI/l'. ll <~ M/'MCITF/V
-------
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
COMMENTS ON
EPA MEMORANDUM OF JULY 8, 1975
TO
R. T. DEWLING
DIRECTOR,
SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DIVISION,
REGION II
FROM
A. J. MC ERLEAN, PhD
ACTING DIRECTOR, ECOLOGY EFFECTS DIVISION,
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
BY
L. L. FALK, PhD
PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT,
WATER RESOURCES AND POLLUTION,
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (DU PONT)
J. R. GIBSON, PhD
CHIEF, AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY,
HASKELL LABORATORY FOR INDUSTRIAL
MEDICINE AND TOXICOLOGY
CENTRAL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (DU PONT)
-------
On June 10, 1975, Du Pont (R. D. Turner) submitted to
Mr. Richard T. Dewling, Director, Surveillance and Analysis
Division, Region II, a "Report on Release Conditions Based on
Testing of Appropriate Sensitive Marine Organisms". The report
was in support of Du Font's Grasselli (Linden) NJ Plant's appli-
cation for a Special Permit under PL 92-532. Copies of two other
reports referenced in the above report were supplied to Mr. Dewling
on June 13 by L. L. Falk (Du Pont). At the June 12 hearing in
New York, Falk summarized the report and conclusions.
The results of bioassay tests on those appropriate sensitive
marine organisms specified by EPA, coupled with evaluation of
expected dispersion, indicate that a 5-hour dispersion time (at a
barge speed of 5 knots) would meet the limiting permissible concen-
tration as defined by 40 CFR 227.71. Since the Grasselli waste-
waters meet the limitations on trace contaminants, Du Pont believes
it has demonstrated that a Special Permit specifying no more than
a 5-hour dispersal time could be issued and so recommends.
In his memorandum of July 8, 1975 to R. T. Dewling, Dr. A. J. McErlean,
Acting Director of EPA's Ecological Effects Division (BED), indi-
cated that Du Pont's recommendation should be rejected. The memo-
randum essentially presents three arguments to support the recom-
mended rejection of our proposal.
-------
- 2 -
The first deals with the inability of an acute bioassay to deal
with sublethal effects. The second is the need for providing a
margin of protection by requiring that LPC be based on a 96-hour
rather than a 4-hour acute bioassay test, with the associated 0.01
application factor. The third is the inability to predict dis-
persion precisely and accurately.
In regard to the first point, the memorandum points out that EPA's
Office of Research and Development might have specified studies on
a variety of enumerated sublethal effects. The memorandum indi-
cates that sublethal effects can be eliminated by, in EPA's "best
scientific judgment", applying a 0.01 application factor to the
96-hour acute bioassays.
For situations where wastewaters mix with receiving waters, the
consensus of scientific judgment is that time-toxicity exposure
relationships be considered in arriving at acceptable practices.
Du Pont has done this, not believing that a decision based on only
one selected time duration (96 hours) for a bioassay test is the
"Best" for protecting against sublethal effects. Du Pont concurs
with the BED memorandum that "there is nothing sacred about a
96-hour static acute toxicity bioassay test". It was, in fact,
precisely for that reason that Du Pont examined the time-responses
vs time-dilution expectations rather than be limited to what is
clearly not "sacred".
The second point raised by EED dealt with the additional protection
of a 96-hour vs a 4-hour test. Obviously, the longer test would
-------
- 3 -
be the safer if the only consideration was mere use of application
factors. Du Pont has neither requested nor proposed that Region II
accept a 4-hour test as the basis for calculating the LPC. Rather,
Du Pont proposed that an LPC based on a 4-hour test to Acartia tonsa
is appropriate for providing a high level of protection to the
marine environment.
•
Thus the entire spectrum of time-response data developed during
the 96-hour bioassay tests should be used in evaluating permissible
wastewater levels. That spectrum of data ought to be, and indeed
was, linked to the wastewater concentrations expected in the con-
tinually diluting plume behind the moving barge. Clearly, EED did
not even address itself to the validity of these concepts. Rather,
the Division only narrowly considered the use of an application
factor applied to a 96-hour test.
EED's third point related to the imprecision of wastewater dis-
persion predictions. Du Pont recognized this in its proposal by
showing an envelope of expected dispersion patterns in Figure 11
of the June 10 report to Dewling. Du Pont then compared the least
favorable pattern with LC50, LC01, and LPC values. Thus the point
raised by EED about Mr. Mancini's suggesting a 10-hour rather than
4-hour time break is immaterial. As indicated in Falk's hearing
testimony, the wastewater concentrations will be less than 0.01
of the mean LC50 (50 percent survival) within 1 to 10 hours at the
plume centerline, and less than 0.01 of the mean 4-hour LC50 after
4 hours. Furthermore, concentrations will be less than the mean
4-hour LC01 (99 percent survival) at all times.
-------
- 4 -
BED raises the issue of "scientific judgment" being at stake. If
EPA's "best judgment" is the mere use of an application factor and
96-hour bioassays, then Du Pont certainly believes that such
judgment would be found wanting. The publication "Water Quality
Criteria 1972", prepared at EPA's request by the Committee on
Water Quality Criteria, Environmental Studies Board, National
•
Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Engineering supports this
belief.
That publication gives the methodology on how to deal with inter-
mittent discharges and short-term exposures such as we have in the
case of barged wastes. Both the Panel on Freshwater Aquatic Life
and Wildlife and.the Panel on Marine Aquatic Life and Wildlife con-
sidered integrated time-exposure as the'concept to use in evalu-
ating effects of short-time exposures of aquatic life to wastes in
mixing zones. The waste plume behind a barge is such a zone.
Exhibit A, attached, lists the members of those two panels whose
"scientific judgment" resulted in the recommendations in the
NAS/NAE report. In Exhibit B are reproduced:
1. The portion of the NAS/NAE report Section III, "Freshwater
Aquatic Life and Wildlife", dealing with "Mixing Zones",
pp. 112-115;
2. Appendix II-A of Section III, also entitled "Mixing Zones",
pp. 403-407; and
3. The portion of the report's Section IV, "Marine Aquatic Life
and Wildlife", dealing with "Mixing Zones", pp. 231-232.
-------
- 5 -
Both the Marine and Freshwater Aquatic Life panels subscribe to
use of a time-exposure approach in evaluating acceptable exposures
of organisms in mixing zones. The panels even indicated how to
approach the problem. Their concept is precisely the same as
Du Font's in its June 10 report to Dewling. Exhibit C, attached,
clarifies this in calculations done in accordance with those
recommended by the Academies' two committees of scientists.
-------
Exhibit A
PANEL ON FRESHWATER AQUATIC LIFE AND WILDLIFE
Panel Members
Dr. ALFRED M. BEETON, University of Wisconsin, Chairman
Dr. JOHN CAIRNS, JR., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Dr. CHARLES C. COUTANT, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Dr. ROLF HARTUNG, University of Michigan
Dr. HOWARD E. JOHNSON, Michigan State University
Dr. RUTH PATRICK, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia
Dr. LLOYD L. SMITH, JR., University of Minnesota, St. Paul
Dr. JOHN B. SPRAGUE, University of Guelph
. Mr. DONALD M. MARTIN, Scientific Secretary
Advisors and Contributors
Dr. IRA R. ADELMAN, University of Minnesota, St. Paul
Mr. YATES M. BARBER, U.S. Department of the Interior
Dr. F. H. BORMANN, Yale University
Dr. KENNETH L. DICKSON, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University
Dr. FRANK M. DTTRI, Michigan State University
Dr. TROY DORRIS, Oklahoma State University
Dr. PETER DOUDOROFF, Oregon State University
Dr. W. T. EDMONDSON, University of Washington
Dr. R. F. FOSTER, Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratory
Dr. BLAKE GRANT, U.S. Department of the Interior
Dr. JOHN HOOPES, University of Wisconsin
Dr. PAUL H. KING, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Dr. ROBERT E. LENNON, U.S. Department of the Interior
Dr. GENE E. LIKENS, Cornell University
Dr. JOSEPH I. MIHURSKY, University of Maryland
Mr. MICHAEL E. NEWTON, Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Dr. JOHN C. PETERS, U.S. Department of the Interior
Dr. ANTHONY POLICASTRO, Argonne National Laboratory
Dr. DONALD PRITCHARD, The Johns Hopkins University
Dr. LUIGI PROVAZOLI, Yale University
Dr. CHARLES RENN, The Johns Hopkins University
Dr. RICHARD A. SCHOETTGER, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. DEAN L. SHUMWAY, Oregon State University
Dr. DAVID L. STALLING, U.S. Department of the Interior
Dr. RAY WEISS, Scripps Institute of Oceanography
EPA Liaisons
Mr. JOHN W. ARTHUR
Mr. KENNETH BIESINGER
Dr. GERALD R. BOUCK
Dr. WILLIAM A. BRUNGS
Mr. JOHN G. EATON
Dr. DONALD I. MOUNT
Dr. ALAN V. NEBEKER
-------
Exhibit A-2
PANEL ON MARINE AQUATIC LIFE AND WILDLIFE
Panel Members
Dr. BOSTWICK H. KETCHUM, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Chairman
Dr. RICHARD T. BARBER, Duke University
Dr. JAMES CARPENTER, The Johns Hopkins University
Dr. L. EUGENE CRONIN, University of Maryland
. Dr. HOLGER W. JANNASCH, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Dr. G. CARLETON RAY, The Johns Hopkins University
Dr. THEODORE R. RICE, U.S. Department of Commerce
Dr. ROBERT W. RISEBROUGH, University of California, Berkeley
„ Dr. MICHAEL WALDICHUK, Fisheries Research Board of Canada
Mr. WILLIAM ROBERTSON IV, Scientific Secretary
Advisors and Contributors
Mr. CLARENCE CATOE, U.S. Coast Guard
Dr. GEORGE R. HARVEY, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Dr. THEODORE G. METCALF, University of New Hampshire
Dr. VICTOR NOSHKIN, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Dr. DONALD J. O'CONNOR, Manhattan College
Dr. JOHN H. RYTHER, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Dr. ALBERT J. SHERK, University of Maryland
Dr. RICHARD A. WADE, The Sport Fishing Institute
EPA Liaisons
Dr. THOMAS W. DUKE
Dr. C. S. HEGRE
Dr. GILLES LAROCHE
Dr. CLARENCE M. TARZWELL
XI
-------
Exhibit B
MIXING ZONES
When a liquid discharge is made to a receiving system,
a zone of mixing is created. Although recent public, ad-
ministrative, and scientific emphasis has focused on mixing
zones for the dispersion of heated discharges, liquid wastes
of all types are included in the following considerations.
(For a further, discussion of Mixing Zones see Appendix
II-A.)
DEFINITION OF A MIXING ZONE
A mixing zone is a region in which a discharge of quality
characteristics different from those of the receiving water
is in transit and progressively diluted from the source to the
receiving system. In this region water quality characteristics
necessary for the protection of aquatic life are based on
time-exposure relationships of organisms. The boundary of
a mixing zone is where the organism response is no longer
time-dependent. At that boundary, receiving system water
quality characteristics based on long-term exposure will
protect aquatic life.
Recommendation
Although water quality characteristics in mixing
zones may differ from those in receiving systems,
to protect uses in both regions it is recommended
that mixing zones be free of substances attributable
to discharges or wastes as follows:
• materials which form objectionable deposits;
• scum, oil and floating debris;
• substances producing objectionable color, odor,
taste, or turbidity;
• conditions which produce objectionable growth
of nuisance plants and animals.
GENERAL PHYSICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The mass emission rates of the most critical constituents
and their relationship to the recommended values of the
material in the receiving water body are normally the
primary factors determining the system-degradation po-
tential of an effluent. Prior to establishment of a mixing
zone the factors described in Waste Capacity of Receiving
Waters (Section IV, pp. 228-232) and Assimilative Capac-
ity (This Section, p. Ill) should be considered and a de-
cision made on whether the system can assimilate the dis-
charge without damage to beneficial uses. Necessary data
bases may include:
• Discharge considerations—flow regime, volume, de-
sign, location, rate of mixing and dilution, plume
behavior and mass-emission rates of constituents
including knowledge of their persistence, toxicity,
and chemical or physical behavior with time.
'• Receiving.system considerations—water quality, lo-
cal meteorology, flow regime (including low-flow
records), magnitude of water exchange at point of
discharge, stratification phenomena, waste capacity
of the receiving system including retention time,
turbulence and speed of flow as factors affecting
rate of mixing and passage of entrained or migrating
organisms, and morphology of the receiving system
as related to plume behavior, and biological phe-
nomena.
Mathematical models based in part on the above con-
siderations are available for a variety of ecosystems and
discharges. (See Appendix II-A.) All such mathematical
models must be applied with care to each particular dis-
charge and the local situation.
Recommendation
To avoid potential biological damage or inter-
ference with other uses of the receiving system it
is recommended that mixing zone characteristics
be defined on a case-by-case basis after determi-
nation that the assimilative capacity of the re-
ceiving system can safely accommodate the dis-
charge taking into consideration the physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of the dis-
charge and the receiving system, the life history
and behavior of organisms in the receiving system,
and desired uses of the waters.
112
-------
APPENDIX C
Application of NAS/NA.E Recommendations to Disposal of
Du Pont's Grasselli Plant Wastewater
Recommendation of the Committee on Water Quality Criteria (NAS/NAE)
The total time-toxicity exposure history must not cause deleterious
effects in affected populations of important species, including the post-
exposure effects.
Meeting the Recommendation
A. Approach
The Committee's approach to meeting this recommendation is summarized
as follows:
1. Perform toxicity tests on sensitive organisms to provide a
profile of the total time-toxicity exposure history (i.e. LC50 as
a function of time).
2. Determine, from these data, concentrations required to produce
lower levels of mortality (e.g. LC25, LC05, LC02, LC01, etc.).
3. Predict expected waste concentrations in the mixing zone either
through mathematical modeling, actual experimentation, or both.
4. Calculate whether the recommendation is met.
To meet the recommendation of the committee, the following equation must be
satisfied
T/ET(x)
-------
APPENDIX C
Page Two
E [T/ET(x)] < 1
where:
T = time of an organism's exposure in the mixing zone to a
specified concentration,
ET = the effective time of exposure to the specified concen-
tration which produces (x) percent response in a sample
of the organisms.
Thus, this expression states that protection will be achieved when the
sum of time-toxicity exposure relationships within a mixing zone is less
than unity.
B. Grasselli Wastewater Disposal
Du Pont obtained data required to perform the calculations necessary
for determining whether or not the Grasselli Plant's wastewaters meet
the recommendation (see June 10 report to R. T. Dewling, EPA Region II).
The data provided were:
a. LC50 to Acartia tonsa (the most sensitive organism tested)
as a function of time
b. Calculated LC01 values for Acartia tonsa as a function of
time
c. Predicted dispersion of the wastewaters in the wake of a
moving barge as a function of time.
These data, summarized in Table I (attached) are used to calculate the
values in Table II as follows:
-------
APPENDIX C
•Page Three
a. Time segments (T) for dispersion are established, and the
average concentration for each segment is calculated from
-dispersion equations.
jL
.b. ET, . is determined for each average concentration. (See
attached example calculation.)
The data in Table II are then fitted into the prescribed equation
Z [T/ETQ13 < 1, which becomes:
0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 _2_ _4_ 1(5 24
12 + 21 + 34 + ge
48 ~ 0.053 1 1
* tX5»
Thus, the constraint of the equation is met (i.e. 0.053 - 1) and the
determination is made that protection is afforded.
Rationale
A. Test Species
The toxicity of Grasselli Waste—as a function of time —to
Acartia tonsa has been used in assessing the appropriateness of
the proposed disposal procedure for these watewaters. Acartia
• tonsa was more sensitive to the Grasselli wastewater than other
appropriate sensitive marine organisms tested. Thus Acartia tonsa
*In this case/.-x = 01, so that ET(X) is the effective time required to
produce 1% mortality, i.e. the LC01.
-------
APPENDIX C
Page Four
toxicity data lends a degree of conservatism to the
determination that Du Font's recommended disposal pro-
cedure is appropriate.
B. LC50 and LC01 Calculations
Bioassays were performed on 8-10 different samples of
the Grasselli wastewater. Thus the data generated
provide information as to variability in the toxicity of
individual samples as well as variation in toxicity among
samples. Analysis of data was by computerized Probit
Analysis and analysis of variance. These statistical
techniques afford best possible estimates of waste toxicity
on the basis of the raw data obtained. 'Accuracy of these
methods for calculating LC50 and LC01 are well documented
in the scientific literature.
C. LC01 as the Estimate o£ ET, .
(x)
Realistically ET. . can represent any response produced by
\XJ
any concentration of a toxicant, and in practice, there is
no single determinable value for ET, . . Therefore, when a
(.%•)
parameter is selected for the determination of ET, . there
(x)
must be some assurance that the selected value is adequate
for the specific case under consideration.
In considering the disposal of the Grasselli wastewaters, LC01 is deemed
to be an appropriate and conservative parameter for use in determining ET, ..
\^0
Our reasoning is as follows : .
-------
APPENDIX
Page Five
• The chemical composition of the wastewaters combined with
«
intermittent disposal precludes the occurrence of chronic
or subchronic effects among biological species inhabiting
the disposal zone.
• Any nonreversible sublethal effects which could possibly
be expected would therefore be a result of a single
exposure. Such occurrences, while not unknown, are
extremely rare. Reversible sublethal effects are frequently
observed after single exposures, but generally occur at dose
or concentration levels which approach the LC50.
« The mathematical approach to meeting the recommendation of
the NAS/NAE committee recognizes that in rare instances,
effects other than acute mortality may occur, but also
recognizes that the probability of such is related to time-
concentration interaction, the slope of the dosage-mortality
curve and the asymptote of the time-mortality curve.
We suggest that the probability of these effects occurring as a
result of disposal of the Grasselli wastewaters under the requested
discharge conditions approaches zero. Thus, the only effects which
could possibly result are acute mortalities and consequently LC01 is
appropriate for determination of ET, \. (Note that NAS/NAE uses
vxy
IXJ02 for determining ET. , in the example provided on pages 403-407 of
{X.)
Water Quality Criteria 1972).
-------
APPENDIX
Page Six
D. Dispersion Calculations
There can be no denial of the fact that dilution and dispersion will
and do occur quite rapidly in the wake of a barge traveling at
5 knots and discharging into a virtually infinite volume of seawater.
There may, however, be some doubt as to the initial concentration
(Co) of waste.which is realized within a few seconds after leaving
the discharge orifice. Our calculations yield a value of 620 ppm
for Co. As a practical means of estimating the accuracy of this
value, the following example is provided in which the mixing zone is
confined to the width of the barge, the length of travel (5 hours at
5 knots) and a 5 meter depth.
Example:
Length of zone (5 hours at 5 knots) = 46000M
Width of zone (width of barge) = 15M.
Depth of zone ** 5M •
Thus, Volume of zone = 3.45 X 10& M3 (9.115 X 108 Gal.)
Wastewater volume = 1 X 10^ Gal. per barge load
1 X 10^ Gal
Thus, concentration in mixing zone = Q .. 1,. 1-u ' = 0.11%
y • j. x o x xu Cj3> x •
or 1100 ppm
This value approximates the dispersion prediction. Also, the math-
ematical constraint of E [T/ET, . ] < 1 can be met when this value (llOO ppm)
. v,x/
is used for Co and the dispersion envelope is correspondingly adjusted.
-------
'ENDDC C
;e Seven
Rate of dispersion may also be questioned. However, the values
.lized for calculation are based on observed worst-case centerline
icentrations derived from several studies of waste dispersion. Thus,
:se values are both appropriate and conservative.
Summary
The data presented by Du Pont have been applied to a mathematical
method for determining that disposal of Grasselli wastewaters
under the conditions of the requested permit will afford protection
to the marine environment. It is felt that this determination is
highly appropriate and conservative for the following reasons:
• The methods and concepts utilized in determining that
protection-is afforded represent best scientific
judgement currently available.
• The toxicity data for the most sensitive appropriate bioassay
organism were used in the determination.
• Toxicity tests and calculation of LC50 and LC01 were conducted
with valid and.accurate methodologies.
• Dilution and dispersion data are considered in light of
toxicity, and only worst-case wake-centerline concentrations
of waste are used in assessing hazardous potential.
• The constraint of the mathematical equation is met even when
additional conservative factors are incorporated.
-------
APPENDIX C
Page Eight
Thus, in conclusion, Du Pont feels that the data previously presented
to EPA in conjunction with this documentation provide more than adequate
justification for granting the requested special permit with a discharge
time of not more than 5 hours for the Grasselli Plant's wastewaters.
JRG/jtd
7/28/75
-------
TABLE I
Mean LC5Q, LC01 and expected waste concentrations at various time
intervals for Grasselli wastewaters.
Expected
Waste Concentration
Time in
Hours
0
1*
4*
8*
24t
48t
96t
* n = 8
t n = 10
Mean LC50
(ppm)
-
2519
1911
1542
559
462
400
Mean LC01
(ppm)
-
985
796
660
312
• 210
215
in The Mixing Zone
(ppm)
620
217
62
30
< 5
< 5
< 5
-------
TABLE II
Values for T and ETxQ,v based upon toxicity and dispersion data for
Grasselli wastewaters.
Average
Time Segment
(Hours)
0-0.25
0.25-0.50
0.50-1.0
1-1.5
1.5-2
V
2-4
*
4-8
8-24
24-48
48-96
T
_(Hours)
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.5
2
4
•
16
24
48
Waste Concentration
(ppm)
530
378
267
192
151
99 .
•
46
<20*
*.
<5*
<1*
ET01
(Hours)
12
21
a4
96
>96
>96
>96
>96
>96
>96
* extrapolated
-------
EXAMPLE CALCULATION
Determination of ETQ1 and T/ETQ1 for 1 hour
Time segment = 0.5 to 1.0 hours
T = 1.0-0.5 hours = 0.5 hours
A. In Figure 9 of the June 10 report, 1 hour (60 min) is located
on the abscissa and the least favorable relative concentration
for 60 minutes is found by drawing a line (T) parallel to the
ordinate until it intersects the outermost dispersion curve (2)
A perpendicular to this line is then constructed (3) so that it
intersects the ordinate @. Relative concentration (Cr) is
read from the ordinate and multiplied by the initial concen-
tration (Co) of 620 ppm."
Thus, at 1 hour Cr =0.35
Co X Cr = 620 ppm X 0.35 = 217 ppm
B. The above procedure is repeated for 0.5 hours, which yields a
value of 0.51 for Cr.
Thus, at 0.5 hour
Co X Cr = 620 ppm X 0.51 = 316 ppm
C. Average wastewater concentration during the time segment 0.5 to
1.0 hours is then determined:
217 ppm + 316 ppm 533 ppm _
_ _ f.v i ppm
D. A waste concentration of 267 ppm is located on the ordinate of
Figure 11 of the June 10 report (5). A line (5) parallel to the
-------
EXAMPLE CALCULATION (Continued)
abscissa is extended until it intersects the mean LC01 curve Q}
This intersection is then extended to the abscissa (3) and read
as ETn, ©. Thus, for the time segment 0.5 to 1 hours, ET =
01 ^"^ 01
•
34 hours.
E. Finally, T/ETQ, is determined:
T/ETQ1 = 0.5/34 = 0.015
-------
FIGURE. 9. PHASE. IT DISPERSION
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
Application of NAS/NA.E Recommendations to Disposal of
Du Pont's Grasselli Plant Wastewater
Recommendation of the Committee on Water Quality Criteria (NAS/NAE)
The total time-toxicity exposure history must not cause deleterious
effects in affected populations of important species, including the post-
exposure effects.
Meeting the Recommendation
A. Approach
The Committee's approach to meeting this recommendation is summarized
as follows:
1. Perform toxicity tests on sensitive organisms to provide a
profile of the total time-toxicity exposure history (i.e. LC50 as
a function of time).
2. Determine, from these data, concentrations required to produce
lower levels of mortality (e.g. LC25, LC05, LC02, LC01, etc.).
3. Predict expected waste concentrations in the mixing zone either
through mathematical modeling, actual experimentation, or both.
4. Calculate whether the recommendation is met.
To meet the recommendation of the committee, the following equation must be
satisfied
T/ET, N < 1
W ~
Because concentrations vary as a function of time within mixing zones, the
equation is more appropriately expressed as:
-------
APPENDIX C
Page Two
S [T/ET(x)] < 1
where:
T = time of an organism's exposure in the mixing zone to a
specified concentration,
ET = the effective time of exposure to the specified concen-
tration which produces (x) percent response in a sample
of the organisms.
Thus, this expression states that protection will be achieved when the
sum of time-toxicity exposure relationships within a mixing zone is less
than unity.
B. Grasselli Wastewater Disposal
Du Pont obtained data required to perform- the calculations necessary
for determining whether or not the Grasselli Plant's wastewaters meet
the recommendation (see June 10 report to R. T. Dewling, EPA Region II).
The data provided were:
a. LC50 to Acartia tonsa (the most sensitive organism tested)
as a function of time
b. Calculated LC01 values for Acartia tonsa as a function of
time
c. Predicted dispersion of the wastewaters in the wake of a
moving barge as a function of time.
These data, summarized in Table I (attached) are used to calculate the
values in Table II as follows:
-------
APPENDIX C
Page Three
a. Time segments (T) for dispersion are established, and the
average concentration for each segment is calculated from
dispersion equations.
b. ET. f is determined for each average concentration. (See
\x)
attached example calculation.)
The data in Table II are then fitted into the prescribed equation
Z [T/ETn,] < 1, which becomes:
J"»
y .-.
0.25 .
Thus, the constraint of the equation is met (i.e. 0.067 < 1) and the
determination is made that protection is afforded.
Beyond 1.5 hours ET... approaches infinity. However, even if it is
conservatively assumed that ET01 remains constant at 96 hours for the
period 1.5 to 48 hours, the calculated value of T, [T/ET0,] is 0.55.
This value still satisfies the constraint of the equation.
Rationale
A. Test Species
The toxicity of Grasselli Waste — as a function of time — to
Acartia tonsa has been used in assessing the appropriateness of
the proposed disposal procedure for these watewaters. Acartia
- tonsa was more sensitive to the Grasselli wastewater than other
appropriate sensitive marine organisms tested. Thus Acartia tonsa
*In this case,-.-x = 01, so that ET(X) is the effective time required to
• produce 1% mortality, i.e. the LC01.
-------
APPENDIX C
Page Four
toxicity data lends a degree of conservatism to the
determination that Du Pont's recommended disposal pro-
cedure is appropriate.
B. LC50 and LC01 Calculations
Bioassays were performed on 8-10 different samples of
the Grasselli wastewater. Thus the data generated
provide information as to variability in the toxicity of
individual samples as well as variation in toxicity among
samples. Analysis of data was by computerized Probit
Analysis and analysis of variance. These statistical
techniques afford best possible estimates of waste toxicity
on the basis of the raw data obtained. Accuracy of these
methods for calculating LC50 and LC01 are well documented
in the scientific literature.
C. LC01 as the Estimate of ET. .
(x)
Realistically ET. . can represent any response produced by
/ ^x}
any concentration of a toxicant, and in practice, there is
no single determinable value for ET. . . Therefore, when a
-— tx)
parameter is selected for the determination of ET. s there
* (x)
must be some assurance that the selected value is adequate
for the specific case under consideration.
In considering the disposal of the Grasselli wastewaters, LC01 is deemed
to be an appropriate and conservative parameter for use in determining ET. ,. .
\xj
Our reasoning is as follows:
-------
APPENDIX
Page Five
• The chemical composition of the wastewaters combined with
intermittent disposal precludes the occurrence of chronic
or subchronic effects among biological species inhabiting
the disposal zone.
• Any nonreversible sublethal effects which could possibly
be expected would therefore be a result of a single
exposure. Such occurrences, while not unknown, are
extremely rare. Reversible sublethal effects are frequently
observed after single exposures, but generally occur at dose
or concentration levels which approach the LC50.
o The mathematical approach to meeting the recommendation of
the NAS/NAE committee recognizes that in rare instances,
effects other than acute mortality may occur, but also
recognizes that the probability of such is related to time-
concentration interaction, the slope of the dosage-mortality
curve and the asymptote of the time-mortality curve.
We suggest that the probability of these effects occurring as a
result of disposal of the Grasselli wastewaters under the requested
discharge conditions approaches zero. Thus, the only effects which
could possibly result are acute mortalities and consequently LC01 is
appropriate for determination of ETf ,. (Note that NAS/NAE uses
LC02 for determining ET, . in the example provided on pages 403-407 of
tx/
Water Quality Criteria 1972) .
-------
APPENDIX
Page Six
D. Dispersion Calculations
There can be no denial of the fact that dilution and dispersion will
and do occur quite rapidly in the wake of a barge traveling at
5 knots and discharging into a virtually infinite volume of seawater.
There may, however, be. some doubt as to the initial concentration
(Co) of waste which is realized within a few seconds after leaving
the discharge orifice. Our calculations yield a value of 620 ppm
for Co. As a practical means of estimating the accuracy of this
value, the following example is provided in which the mixing zone is
confined to the width of the barge, the length of travel (5 hours at
5 knots) and a 5 meter depth.
Example:
Length of zone (5 hours at 5 knots) = 46000M
Width of zone (width of barge) = 15M
Depth of zone = 5M
Thus, Volume of zone = 3.45 X 106 M3 (9.115 X 108 Gal.)
Wastewater volume = 1 X 106 Gal. per barge load
1 X 10^ Gal
Thus, concentration in mixing zone = •? • ^ _' = 0.11%
y • JLJ.O 2C JLU vjclx •
or 1100 ppm
This value approximates the dispersion prediction. Also, the math-
ematical constraint of £ [T/ET. . ] < 1 can be met when this value (llOO pptn)
(x) —
is used for Co and the dispersion envelope is correspondingly adjusted.
-------
APPENDIX C
Page Seven
Rate of dispersion may also be questioned. However, the values
utilized for calculation are based on observed worst-case centerline
concentrations derived from several studies of waste dispersion. Thus,
these values are both appropriate and conservative.
E. Summary
The.data presented by Du Pont have been applied to a mathematical
method for determining that disposal of Grasselli wastewaters
under the conditions of the requested permit will afford protection
to the marine environment. It is felt that this determination is
*
highly appropriate and conservative for the following reasons:
• The methods and concepts utilized in determining that
protection is afforded represent best scientific
judgement currently available.
• The toxicity data for the most sensitive appropriate bioassay
organism were used in the determination.
• Toxicity tests and calculation of LC50 and LC01 were conducted
with valid and accurate methodologies.
• Dilution and dispersion data are considered in light of
toxicity, and only worst-case wake-centerline concentrations
of waste are used in assessing hazardous potential.
• The constraint of the mathematical equation is met even when
additional conservative factors are incorporated.
-------
APPENDIX c
Page Eight
Thus, in conclusion, Du Pont feels that the data previously presented
to EPA in conjunction with this documentation provide more than adequate
justification for granting the requested special permit with a discharge
time of not more than 5 hours for the Grasselli Plant's wastewaters.
JRG/jtd
7/28/75
-------
TABLE I
Mean LC50, LC01 and expected waste concentrations at various time
intervals for Grasselli wastewaters.
Expected
Waste Concentration
Time in
Hours
0
1*
4*
8*
24t
48t
96t
* n = 8
t n = 10
Mean LC50
(ppm)
-
2519
1911
1542
559
462
400
Mean LC01
(ppm)
-
985
796
.660
312
210
215
in The Mixing Zone
(ppm)
620
217
62
: so
< 5
< 5
< 5
-------
TABLE II
Values for T and ET.,0,x based upon toxicity and dispersion data for
Grasselli wastewaters.
Average
Time Segment
(Hours)
0-0.25
0.25-0.50
0.50-1.0
1-1.5
1.5-2
2-4
4-8
8-24
24-48
48-96
T
_ (Hours)
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.5
2
4
16
24
48
Waste Concentration
(ppm)
530
378
267
192
151
99
46
<20*
<5*
<1*
(Hours)
12
21
29
96
>96
>96
>96
>96
>96
>96
* extrapolated
-------
EXAMPLE CALCULATION
Determination of ET-. and T/ETQ1 for 1 hour
Time segment = 0.5 to 1.0 hours
T = 1.0-0.5 hours = 0.5 hours
A. In Figure 9 of the June 10 report, 1 hour (60 min) is located
on the abscissa and the least favorable relative concentration
for 60 minutes is found by drawing a line (T) parallel to the
ordinate until it intersects the outermost dispersion curve (2).
A perpendicular to this line is then constructed (3) so that it
intersects the ordinate @. Relative concentration (Cr) is
read from the ordinate and multiplied by the initial concen-
tration (Co) of 620 ppm.
Thus, at 1 hour Cr = 0.35
Co X Cr = 620 ppm X 0.35 = 217 ppm
B. The above procedure is repeated for 0.5 hours, which yields a
value of 0.51 for Cr.
Thus, at 0.5 hour
Co X Cr = 620 ppm X 0.51 = 316 ppm
C. Average wastewater concentration during the time segment 0.5 to
1.0 hours is then determined:
217 ppm + 316 ppm 533 ppm 0£_
"—jj **— = -j— ** = 267 ppm
D. A waste concentration of 267 ppm is located on the ordinate of
Figure 11 of the June 10 report (?). A line @ parallel to the
-------
EXAMPLE CALCULATION (Continued)
abscissa is extended until it intersects the mean LC01 curve (7)
This intersection is then extended to the abscissa (F) and read
as ETn. (§) . Thus, for the time segment 0.5 to 1 hours, ET... =
UJL ^"^ 01
29 hours.
E. Finally, T/ETQ1 is determined:
T/ET01 = 0.5/29 - .0017
-------
9. PH/\SE.IE DISPERSION
-------
-------
-------
APPENDIX G
-------
. I.TJ
CStAluSlK 01802
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS 51 COMPANY
INCORPORATED
GRASSELLI PLANT
LINDEN, NEW JERSEY 07036
INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS DEPARTMENT
August 14, 1975
P. E. Bermingham, Esquire
Hearing Officer
EPA Region II -
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Bermingham:
OCEAN DUMPING PERMIT NJ-006
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
' GRASSELLI PLANT - LINDEN, N.J. ,' •
At our meeting in Edison on August 6, 1975, P. W. Anderson, EPA Region II,
suggested certain options relative to Grasselli's permit and requested Du Pont Company
comments.
The purpose of this letter is to advise that in the event EPA determines that a
"special" ocean dumping permit in accordance with Du Font's application will not be
issued to the Grasselli Plant, the Du Pont Company would accept under protest the EPA
proposal to issue an "interim" ocean dumping permit which for the Grasselli Plant
specified a dumping zone of five nautical miles and contained the Special Condition
No. 7 of the Tentative Determinations in that any Implementation Plan that may be re-
quired, "shall set forth a schedule of deadlines, in accordance with the regional goal
to completely phase out ocean dumping by 1981."
The acceptance of any such interim permit by Du Pont should not be construed as
acquiescence to EPA's determination in this matter. Du Pont would like to state for the
record that we continue to believe that the technical procedure in support of the five-
hour maximum dump time presented by Du Pont at the June 12, 1975 Public Hearing and in
subsequent correspondence is fully in accordance with EPA's presently promulgated rules
and regulations, specifically 40 CFR Part 227 - - "Criteria for the 'Evaluation of Permit
Applications." Section 227.71 states that in determining, "limiting permissible con-
centrations" that bioassays on "appropriate sensitive marine organisms" shall be "carried
out in accordance with approved EPA procedures." We believe that the approach proposed
by Du Pont sets forth a sound and technically valid procedure for determining discharge
rates in accordance with Section 227.71.
DETTER THINGS FOR BETTER LIVING . . . THROUGH CHEMISTRY
-------
?. E. Bermingham, Esquire - 2 - August 14, 1975
EPA Region II
The Du Pont proposal appears to have considerable support from the scientific
community (see attachments to the report by Drs. Falk• and Gibson submitted under cover
of R. D. Turner's July 30, 1975 letter), whereas EPA's approach of applying a 0.01
factor to only 96-hour TLM's appears arbitrary and solely designed to provide a safety
margin, irrespective of actual discharge conditions, in "cases where waste of unknown
ecological impact is involved" (see 38 FR 28612). We request that consideration of
Grasselli Plant's permit application weigh the total scientific data associated with
this particular dumping activity, and not be viewed in the context of unspecified and
unpublished EPA policy and procedures.
*
The purpose of the August 6 meeting, from Du Font's point of view, was to seek
EPA's acceptance of our proposal specifically-as applied to the Grasselli Plant's pend-
ing permit application. We believe such acceptance could be granted by the EPA's Region
II Office. The Du Pont Company intends to proceed toward obtaining acceptance of the
proposed procedure. We believe the time-toxicity concept embodied in the Du Pont pro-
posal is a technically sound procedure to predict acute toxicity under actual discharge
conditions, and is an appropriate and workable procedure for determining discharge rates
and "limiting permissible concentrations."
The flexibility inherent in the existing regulations should be exercised in the
future. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please feel free to call upon
the Du Pont Company if you should have any questions or if we can be of any assistance.
Very truly yours,
R. D. TURNER
' .. PLANT MANAGER
RDT:mm
CC: P. W. Anderson
. EPA, Region I I.-
Edison, N.J.
T. A. Wastler
Marine Protection Branch
U.S. EPA
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
Hi1
-------
APPENDIX H
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region II
SUBJECT: Ocean Dumping Permits - June 12, 1975 Hearing
FROM:
TO:
DATE: September 2, 1975
P. E. Bermingham
Regional Hearing Officer
Gerald M. Hansler, P.E.
Regional Administrator
On June 12, 1975 a public hearing was held at 26 Federal Plaza
to consider 25 applications for permits .to dump waste materials off-
shore in the Atlantic Ocean. The record was originally held open
until July 11, 1975 for the submission of additional data. Subsequently
I agreed to postpone this date until August 15, 1975 because of the
controversial nature of some of the applications, particularly those
of Du Pont and American Cyanamid. v ••••* :
American Cyanamid
The American Cyanamid application was the subject of a separate
memorandum addressed to you dated August 18, 1975 in which I recom-
mended the issuance of a permit. In your absence this recommendation
was approved by Mr. Herbert Barrack.
Du Pont
Du Pont in its application asked for a special permit (as
distinguished from the interim permit granted to it last year) with
a discharge time not exceeding five hours. Region II's tentative
decision was to issu-a a special permit to Du Pent to discharge at
the 106-mile chemical site. In order to meet the limiting permissible
concentration (LPC) of the mixing zone at this site (determined to
be 1/100 of the 96-hour Tl^g value for Acartia tonsa) the proposed
permit provided that the waste must be uniformly discharged over a
distance of 150 miles. EPA estimated that traversing this distance
would require approximately 30 hours.
The issue between EPA and Du Pont with respect to the allowable
discharge time was the subject of lengthy written reports and oral
presentations by both sides. I find it impossible to present the
question and my recommendation with respect thereto without a
rather detailed summarization of the respective positions.
In support of its application Du Pont submitted a report detail-
ing the results of bioassay tests on the EPA-specified marine organism
that was most sensitive to the company's waste (Acartia tonsa).
Du Pont's proposed procedure was based on a time-toxicity concept
designed to predict acute toxicity under actual discharge conditions.
Du Pont explained its methodology as follows:
EPA Form 1320.6 (R... 6-72)
-------
.. .'The limiting permissible concentration (LPC) was
.established by applying the 0.01 factor specified
in Section 227.71 of the EPA ocean dumping regu-
lations., to the mean 4-hour LCcQ or median tolerance
limit obtained from bioassay data on Acartia. The
basis for this time period is the 4-hour limit for
mixing allowed in Section 227.73 of the EPA regu-
lation.
i. The mixing zone volume for achieving the LPC is
• that allowed for in Sections 227.72 and 227.73 of
the regulation. That volume is 20 meters deep and
has lateral dimensions 100 meters from the perimeter
of the barge beginning at a point when waste re-
lease starts to the point when release stops.
3. Bioassay data were determined for periods of ex-
posure of 1, 4, 8, 24, 48, and 96 hours on 8 to
10 replicate waste samples. From the data, LCc«
(50 percent survival) and LCg^ (99 percent survival)
were calculated by profait analyses. Further
statistical analyses showed that the LC5Q value
of any one sample was not statistically different
from those of the other samples. Thus, the mean
value for all replicates can be used to represent
the waste in calculating dispersion time. Our
report appends to it computer printouts of all
probit analyses. • •
4. The 4-hour LC5Q and LC0^ values were then com-
pared with LPC and expected dispersion patterns.
The patterns used were those obtained by Du Pont
• in studies in the Gulf of Mexico in 1960 and in
1973. Those studies showed that the initial con-
centration in the immediate wake of the barge is
directly proportional to the waste release rate
and inversely proportional to the barge speed.
Furthermore, subsequent to initial dispersion,
a further 1:10 dilution occurs in 0.5 to 3.5 hours.
Then, typically,.another 1:10 dilution occurs by
the 6th to 8th hour after release,
In our analysis, we combined the 4-hour LCrQ and
LCg^ data with the dispersion data. The results
are summarized as follows:
1. At all times, the waste concentrations behind the
barge will be less than mean 4-hour LC0j
-------
2. The waste concentration will be less than 0.01 of
the mean LC5Q within 1 to 10 hours after discharge
at the centerline of the dispersing waste pluce.
3. By using a 5-hour dispersion time at a 5-knot barge
speed, the waste concentration in Che mixing zone
pertnittcdin Section 227.73 is less than 0.01 of the
mean 4-hour I>C after 4 hours.
Our analysis shows that extending .the dispersion time
beyond 5 to, say, 10 or 20 hours does not significantly
add to the relative differences in the time-mortality-
concentration relationships. Put another way, 5
hours will allow meeting the requirement of Section
227.71. Additional time for dispersion costs fuel
and money. It does not add up to a benefit to the
ocean environment commensurate with the cost.
Because Mr. Richard Dewling, Director of Region II 's Surveillance
and Analysis Division, felt that the. Du Pont application raised issues
of national significance, he referred the company's proposal to EPA
headquarters for its answers to the following questions:
1. Do the existing regulations allow for the type of
interpretation suggested by Du Pont?
2. From a technical standpoint, can we apply the
approach recommended by Du Pont, and if not,
why not? .
3. If Du Font's approach is approved, can we apply
this concept to all liquid industrial wastes of
. the same density?
i
These questions were answered as follows:
1. The Regional Administrator has the discretion to
specify the kinds of biological testing required
for his Region. Therefore the Region could
accept a four hour bioassay test if it felt the
test was adequate.
2. In our opinion, we feel that based on the infor-
mation provided, the Du Pont recommendation should
be rejected for the following reasons.
-------
The use of a bioassay test to simulate toxicological
reactions Co marine ecosystems can, at best, only
provide a rough estimate of ecosystem impact. For
this reason every effort has been made to provide
test procedures that use sensitive marine organisms.
The procedures selected for use by •& Region must
be a compromise between sensitivity of toxicological
response, facility of performance, ecological
significance of the test species, and the financial
cost of running the tests.
ORD in recommending the use of Acartia tonsa,
Skeletonema costatum, and Menidia menidia, has
made a scientific judgment that essentially states
that using these organisms, performing the bioassay
tests under standard conditions, and interpreting
the results according to the ocean disposal criteria,
will provide adequate protection to the marine
environment from dumping operations.
Clearly there is nothing sacred about a 96 hour
static acute toxicity bioassay test. ORD could
have specified tests dealing with such sub-lethal
effects as physiology, sensory physiology, behavior,
and growth, reproduction and development.
The above sub-lethal effects are not observed in
the ORD recommended acute toxicity tests. It is
our best scientific judgment that specifying 96
hours for the Acartia bioassay in conjunction with
the 0.01 application factor to obtain the LPC,
protection is provided to eliminate sub-lethal
effects. It is important to note that so-called
sub-lethal effects can be just as damaging to a
functioning ecosystem as the most obvious lethal
effects.
The issue of "scientific judgment" is also at stake
here. Any particular judgment can only be vindicated
by accruing a great amount of research information.
It certainly would not be practical to mount a full
research expedition for every ocean dumping permit
application. Therefore, we must rely on the
"judgment" of our experienced research scientists
to provide the technical guidance for the program.
-------
I*recognize that Du Pont scientists may take ex-
ception to our judgments with judgments of their
own. In 'that case they will have to perform a
well balanced and comprehensive research program
to prove their case. In our opinion the information
provided to date is insufficient to prove the
adequacy of their recommended alternative. Some
of our specific objections to Du Font's proposal are
as follows: /'
It is unclear from the appended Du Pont technical
material if a four hour bioassay accounts for la-
tency or delayed mortality effects or morbidity.
Thusi the observation of no observed mortality in
a four hour test may be meaningless particularly
when the concentration is roughly four times the
value of that obtained after the mortality curve
stabilizes at about 24 hours.
Much importance is assigned to Hydroscience's model
work and its implication for predicting concentrations
at particular time periods. While the material
Hydroscience's Mr. Mancini presented (at the Pensa-
cola hearing) suggests 10 hours.rather than 4 to be
the time break this is somewhat an incidental re-
lationship. No precision or accuracy concerns are
expressed related to the model, it's specific ap-
plicability, its variability with changing hydro-
logical or meteorlogical conditions etc.
It is common knowledge in toxicological research
, that slight changes in concentration can produce
non-linear effects. However, it is of greater ,
ecological concern to" note that the measurable
endpoint in the suggested test estimates death
of a portion of the population. Such laboratory
tests do not speak to possible field effects upon
growth, reproduction or metabolism. Prudence would
seem to dictate conservative approaches using
accepted procedures.
Dealing with the possibility of applying the Du Pont
concept to other cases of industrial waste disposal,
it is our opinion that if it is determined that the
concept has validity, then it may be applied to
other waste disposals providing those wastes are
totally liquid and miscible with water. However
such determinations would have to be done on a
case-by-case basis.
-------
In response to these answers Du Pont submitted the following
comments:
1. In regard to EPA's point with respect to the in-
ability of an acute bioassay to deal with sub-
lethal effects, the consensus of scientific judg-
ment for situations where wastewatcrs mix with
receiving waters is that time-toxicity exposure
relationships should be considered in arriving at
acceptable practices. Du Pont has,.done this, not
believing that a decision based on only one
selected time duration (96 hours) for a bioassay
test is the "best" for protecting against sub-
lethal effects.
2. The second point raised by EPA dealt with the
additional protection of a 96-hour vs. a 4-hour
test. Obviously, the longer test would be the
safer if the only consideration were mere use of
application factors. But because time-response
'•_'.'.•'*/• ' data-were developed for the Grasselli wastewaters,
• Du Pont- considers that an LPC based on a 4-hour
test to Acartia tonsa is both appropriate for
• providing a high level of protection to the marine
environment as well as meeting the criteria of
'40CFR Part 227.71. Thus, the entire spectrum
of time-response data developed during the 96-hour
bioassay tests should be used in evaluating
permissible wastewater levels. That spectrum of
data ought to be, and indeed was, linked to the
wastewater concentrations expected in the con-
tinually diluting plume behind the moving barge.
Clearly, EPA did not even address itself to the
validity of these concepts. Rather, it narrowly
considered only the use of an application factor
applied to a 96-hour test.
3. EPA's third point related to the imprecision of
wastewater dispersion predictions. Du Pont
recognized this in its proposal by showing an
envelope of expected dispersion patterns.
Du Pont then compared the least favorable
pattern with LC50, LC01, and LPC values. Thus
the point raised by EPA about Mr. Mancini's
suggesting a 10-hour rather than 4-hour time
break is immaterial. The wastewater concentrations
will be less than 0.01 of the mean LC50 (50 percent
survival) within 1 to 10 hours at the plume ccnter-
jj.ne, and less than 0.01 of the mean 4-hour LC50
after 4 hours. Furthermore, concentrations will be
less than the mean 4-hour LC01 (99 percent survival)
at all times.
-------
EPA raises the issue of "scientific judgment" being
. at stake. If EPA's "best judgment" is the mere
'•iuse of an application factor and 96-hour bioassays,
then Du Pont certainly believes that such judgment
would-be found wanting. The publication, "Water
Quality Criteria 1972" (EPA-R3-73-033, March 1973)
prepared at EPA's request by the Committee on
Water Quality Criteria, Environmental Studies
Board, National Academy of Sciences-National
Academy of Engineering, supports this belief.
That publication gives the methodology on how
to deal.with intermittent discharges and short-
term exposures such as we have in the case of
barged wastes. Both the Panel on Freshwater Aquatic
Life and Wildlife and the Panel on Marine Aquatic
Life and Wildlife considered integrated time-exposure
as the concept to use in evaluating effects of
short-time exposures of aquatic life to wastes in
mixing zones. The waste plume behind a barge is
such a zone. Both the Marine and Freshwater
Aquatic Life panels subscribe to a use of a time-
exposure approach in evaluating acceptable ex-
posures of organisms in mixing zones. The panels
even indicated how to approach the problem.
Their concept is precisely the same as Du Font's.
In my opinion Du Pont has presented a convincing case for the
issuance of a special permit with a.discharge time of five hours and
I recommend that such a permit be issued. I base this recommendation
on the following factors:
1. Region II's basis fox determining the LPC by the
formula of 1/100 of the 96-hour TLso value for
Acartia tonga is based on a draft paper issued by
Washington as a guideline which, in fact, has not
' been.uniformly followed by all regions.
2. The Washington response to Dewling's questions ex-
.pressly states that-in spite of the fact that head-
quarters does not believe Du Font's proposal should
be approved, the Region has the authority to make
its own determination.
3. Section 227.71 of the Regulations dealing with
limiting permissible concentrations does not
prescribe any fixed method for obtaining bioassay
data. On the contrary, it authorizes flexibility
in providing for tests "carried out in accordance
with approved EPA procedures."
-------
8
A. Du Pont is asking that Region II approve its
proposed procedure, an approval that the Region
has authority to give.
5, Du Font's proposal is based on joint recommendations
of the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering contained in "Water Quality
Criteria" prepared at EPA's request. That report,
in lieu of fixed, arbitrary formulas, supports the
theory that in a mixing zone "water quality
characteristics necessary for ,the protection of
aquatic life are based on time-exposure relation-
ships of organisms" and that "the objective of
mixing zone water quality recommendations is to
provide time exposure histories which produce
negligible or no effects on populations of
critical species in the receiving system," an
objective that "can be met by: (a) determination
of the pattern of exposure in terms of time and
concentration, in the mixing zone due either to
activities of the organisms, discharge schedule,
or currents affecting dispersion; and (b)
determination that delayed effects do not occur."
6. EPA's use of a fixed formula specifying 96 hours
for Acartia bioassay in conjunction with the 0.01
application factor to obtain the LPC seems un-
realistic in situations such as this where the
discharges are intermittent rather than continuous
and are made with rapidly decreasing concentrations.
•
7. EPA's precautionary attitude that "prudence would
seem to dictate conservative approaches using
accepted procedures" is based on the sound premise »
that alternative procedures should not be substituted
unless they include adequate safety factors. But the
Du Pont tests did reflect the NAS-NAE recojnmendation
on this point which states:
"When developing summation of short-term
exposure effects it: is recommended that
safety factors, application factors, or
conservative physiological or behavioral
responses be incorporated into the bioassay
or extrapolation procedures to provide an
adequate margin of safety."
-------
In short, Du Pont has submitted a proposal based on its own N
extensive tests and on the recommendations of NAS-NAE; JPA opposes /
jit because in its scientific judgment "performing the bioassay tests (
under standard conditions, and interpreting the results according [ 7*r
to the ocean disposal criteria will provide xidequate protection to \
the marine environment *** ." In my opinion the latter position is j
arbitrary and, under the circumstances, unreasonable and_I, therefore, /
Recommend that the Du Pont proposed procedure be approved. /
f
Other Permits
Except for the blanket recommendation of the American Littoral
Society and the Sierra Club that the disposal of all toxic wastes
at sea be discontinued (a recommendation that cannot feasibly be
attained at this time) no objections were made to the issuance of
permits to other applicants and I recommend that they be issued as
proposed subject to the following comments:
Special Condition 7
Several of the applicants have raised objections to the
inclusion in the proposed interim permits of special condition 7
' requiring the permittee to submit (1) by a specified date a final
plan to implement the most environmentally acceptable alternative
to ocean dumping of its waste and (2) a schedule of deadlines for
the complete phasing out of ocean dumping.
This condition imposes requirements going beyond those set
forth in the Act or in the regulations. The latter provide in 40 CFR
§ 220.3(d)(2) as follows:
"An interim permit will require the
development and active implementation of
a plan to either eliminate the discharge
entirely from the ocean or to bring it
within the limitations of § 227.3"(i.e.,
the requirements for a special permit)"of
this subchapter. Such plans must meet
the requirements of § 227.4 of this sub-
chapter. The expiration date of an in-
terim permit will be determined by com-
pletion of sequential phases of the
development and implementation of the
required plan, and will not exceed one
year from the date of issue. An interim
permit may not be renewed, but a new
interim permit may be issued upon ap-
plication according to Part 221 of this
subchapter upon satisfactory completion
of each phase of the development and
implementation of the plan."
1*
-------
10
Clearly under this language the permittee has the optton of
submitting one or the other of two separate implementation plans.
One alternative is a plan to eliminate ocean dumping in accordance
with a time schedule. The other is a plan to remove from the waste
the materials that do not meet the requirements for a special permit
as set forth in § 227.3. Region II's condition 7 deprives the
permittee of the second option. In most cases this causes no problems
because the permittee would not or could not elect that option. But
where he does want the choice, he is entitled to it.
The condition also exceeds the regulatory provisions in
requiring that the plan to eliminate ocean dumping be based on "the
most environmentally acceptable alternative." This language, which
finds no sanction in either the law or the regulations, rules out any
considerations of technical feasibility and economic costs. In your
opinion of October 8, 1974 dealing with the issuance of interim
permits you characterized the requirement of developing a satisfactory
implementation plan as one involving the selection of "the alternative-
most economically and environmentally feasible." In my judgment this
is the proper standard.
EPA supports the use of its stricter language on the ground
that it has never been used to impose alternatives that were not
technically feasible or economically reasonable. If this has been
the Region's philosophy, it seems to me that it ought to be willing
to condition its permits accordingly and I_so recommend.
If my recommendations with respect to special condition 7
are accepted, I think the condition should be reworded to read as
follows:
"In accordance with 40 CFR gg 220.3(d)(2)
and 227 A the permittee shall submit on
or before , 1975 a final plan
to either eliminate the discharge of its
waste entirely from the ocean or to bring
it within the limitations of § 227.3.
"If the plan submitted is for the elimination
of the discharge from the ocean, it shall set
forth an alternative method of disposal that is
environmentally acceptable, technically feasible
and economically reasonable and a schedule of
deadlines for its implementation so as to phase out
ocean dumping by _. Such plan shall be
based on the evaluation of an engineering
report previously submitted by the permittee
as supplemented by such additional reports as
EPA may require. The permittee shall submit
quarterly progress reports beginning .
-------
11
"If the plan is to bring the discharge within
the limitations of § 227.3, it shall meet the
requirements of § 227.4, including adherence
to the following implementation schedule:
Although the regulations require an .implementation plan for
the elimination of ocean dumping only by holders of interim permits
who cannot or will not meet the requirements for a special permit,
Region II incorporates its condition 7 in special permits too. It
appears in the proposed special permit to be issued to Du Pont. The
Region's justification for doing this is a 1974 opinion of an attorney
in the General Counsel's office which concludes that a special ocean
dumping permit can "be conditioned so as to require the applicant to
Investigate, develop, or implement where feasible, and document such
investigation, development or implementation, appropriate alternative
locations and methods of disposal or recycling, including land-based
alternatives, of the waste materials permitted for ocean disposal
generated by the applicant." This conclusion, was supported by the
provision in s 223.l(g) authorizing the inclusion in permits of "other
terms and conditions."
If my conclusion is correct that an interim permit holder
has the option under the regulations of satisfying the requirements
for a special permit or of phasing out his ocean dumping, that option
Is indeed a Hobson's choice when such a permittee opts for a special
permit and is then told that the route he elected not to take must
nevertheless be followed.
The above-referred to legal opinion does not say that con-
dition 7 must be incorporated in special permits. It merely says that
it may be imposed if the Regional Administrator deems it necessary
or appropriate. In my view it should be omitted. If this view is not
accepted, the language should be changed to reflect the limitation ex-
pressly stated in the opinion that any plan to eliminate ocean dumping
be implemented "where feasible." This connotes a consideration of
technical and economic factors as well as those that are environ-
mentally acceptable and the language should so provide.
Allied Chemical
Allied Chemical's application asked for a discharge volume
of 22.6 million gallons. The proposed permit is limited to 15
million gallons based on the company's discharge rate over the past
two years. The Region prefers to use the lower figure with the
commitment that if Allied can during the permit period demonstrate 3
-------
12
need for an Increase in volume, "the Region would be receptive to
a modification request." With this understanding I endorse the 15
million quantity.
Allied Chemical also asked that special condition 5 be
changed by substituting Mcnldia bcrvllina for Mcntdia menidia as
one of three designated sensitive marine organisms because of the
unavailability of the latter on a year-round basis and it also asked
that its own bioassay analysis be limited to Acartia tonsa or
Acartia clausi because it is the most sensitive to the company's
wastes.
The.Region's comments on these points are set out below:
"We fully recognize Menidia mcnidia may not
be obtained in vast quantities on a year-
round basis from local coastal waters; however,
there are two options available to this ocean
dumping permittee and others in the Region.
At least one of the available laboratories
locally has established a culture of these
fish within their facilities, thus providing-
a supply of these organisms on a year-round
basis. The other option available would be
the stabilization of the waste sampl'e by
freezing and subsequent analysis when the
organism Menidia menidia is more abundant in
local xjaters. We prefer that the permittees
utilize laboratory cultures, if available.
« *** The Region earlier th'is year designated
three test organisms - Skeletonema costatum,
Acartia tonsa or Acartia clausii, and Menidia
menidia for use in determining the relative »
toxicity of waste transported to the ocean. In
addition, for the period of this permit, that
is for a one-year period, we are requiring that
the permit holders provide information on the
organism Artemia salina which has been used as
a ranking test organism for the past 2-3 years.
This will allow, hopefully, the comparison of
of data generated during the earlier years of
the ocean dumping program with those generated
from the three new test organisms. We have
determined that these data are needed over at
least a one-year period in order to provide an
adequate data base. While it is premature to
establish the requirements for analytical
determinations in future permits (next year),
-------
13
we will consider Allied Chemical's suggestion
that the bioassay requirements be restricted
to only 'the1 most appropriate sensitive
marine organisms in setting up future analytical
requirements."
In the light of these comments I recommend that special con-
dition 5 be incorporated in the permit as proposed by the Region.
In addition Allied requested that the requirement to conduct
petroleum hydrocarbon analyses be postponed 'until appropriate analytical
procedures are established. To this the Region replied as follows:
"We transmitted to Mr. R. Sobel of Allied
Chemical Corp. on July 8, 1975, a copy of
the procedure for the analysis of petroleum
hydrocarbon as requested in the July 3rd
letter. In further telephone communications
on July 28th with Mr. Gouck, I suggested
that the company test this procedure in the
near future and present the results to
Mr. McKenna, the Region's Quality Assurance
Officer and myself; we will then evaluate the
applicability of this analytical procedure to
Allied Chemical's highly acidic waste and if
deemed inappropriate, will recommend to the
Enforcement Division that the permit be
modified to exclude this procedure. However,
as this particular water quality parameter
is useful in determining both the amount of
material being transported bo the respective
dump sites and in reference to the noncon-
travention of criteria as established in
Part 227, we recommend that it be included
in this, as well as other, permits proposed
for issuance."
I endorse this procedure.
Attachments
Attached is the complete record consisting of the following:
1. Public announcement of complete applications (Notice
No. 75-388, May 9, 1975).
2* Newspaper advertisements of No. 1 above.
3. Letter dated Apr. 30, 1975 from EPA to NY State
Department of Environmental Conservation requesting
-------
14
• certification with respect to five of the applications
«nd the State's reply thereto dated June 4, 1975.
4. A copy o£ the draft form of permit.
5. Copies of the individual forms of special condition
7 for each permittee.
6. Transcript of the public hearing held on June 12, 1975.
*
7., Letter dated June 10, 1975 from McCarter & English,
attorneys for Reheis Chemical Co. requesting additional
time to submit an engineering report and EPA's comments
with respect thereto dated July 17, 1975.
8. Letter dated May 21, 1975 from Chevron Oil Co. with
respect to special conditions 5 and 6 and EPA's responses
thereto dated June 4, 1975 and June 9, 1975.
9. Letter from Allied Chemical dated July 3, 1975 with
respect to special conditions 2, 5 and 7 and EPA's
comments on 2 and 5 dated July 29, 1975.
10. Letter from Merck Chemical dated June 12, 1975 with
respect to special condition 7. •
11. Memorandum from Peter W. Anderson, Chief of the Marine
Protection Program commenting on Allied Chemical's and
Merck Chemical's objections to special condition 7.
12. Copy of statement by U.S. Coast Guard on its in-
volvement in ocean disposal.
i
13. Copies of documents relating to the Du Pont proposals
for a discharge time'not exceeding five hours:
a. Statement of Richard D. Turner, Manager of Du Pont's
Grasseli plant presented at the June 12 hearing.
b. Statement of Dr. Lloyd L. Falk of Du Pont's
Engineering Department presented at the June 12
hearing.
c. Du Pont's report on release conditions based on
testing appropriate sensitive marine organisms in
-------
d. Du Font's engineering report on Waste Dispersion
at Sea dated July 31, 1973.
e. Du Font's engineering report on Deep Sea Disposal
of Wastes from its Houston plant.
f. Memorandum dated June 13, 1975 from Richard T.
Dewling, Director of Region II's Surveillance
and Analysis Division to Dr. A.- J. McErlean,
Acting Director of EPA's Ecological Effects
' . Division submitting three questions with respect
to Du Font's application.
• g. Memorandum dated July 8, 1975 from Dr. McErlean
to Mr. Dewling answering the questions referred to
in f.
h. Du Font's comments on Dr. McErlean1s memorandum
of July 8, 1975.
1. Letter dated August 14, 1975 from Du Pont.
14. My earlier report, to you of August 18, 1975 with
respect to American Cyanamid's application to which
is attached:
a. A joint statement submitted by the American Littoral
Society and the Sierra Club objecting generally to
the disposal of any toxic wastes at sea and
particularly to American Cyanamid's application.
b. American Cyanamid's comments in response to the
objections referred to in a. •
c. Letter dated July 25, 1975 from American Cyanamid
with respect to that part of its application covering
wastes from a new product.
d. Memorandum from Mr. Peter W. Anderson recommending
issuance of a permit subject to certain specified
conditions.
e. Letter dated August 15, 1975 from the American
Littoral Society and the Sierra Club to Mr. Anderson
replying to American Cyanamid's comments referred to
in b. A copy of this communication was not received
by me until August 19, 1975 too late to be reflected
in my recommendations of August 18, 1975.
-------
cc vithout attachments:
25 companies listed in public notice
Peter W. Anderson
Peter B. Devine
J. Kevin Healy
Sandra Kunsberg
William J. Librizzi, Jr.
Meyer Scolnick
Ross E. Austin
E.I. du Pont de.Nemours & Co.
Wilmington, Delaware 19898
David K. Bullock
American Littoral Society
Sandy Hook, Highlands, NJ
Glen Stice
Sierra Club
50 West 40th Street
New York, New York 10018
Francis E.P. McCarter
McCarter & English
550 Broad Street
Newark, New Jersey 07102'
Nicholas D. Englese
4 Irving Place (Rm 1026)
New York, New York 10003
-------
-------
APPENDIX I
-------
' 'IC-11C04 REV. 2.71
""* CJTMUSHfOHOJ • j
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY |
INCOHFOftATCO {
GRASSELLI PLANT j
LINDEN, NEW JERSEY OTOSS '•
INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS DEPARTMENT March 23 1976
Mr. WilliamXT. Librizzi, Director I
Surveillance and Analysis Division;
Environmental Protection Agency |
Raritan Depot, Building 10 j
Edison, New Jersey 08817 . j
Dear Mr. Librizzi:
In keeping with Du Font's verbal commitment made during
the meeting of February 6, -1976 in Edison, we are attaching
descriptions of the toxicological/biological studies we in-
tend to perform in support of our concept of utilizing time-
toxicity-dispersion relationships for determining the release
time for our barged wastewater. .'
It is our understanding that these.studies will provide
sufficient answers to questions raised by Region II and ORD
opposite acceptance of the time-toxicity method for calculat-
ing release times for ocean-disposed wastewaters.
These studies were formulated by Dr. James R. Gibson,
Chief, Aquatic Toxicology of our Haskell Laboratory and should
you or any of your staff have questions or require additional
information, please feel free to contact Dr. Gibson at
(302-366-4675).
Very truly yours/
RICHARD D. TURNER
PLANT MANAGER
RDT/rik
attachments
BETTER THINGS FOR BETTER LIVING . . . THROUGH CHEMISTRY
-------
TESTS TO BE PERFORMED
A. Acute assays
Static assays will be conducted with 20 fish at each test concentra-
tion and control to determine the 0.5-, 1-, 2-, 4-, 8-, 12-, 24-,
48-, and 96-hour LCSO's (concentrations lethal to 50% of test
organisms) of both unaltered and neutralized (pH adjusted to that
of the control) test materials. These tests will be performed
with fry, juveniles and adult fish. Additional tests with adult
fish will be conducted with a stock solution of NaOH in distilled
water at a pH equal to that of the raw wastewater. This series
of tests will provide an evaluation of any pH effect.
To assess any residual effect of the test material, surviving fish
will be removed from the test concentrations and placed in static,
aerated, uncontaminated sea water. They will be maintained (with
feeding) for an additional 7 days with observations every 24'hours.
B. Time-independent LC50 (lethal threshold concentration) assay
A proportional diluter (Jfount and Grungs, 1967), constructed for
0.75 dilution, will be utilized to determine the concentration of
pH adjusted test material which is lethal to 50% of sheepshead
minnow fry "... exposed for periods sufficiently long that acute
lethal action has ceased" (Sprague, 1970) . The time-independent
LC50 will be estimated at the time when no mortality occurs within
a time period equivalent to the period within which any fish died
previously at that concentration. For example, if mortality
-------
- 2 -
occurred in a concentration after 24 hours, the time-independent
LC50 would be estimated at 48 hours if no additional mortality had
occurred within that period. If the time-independent LC50 cannot
be determined within 21 days, the test will be terminated.
As in the acute tests, surviving fish will be placed in uncontam-
inated sea water for an additional period of 7 days in order to
determine any residual toxic effects.
C. Sublethal assays
A proportional diluter will be utilized to determine the effect of
the pH adjusted test material on sheepshead minnow embryo survival,
hatching success, and fry survival for 28 days.
Female fish will be induced to spawn by injection with human
chorionic gonadotrophic hormone. Testes will be excised from
males and the eggs will be fertilized. Within 1 hour after
fertilization, groups of 50 eggs each will be placed in different
concentrations of the test material and the test begun. (Hatching
should occur 4-6 days later). Eggs and fry will be counted daily
until hatching is complete.
Thereafter fry survival growth and development will be monitored
daily for 28 days posthatch.
Growth of fry (total length) will be determined photometrically
at the end of the exposure according to the method of McKim and
-------
- 3 -
Benoit (1971). Mean wet weights of pooled fish from each treatment
will also be determined.
Residual toxicity will be determined by placing surviving fish in
uncontaminated water for 14 days at the end of the exposure. An
EC50 will be calculated for each parameter.
D. Chronic assay
A chronic (full life cycle) test, using pH-adjusted wastewater,
will be conducted according to the methods developed by EPA's
Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory.
E. Pulse dose assays
1. Single pulse • ...
Based on data from the ocean disposal dispersion model, four
initial concentrations of the raw wastewater in sea water will
be established by spiking with appropriate amounts of the test
material. Concentrations used will be based on the initial con-
centrations expected in the wake of a barge discharging the
wastewater at rates of 0.5, 1, 5, and 10 hours per barge load.
. Then, uncontaminated sea water will flow, into the test containers
to achieve a desired dilution rate. Two dilution rates will be
utilized with each concentration.
Three life stages - fry, juvenile, and adult - of the sheepshead
minnow will be tested, unless previous tests have shown that the
various life stages respond similarly to the wastewater.
-------
- 4 -
Surviving animals from each concentration will be observed for an
additional 7 days.
2. Multiple pulse
Four initial concentrations (as in the single spike-pulse test)
will be established and one dilution rate will be employed for each
concentration. In addition, each spike will be repeated 4 times
within 7 days, on days selected randomly, in order to simulate a
repeated disposal situation.
Three sheepshead minnow life stages will be tested, unless previous
tests have shown the various life stages to respond similarly to
the wastewater.
After the exposures, flow of uncontaminated water will continue and
surviving fish will be observed for a minimum of 7 days thereafter.
In all experiments, test animals will be observed closely and any
abnormal behavior noted and reported.
JRG/jtd
3/11/76
-------
II. SIGNIFICANCE OF TESTS
A. Acute bioassays
The time toxicity concept, as developed and proposed by Du Pont, uses
acute toxicity data in conjunction with dispersion data for calculating
release time for barged wastewaters. The use of acute bioassays is
felt to be the most realistic approach, since ocean disposal presents,
primarily, an acute toxicological problem. Considerable emphasis is
therefore placed upon the results of acute bioassays with
Cyprinodon variegatus.
Results of these bioassays will be used in constructing a time
toxicity dispersion model for C_. variegatus. These data will also
be compared with similar data obtained for other species, so that the
model developed for C. variegatus can be extrapolated to more sensi-
tive species.
B. Residual toxicity tests . ..
Results of these tests will allow for refinement of the LC50
estimates. Also, post-exposure LCSO's, zero acute mortality levels
and post-exposure sublethal effects will be determined during these
tests.
C. Threshold LC50
This test is designed to determine the limit of acute lethal action
• •
for the wastewaters; i.e., the asymptote of the acute dose-response
curve. Data from this test will also assess the cumulative toxic
potential of the wastewaters, and will be used to calculate thresholds
for other levels of mortality (e.g., LC01).
-------
- 2 -
D. Subchroriic tests
These tests will assess effects, other than acute toxicity, which
may result from exposure to the wastewaters. An EC50 will be
calculated for each effect noted.
E. Chronic assay
Data from this test will define effect and no-effect levels for the
wastewaters in terms of the full life cycle of £. variegatus.
F. Pulse-dose bioassays
These tests are designed to simulate--in the laboratory—exposures
to declining wastewater concentrations, as would be experienced by
an organism in the wake of a moving barge during wastewater disposal.
By varying initial concentration (simulating different disposal rates)
and the rate of dilution (simulating different dispersion rates),
time, initial concentration, dispersion rate and toxicity inter-
actions can be calculated.
Multiple pulse-dose tests will simulate multiple exposures of
organisms to wastewater discharge. These tests will also provide
additional data on the cumulative toxic potential of the wastewaters.
G. Summary
Upon completion of all tests, data will be available which define
the following:
-------
- 3 -
- Acute toxicity of the wastewaters as a function of time to
£. variegatus.
- Comparative acute toxicity of the wastewaters among several
species of marine organisms.
- Residual, or post-exposure toxicity of the wastewaters.
- Mortality thresholds for the wastewaters.
- Zero acute mortality level.
- Cumulative toxic potential of the wastewaters.
- Effect of the wastewaters on fertilization, egg hatchability,
fry survival, growth and development.
- Absolute effect and no-effect levels for the wastewaters in
terms of the complete life cycle of C_. variegatus.
- Effects of exposure to declining wastewater concentrations--
for both single and multiple discharges.
- Effects of exposure to sublethal concentrations of the waste-
waters.
- Post-exposure sublethal effects.
JRG/jtd
3-11-76
-------
REFERENCES
McKim, J. M. and D. A. Benoit. 1971. Effects of long-term
exposures to copper on survival, growth, and reproduction
of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). J. Fish. Res. Bd.
Canada 28: 655-662.
Mount, D. I. and W. A. Brungs. .1967. A simplified dosing
apparatus for fish toxicological studies. Water Res.
1: 21-29.
Sprague, J. B. 1969. Measurement of pollutant toxicity to fish.
Bioassay methods for acute- toxicity. Water Res. 3: 793-821.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Methods for acute
toxicity tests with fish, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians.
Ecological Research Series EPA-660/3-75-009: 61.
-------
m:v. 2-72
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS 51 COMPANY
INCORPORATED
GRASSELLI PLANT
LINDEN, NEW JERSEY ovoss
INUUSTKIAL CHEMICALS DEPARTMENT
July 13, 1976
Dr. Richar^KD. Spear
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Rarican Depot
Edison, NJ 08817
Dear Dr. Spear:
On May 12, 1976 we met with you and your staff to
discuss our plans for conducting tests at the 106-site on
the dispersion of barged wastes from Du Font's Grasselli
Plant. Since that time, we have selected EG§G Environmental
Consultants of Waltham, MA to do the study.
As we pointed out in our meeting, use of the barge
"Sparkling Waters" has certain problems. Primary of these
is the ability to know or measure the discharge rate at any
particular moment. Consequently, we are exploring use of
another barge which has pumping facilities. This would
allow waste release at a known rate.
Mr. C. F. Hopper of our Grasselli Plant has'been ex-
ploring this aspect and has been in touch \vith Mr. Pete?"
Anderson of your office. This matter is presently unre-
solved, but we will advise you of final arrangements when
made.
My primary-purpose is to advise you of our dispersion
monitoring study plan. A description of this plan is
attache.d. Dr. Lloyd L. Falk of our Engineering Department
has worked closely with EG§G Environmental Consultants in
formulating the plan. Should you or any of your staff have
questions or require additional information, please feel
free to contact Dr. Falk at (302-366-2889).
BETTER THINGS FOR BETTER LIVING . . . THROUGH CHEMISTRY
-------
Dr. Richard D. Spear
Page 2 July 13, 1976
We will have sufficient space aboard the research
vessel to have a Region II observer present during the field
programs. We shall let you know specifics on this when
available.
Very truly yours,
Richard D. Turner
Plant Manager
RDTicar
Attachment
-------
DU PONT GRASSELLI PLANT - DISPERSION MONITORING STUDY
We propose to study waste dispersion using Rhodamine WT
as the primary tracer material. The fluorescent dye \\rill be
added to the barge at the plant dock. When the barge dis-
charges or pumps the waste into the ocean, transects will be
made through the barge wake at right angles to the direction
of barge travel. During these transects dye concentrations
will be sampled at 4 depths on a continuous basis using a
system consisting of a towed array of 4 hoses, 4 fluorometers,
and a large capacity pump. The transects will begin imme-
diately after release of the waste and continue for 8-12
hours or until the dye is lost. Figures 1 and 2 schematically
show the systems to be used.
Simultanteously with the fluorescent dye measurements,
pH will be continuously monitored at the same 4 depths using
in-line pH sensors. The continuous dye and pH data will be
recorded along with time, position, and the depth of the
lower-most intake hose by a digital data logger. This
method will provide data in much greater detail than has
been obtained in previous barge dispersion studies reported
in the literature. The picture of waste concentration as a
function of space and time will be greatly improved.
In addition to the continuous dye and pH monitoring,
vertical profiles of dye and pH will be obtained several
times during the study by lowering a single hose system
through the water column. This profiling will allow greater
delineation of the vertical distribution of the waste as
well as provide a method for sampling at greater depth than
the towed array, if needed. It will also provide a reliable
back-up system in case operational problems preclude the use
of the towed array. In addition, Niskin bottles and a
hydrographic winch will be available as further back-up in
case of failure of both pumping systems.
A series of measurements defining the ambient sea and
meterological conditions will be performed prior to and
during the dispersion study. These measurements will in-
clude a conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) survey of the
area, current measurements obtained from the tracks of 4
drogues set to track water at 4 depths, and background
measurements of fluorescence and pH. Wind, wave, air tem-
perature, and humidity will also be monitored during the
study.
-------
- 2 -
The study will be broken down into specific tasks.
These include preparatory activities, a preliminary mea-
surement program, conduct of the field program, analysis of
the data, and publication of a final report.
1. Preparatory Activities
Rather extensive preparatory activities will be re-
quired to accomplish the study proposed. These pre-
paratory activities will include:
t
a.. Assembly and test of the continuous sampling
system including the hose array with depressor,
weight, fairing, depth sensor, fluorometers, pH
meters, pump, and pump manifold.
b. Interfacing of the digital acquisition system to
the fluorometer output, pH meter output, and Loran
C information.
c. The mobilization of equipment including fluoro-
meters, pH meters, drogues, CTD, and any other
equipment such as pumps, rigging of the research
vessel, etc.
d. Planning of the field activities, sampling re-
quirements, and analysis techniques to be used.
2. Preliminary Measurement Program
A field trial of the towed sampling system will be done
on Du Font's Edge Moor Plant's waste in the disposal
area located between 38°30' and 38°35' N latitude and
74°15' and 74°25' W longitude. The towed array and
digital acquisition system, as well as the four-in-line
fluorometers and pH meters will be tested by running
the tests under field conditions.
3. Field Program
a. CTD Measurements - Profiles of temperature, con-
ductivity (for salinity), and depth (and, there-
fore, density) will be measured in the vicinity of
the dump site one day prior to the waste disposal.
These measurements will be made with a Plessey
Model 9040 CTD and recorded on magnetic tape. A
grid centered on the study site will be sampled,
providing information on pycnocline depth to be
used in positioning depths of the towed sampling
array.
-------
- 3 -
b. Current Measurement Program - A one-day drogue
study will be done concurrently with the con-
tinuous barge waste monitoring. The drogue
experiment will consist of the deployment of 4
large cruciform drogues set to track wastes at
4 depths determined by the depth of the pycno-
cline. The drogues will be deployed from the
ship and the integrated currents observed will
be used to describe the current shear present
at the time of the dispersion study. The drogues
will consist of large nylon cruciforms with
ballast, attached to a pole and pole float at
the surface by a thin wire. At the top of the
pole, a small radar reflector will enable the
ship to find the drogues. This drogue study is
recommended as being the most cost-effective
method of determining the average current shear
during the measurement period.
c. Background Fluorescence and pH - During field
checkout of the pumping system and hose array,
background values of fluorescence and pH will
be determined. Several profiles will confirm
the normal pH range and the expected background
fluorescence (equivalent to about 0.1 ppb or
less of Rhodamine).
d. Wind, Waves, Air Temperature, and Humidity
Measurements - Wind velocity, air temperature,
and humidity will be measured at approximately
2-hour intervals by ship personnel. Wave height
and period will be estimated at this time by
shipboard observers.
e. Dispersion Measurement Program - The dispersion
of the waste field will be measured by continu-
ously sampling the concentration of Rhodamine WT
in the barge waste. The Rhodamine concentration
inside the barge will be about 300 ppm. After
10 hours, it is expected that the maximum dye
concentration will be at least 5 ppb, which is
at least an order of magnitude above the minimum
discernible level.
Sampling of dye concentration will be accomplished
using a towed, 4-hose array coupled to 4 fluoro-
meters set up for continuous measurement as shown
in Figures 1 and 2. The depth of the 4 sampling
-------
- 4 -
intakes will be determined in the field from the
depth of the pycnocline as measured by the CTD.
The sampling system will be assembled on board the
research ship so as .to .pump..frow four, levels, be-
tween 5 m and pycnocline depth at equally spaced
intervals. This system will be towed through the
water held in a nearly vertical position by the
placement of an aerodynamically shaped x^eight
(—1000 Ibs.) at the lower end of strain cable,
and by the attachment of a small depressor (EG§G
Model 285) at a point about 6 meters from the
bottom of the cable. The sampling system was
designed based on experience at EG§G with towed
arrays and continuous fluorometry, and from con-
sideration of several similar, though less complex,
systems described in the literature.
On board the ship the dye concentration will be
determined by 4 continuous-flow Turner fluoro-
meters. In addition, 4 pH meters will be placed
in line beyond the fluorometers to continuously
monitor pH. The signals from both these sets of
instruments will be recorded on 2-4 channel strip
chart recorders as well as on a digital data
acquisition system which will record the informa-
tion on magnetic tape. Signals from the depth
sensor and Loran C receiver may also be recorded
on tape. Temperature of the water at each depth
will be monitored occasionally using in-line
mercury thermometers.
Discrete samples may be taken from the pumped
stream at the sampling orifices shown in Figure 2
as needed if problems with the continuous sampling
scheme occur. In addition, a separate hose and
pump capable of taking vertical profiles as well
as discrete samples will be available. A second
back-up system, Niskin bottles on a hydrographic
wire, will be used to collect discrete samples if
necessary.
Analyses of discrete samples for Rhodamine concen-
tration will be performed in the laboratory.
Position of the survey vessel will be determined
by recording Loran C coordinates at the beginning
and end of each straight-line transect. More
precise distance measurements will be accomplished
by deploying a drogue, with radar reflector, in
the center of the waste plume and using radar to
measure the distance from this drogue. Thus,
absolute position will be available from the Loran
C information and more precise relative position
will be available from radar.
-------
- 5 -
Vertical profiles of dye concentration and pH will
be obtained at approximately 2-hour intervals
during the measurement period to further delineate
the vertical structure of the waste field. An
additional hose and pump will be used for the
vertical profiling to monitor waste falling below
the deepest continuous sampling intake. The
system will be designed to pump from a maximum
depth of 100 m. The increased vertical resolution
provided by this profiling information will allow
careful calculation of the total dye measured to
determine the reliability of measurement in terms
of the total percentage of waste observed.
f. Laboratory Analysis Program - Determination of Rhodamine
concentration and pH from the discrete seawater samples
will be made at EG§G, Environmetnal Consultants.
Rhodamine concentrations will be determined on a batch
basis using a Turner fluorometer with a single-sample,
high-sensitivity door.
4. Analysis Program
a. CTD measurements recorded on magnetic tape will be
tabulated and put into a computer program which
calculates density and dynamic height. Graphs of
the density structure will be produced.
b. Average currents measured over the course of the
experiment will be tabulated from the drogue posi-
tion information.
c. Background fluorescence and pH will be tabulated
and used in the analysis of these variables.
d. Wind velocity, wave height and direction, air tem-
perature, and humidity estimates will be tabulated
and used to better describe ambient sea and meteor-
ological conditions.
e. Data reduction of the continuous dispersion mea-
surements will involve the reading of the tape
from the digital data acquisition system and the
processing of the data to produce dye concentra-
tion in ppb (analogous to waste concentration),
pH, depth, and position. pH and dye concentration
will be computer-plotted for each transect and
hand-contoured. The fluorometers will be cali-
brated in the laboratory prior to the field program.
The readings obtained from the glass pH electrodes
will be corrected for the buffer system used to
-------
- 6 -
calibrate the electrodes. Voltage from the glass
reference electrode couple and corresponding
temperature will be converted to pH using the
Nernst e.quation with appropriate parametric
values. Results from analysis of discrete samples
for Rhodamine will be included in the waste con-
centration plots.
-------
. TO
LEVEL 1
TO
LEVEL 2
TO
LEVEL 3
•TO 1
LEVEL. 4
A •
/ V
PRESSURE
SENSOR
FLUOROMETER
FLUOROMETER
•
FLUOROMETER
t
FLUOROMETER
/
(
•
•
pH METER ^ — -J VALVE
— Mlc \Jj— \ /
(I
Ld
•
:' '.' "
DIGITAL W
ACOUISITIC
SYSTEM
11
IX «| * \r
L.,
'
t .
1 i
t. y.
•
ii
Jz y u
•
tTA \
M L
£ VENT
•
PUMP
MANIFOLD
1 1
SAMPLING
ORIFICE
*
. '.
/^ PUWP "\
1 ~Q.3HP ^ .
1 20GPM } •
\ELECTRICy
.
LORAN C
RECEIVER.
.
OVERBOARD
Figure 2.
Schematic of pumping system.
-------
FAIRED HOSE
AND CAELE
DEPRESSOR
LEVEL 4 '.'
"E SENSOR
PYCNOCL1WE
1000 Its WEIGHT
Figure 1. Towed sampling system showing the positions of the 4 sampling
intakes (levels 1 through 4) in relation to the pycnocline.
-------
-------
APPENDIX J
-------
cc: P. W. Anderson, EPA Region II
W. C. Muir, EPA Region III-
P. R. Parrish, Bionomics Marine Lab,
July 19, 1976
Dr. John H. Gentile
National Marine Water Quality Lab
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882
Mr. David J. Hansen
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Lab
Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561
Dr. Royal J. Nadeau
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Raritan Depot, Building 10
Edison, New Jersey 08817
Gentlemen:
As we agreed during our May 18, 1976 meeting at Narragansett;
Du Pont is submitting the attached revised proposals.
It is our understanding that with the inclusion of these changes
the studies proposed are deemed to be adequate for applying the time-
toxicity approach to the determination of wastewater release time.
Specific changes included are:
• Adding of 0.25 and 0.75 hour bioassays to the
section on acute studies.
, Using total mortality (post-exposure plus exposure) as
the basis for LC50 calculations.
• Reducing post-exposure observation from 7 to 4 days.
• Exposing 1 spawning group from the chronic study to
a pulsed-dose of wastewater.
* Using an every-other-day exposure frequency for
multiple pulse-dose experiments.
-------
Dr. JohtiH. Gentile - 2 - July 19, 1976
Mr. David J. Hansen
Dr. Royal J. Nadeau
In addition to these agreed-upon changes, we agreed to perform
a chronic exposure with Mysidopsls bahia—providing that the methodology
for this test was sufficiently developed within a period of time which
would allow completion of the test before 1976 public hearings.
I have asked Rod Parrish of Bionomics Marine Laboratory to
communicate directly with Region II (P. W. Anderson) regarding
quality assurance.
Also, as we agreed, progress reports will be forwarded to you
and the Regional Offices as results are received and data are analyzed.
Should you have questions or require clarification on any of the
items addressed in this letter or the attachments, please contact me.
Sincerely,
James R. Gibson, Ph.D.
Chief, Aquatic Toxicology
JRG/jtd
Attachments
-------
K
-------
APPENDIX K
-------
cc: P. W. Anderson, EPA Region II
P. R. Parrish, Bionomics Marine Lab.
ES-3374 REV. 1-7]
m>
tsr«iuSHto laoi
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY
INCORPORATED
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19898
CENTRAL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HASKELL LABORATORY
FOR
TOXICOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE
August 31, 1976
Dr. John H. Gentile
National Marine Water Quality Lab
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882
Mr. David J. Hansen
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Lab
Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561
Dr. Royal J. Nadeau
U. S, Environmental Protection Agency
Raritan Depot, Building 10
Edison, New Jersey 08817
Gentlemen:
In keeping with the commitment made during our May 18, 1976
meeting, I am forwarding a progress report on our toxicological studies
with Grasselli Plant wastewaters. The data reported here represent
about 50 percent of the total to be collected.
We will attempt to provide additional data as they .become
available between now and the September 20 public hearing, but since we
had not anticipated this early a hearing date, we may not be able to
supply a complete data package by that time. Should you have questions
regarding these data, please feel free to contact me at 302-366-4675.
Sincerely,
James Re Gibson, Ph.D.
Chief, Aquatic Toxicology
JRG/ks
Attachment
BETTER THINGS FOR BETTER LIVING . . . THROUGH CHEMISTRY
-------
PROGRESS REPORT ON TOXICOLOGICAL STUDIES
^
WITH DU FONT'S GRASSELLI PLANT WASTEWATER
A. ACUTE TOXICITY
Tables I, II, and III summarize LGSO's for the wastewaters (raw
and pH-adjusted) to three life stages of C. variegatus under static
exposure conditions. Please note that all LC50 values reflect mortality
experienced during both exposure and a 21-day post-exposure period.
B. THRESHOLD LC50
Table IV presents raw data obtained during the threshold LC50
test. This study was conducted under dynamic exposure conditions
with 30-day juvenile fish; pH-adjusted wastewater was used for
exposures. Probit analysis yields a Threshold LC50 value of
1840 ppm with 957. confidence limits of 1525 and 2219 ppm.
C. SUBCHRONIC STUDIES
These tests are complete. There were no apparent effects on
egg hatchability, growth development, behavior or mortality at
pH-adjusted wastewater concentrations of 1687 ppm or below. Con-
centrations of 2500 ppm and above had meaningful effects on mortality.
D. CHRONIC STUDIES
This study is in day 144. Fish have reached sexual maturity and
have completed the first spawning. At present, only mortality data
are available for this study.
These data indicate that 1500 ppm (or less) pH-adjusted waste-
water is without effect.
E. PULSE-DOSE BIOASSAYS
Several experiments have been completed with both C._ variegatus
and Palaemontes. Data are presently being analyzed.
F. MYSIDOPSIS STUDIES
Preliminary work has been completed, but data are unavailable.
Chronic study should be started this week, i.e. before September 3.
JRG/ks
8/31/76
-------
IABLE I. LCSO's* OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATER TO 1-7 DAY OLD FRY OF
C. VARIEGATUS FOR VARIOUS EXPOSURE TIMES.
EXPOSURE LC50 in ppm (957. CL)
TIME (HR) RAW WASTE pH ADJUSTED WASTE
0.25 > 100000 > 100000
0.5 38000 ( ) > 100000
0.75 • 80214 (39530-161408)
1.0 20182 (14108-24112) 38799 (32561-45139)
2.0
4.0 43240 (28397-50431)
8.0 9019 (6148-10732) 8006 (5863-9666)
12.0 ' 4269 (3133-5001) 6659 (4303-8480)
24.0 2771 (2596-2957) 3813 (3527-4126)
48.0 2439 ( ) 4221 (2229-4965)
96.0 1269 (1043-1467)
LC50 values reflect mortality which occurred during exposure plus a
96-hour post-exposure period.
-------
TABLE II. LCSO's* OF GRASSELLI WASTE WATER TO 30 DAY OLD JUVENILE
C. VARIEGATUS FOR VARIOUS EXPOSURE TIME.
EXPOSURE LC50 in ppm (.957, CL)
TIME (HR) RAW WASTE pH ADJUSTED WASTE
0.25
0.5 28448 (18265-36758) 78288 ( )
0.75
1.0 18570 (16162-20485)
2.0 12376 (10834-14558) 18360 ( )
4.0 10453 (8955-11733) 11397 (10235-12431)
8.0 11616 (10724-12549) 9347 (8366-10743)
12.0 6731 (6133-7318) 9403 (8550-10223)
24.0 3074 (2822-3336) 3842 (3513-4152)
48.0 2542 ( )
96.0 1249 (1027-1383) 1327 ( )
* LC50 values reflect mortality which occurred during exposure plus a
96-hour post-exposure period.
-------
TABLE III. LCSO's OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATER TO ADULT £.. VARIEGATUS
FOR VARIOUS EXPOSURE TIMES.
EXPOSURE LC50 in ppm (95% CL)
TIME (HR) RAW WASTE pH ADJUSTED WASTE
0.25 > 100000 > 100000
0.5 > 100000
0.75 59420 (39750-81200) 86401 ( )
1.0 20018 ( ) 43555 (34359-52745)
2.0 20192 ( ) 57734 ( )
4.0 14172 (11691-16717) 10414 ( )
8.0 8629 ( ) 6355 (4977-7524)
12.0 6433 ( ) 6567 (4229-7756)
24.0 5226 (4595-5743) 5774 ( )
48.0 2703 ( ) 3400 ( )
96.0 1370 (679-1634) 2286 (1832-2559)
* LC50 values reflect mortality which occurred during exposure plus a
96-hour post-exposure period.
-------
TABLE IV. SUMMARY OF TIME-INDEPENDENT TOXICITY TEST WITH GRASSELLI
pH-ADJUSTED WASTE WATER.
NOMINAL
CONCENTRATION
(ppm)
Control
1,050 ppm
1,400 ppm
1,867 ppm
2,489 ppm
3,319 ppm
4,425 ppm
5,900 ppm
24 h
No. (%)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0) .
0 (0)
7 (35)
20 (100)
20 (100)
E X
48 h
No. (%)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
20 (100)
20 (100)
20 (100)
P 0 S U R E
96 h
No. (%)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (5)
20 (100)
20 (100)
20 (100)
144 h
No. (%)
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (15)
4 (20)
4 (45)
20 (100)
20 (100)
20 (100)
192 h
No. (7.)
0 (0)
0 (0)
5 (25)
4 (20)
18 (90)
20 (100)
20 (100)
20 (100)
240 h
No. (%)
0 (0)
0 (0)
5 (25)
4 (20)
18 (90)
20 (100)
20 (100)
20 (100)
RESIDUAL
336 h
No. (%)
0 (0)
0 (0)
5 (25)
4 (20)
18 (90)
20 (100)
20 (100)
20 (100)
-------
TABLE V. SUMMARY OF MORTALITY EXPERIENCED BY £.. VARIEGATUS DURING THE
FIRST 28 DAYS POST-HATCH AS A RESULT OF
CONCENTRATIONS OF pH-ADJUSTED GRASSELLI
MORTAL
Nominal
Concentration
( Ml/1; ppm)
Control A
Control B
712 ppm A
712 ppm B
949 ppm A
949 ppm B
1,266 ppm A
1,266 ppm B
1,687 ppm A
1,687 ppm B
2,250 ppm A
2,250 ppm B
3,000 ppm A
3,000 ppm B
4,000 ppm A
4,000 ppm B
I T Y
EXPOSURE
Day
Number
1
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
3
0
2
19
38
30
39
40
14
(%)
(2.5)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(10.0)
(2.5)
(0)
(0)
(7.5)
(0)
(5.0)
(47.5)
(95.0)
(75.0)
(97.5)
(100)
Day
Number
2
0
0
0
4
1
6
3
4
0
10
28
39
39
40
40
28
(%)
(5.0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(10.0)
(2.5)
(0)
(7.5)
(10.0)
(0)
(25.0)
(70.0)
(97.5)
(97.5)
(100)
(100)
EXPOSURE TO VARIOUS
WASTEWATER.
RESIDUAL
Day
Number
2
0
0
0
4
1
0
4
4
0
11
28
39
39
40
40
42
(%)
(5.0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(10.0)
(2.5)
(0)
(10.0)
(10.0)
(0)
(27.5)
(70.0)
(97.5)
(97.5)
(100)
(100)
-------
TABLE VI. MEAN LENGTH AMONG GROUPS OF C0 VARIEGATUS FRY EXPOSED TO
pH-ADJUSTED GRASSELLI WASTEWATER DURING
POST-HATCH.
Nominal
Concentration
Oil/ 1; ppm)
Control A
Control B
712 ppm A
712 ppm B
949 ppm A
949 ppm B
1,266 ppm A
1,266 ppm B
1,687 ppm A
1,687 ppm B
2,250 ppm A
2,250 ppm B
3,000 ppm A
3,000 ppm B
4,000 ppm A
4,000 ppm B
THE FIRST 28 DAYS
Mean standard length (in centimeters)
and standard deviation
EXPOSURE
Day 14
0.5 + 0.1
0.6 + 0.1
0.6 + 0.1
0.8 + 0.2
0.5 + 0.1
0.6 + 0.2
0.6 + 0.1
0.6 + 0.1
0.5 + 0.2
a
0.5 + 0.1
0.5 + 0.1
0.5 + 0.1
0.5 + 0.0
_b
-b
Day 28
1.2 + 0.2
1.3 + 0.1
1.3 + 0.1
1.3 + 0.1
1.2 + 0.1
1.3 + 0.1
1.3 + 0.1
1.3 + 0.1
1.2 + 0.2
1.3 + 0.1
1.3 + 0.1
1.4 + 0.1
1.6 + 0.0
1.8 + 0.0
-
-
RESIDUAL
Day 42
1.3 + 0.2
1.4 + 0.1
1.4+0.1
1.4+ 0.1
1.4 + 0.1
1.4 + 0.1
1.4 + 0.1
1.4+ 0.1
1.3 + 0.2
1.3 + 0.1
1.4 + 0.2
1.7 + 0.2
2.4 + 0.0
2.5 + 0.0
-
-
No measurements
No fish
-------
-------
APPENDIX L
-------
STATEMENT OF LLOYD L. FALK
ON BEHALF OF
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS § COMPANY, INC.
AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ON OCEAN DISPOSAL PERMITS
NEW YORK, NY, SEPTEMBER 20. 1976
My name is Lloyd L. Falk. I am a Principal Consultant
in the Engineering Department of the Du Pont Company, Wil-
mington, Delaware.
Both EPA's existing and recently proposed ocean dumping
regulations under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctu-
aries Act require the use of bioassays on appropriate sensi-
tive marine organisms in establishing permissible concentra-
tions of wastes during ocean disposal operations. Region II
has specified the appropriate sensitive marine organisms to
be tested are the zooplankton Acartia tonsa, the phytoplankton
Skeletonema costatum, and the finfish Menidia menidia.
In accordance with conditions of our existing permit,
Du Pont has routinely tested these organisms, using EPA-
approved methodology, and submitted data to Region II. The
zooplankton, Acartia tonsa, exhibits the greatest sensitivity
to our wastewater. Prior to the June 12, 1975 public hearing
on our existing permit, we submitted to Region II a report
(R. D. Turner to R.T. Dewling, 6/10/76) detailing our calcu-
lations of the release time based on Acartia data. We
request that that report be made a part of the record of
this hearing.
-------
- 2 -
In brief, we proposed last year that, at a five-hour dis-
persion time and a five-knot barge speed, the wastewater con-
centration in the barge wake would not adversely affect ocean
resources and would thus meet the requirements for a Special
Permit. We also concluded that extending the dispersion time
beyond five to, say, ten or 20 hours does not significantly
affect time-mortality-concentration relationships we discussed.
Put another way, five hours will allow meeting the requirement
of Section 227.71.
Since our proposal of June 1975, we have discussed our
suggested methodology in more detail with Region II personnel
as well as with those of EPA's Office of Research and Develop-
ment. We agreed to EPA's request to undertake additional
studies to demonstrate the soundness of this concept.
These studies encompass two main facets of experimenta-
tion. The first involves field studies of the rates at which
wastewater actually disperses at the 106-site with a five-hour
discharge rate. The second involves detailed acute and chronic
bioassays of our wastewater with appropriate marine organisms.
Dr. J. R. Gibson of Du Pont's Haskell Laboratory will
discuss the bioassay studies following my statement today.
Mr. Turner submitted the dispersion study scope of work to
Dr. Richard Spear of Region II on July 13, 1976. We request
-------
- 3 -
that that letter be made a. part of the record of today's
hearing. I intend now to review briefly the field dispersion
studies.
The field dispersion study is being carried out by EG§G
Environmental Consultants of Waltham, Massachusetts. The
dispersion test itself was conducted on September 9. While,
for that reason, we have no details yet on the results, pre-
liminary data show that the dispersion rate will be about
what we had predicted last year.
The field study was carried out in the following manner:
The barge Grasselli normally uses is the "Sparkling
Waters." It could not easily be modified on a temporary basis
«r
for the test to assure uniform waste discharge equivalent to
a five-hour discharge rate. We have, therefore, selected
the "Blue Line 108" which could be modified to allow a
uniform rate of discharge by pumping.
The Grasselli wastewater was tagged with about 300 ppm
of Rhodamine WT, a fluorescent dye. Transects were made
through the barge wake as soon as possible after the waste-
water was pumped into the ocean. During these transects,
seawater was pumped from four depths on a continuous basis
with a system consisting of a towed array of four hoses and
four pumps. The seawater passed through four fluorometers
-------
- 4 -
and four pH meters, one set for each hose. Hoses were set
to sample at 5, 15, 30 and 47 meters. During the test, the
sea was relatively calm, wind was light, and an intense
thermocline was present. These conditions would be least
likely to enhance waste dispersion.
The dye and pH data were recorded on a digital data
logger. This method provides data in much greater detail
than has been obtained in previous barge dispersion studies
reported in the literature. The picture of waste concentra-
tion as a function of space and time will be greatly improved,
Evaluation of the survey data is now being done by EG§G
Environmental Consultants. We anticipate that a final
report will be available before the end of October. At that
time, it will be submitted to EPA for review. The results
of that dispersion study will be combined with the bioassay
data being developed to assess the reasonableness of our
proposed five-hour dispersion time. We are confident that
the results will show that a dispersion time of five hours
or even less would be entirely consistent with criteria in
Section 227 of the ocean dumping regulations for a Special
Permit.
I would like at this time to introduce Dr. J. R. Gibson
of our Haskell Laboratory who will discuss bioassay studies
being done to substantiate that our methodology will closely
evaluate the actual impact of our dumping operation on
marine organisms.
-------
STATEMENT OF DR. J. R. GIBSON
ON BEHALF OF DU FONT'S
GRASSELLI PLANT
AT
PUBLIC HEARING
SEPTEMBER 20, 1976, NEW YORK, NY
Good morning. My name is J. Robert Gibson. I am Chief
of Aquatic Toxicology at Du Pont's Haskell Laboratory for
Toxicology and Industrial Medicine in Newark, Delaware. My
statement concerns toxicological and biological studies
which Du Pont has performed to assess the environmental
effects of ocean disposed wastewaters from its Grasselli
Plant at Linden, New Jersey.
We believe that the data from these and other studies
will fully support our request for a Special Ocean Disposal
Permit which allows for a wastewater release time of approx-
imately five hours or less.
Prior to the 1974 and 1975 public hearings regarding
the Grasselli Plant permit, Du Pont developed and submitted
data which were felt to be adequate to allow EPA to make a
determination to grant a Special Permit for disposal of the
Grasselli wastewaters. The EPA in 1975 made the determination
that these wastewaters could be discharged under a Special
Permit, but held that the requested release time of five
hours was not justified on the basis of the data presented.
-------
As a result of this determination, Du Pont elected to
accept an interim permit and to work closely with the EPA in
undertaking a more extensive research program, which we and
the EPA felt would generate the data necessary for making a
valid scientific determination as to an appropriate release
time .for these wastewaters. ..
Dr. Falk has discussed the studies which were performed
to determine how the Grasselli wastewaters disperse after
their release from a moving barge. The second part of our
research program, which I will discuss, included a variety
of toxicological studies which assessed the effects of the
wastewaters on marine species.
I want to briefly summarize what we have found in these
studies to date. The complete data package on the toxicologi'
cal studies will be submitted to EPA after the hearing as a
supplement to my statement. We request that the hearing
record remain open until the final report is submitted.
In previous years, the data we submitted to EPA in sup-
port of our Special Permit request were acute data, from
which a Limiting Permissible Concentration could be calcu-
lated. This year, however, our toxicological data includes
results of subacute/subchronic and chronic studies as well
as results of additional acute studies. These data, in
conjunction with our previous toxicological data and dis-
-------
persion data, represent the most comprehensive assessment of
an ocean-disposal situation ever made.
To date, we have completed all the acute studies, the
subacute/ subchronic studies and one of the two chronic
studies.
The acute data, which describe the toxicity (LC50) of
the wastewaters as a function of time and concentration,
supplement the acute data we have submitted previously. The
first series of slides present these data in both graphical
and tabular forms.
The next slide summarizes the results of a Threshold
LC50 Test. This test defines the extent of acute lethal
action of the wastewater under continuous exposure conditions.
These first few slides have dealt with lethal action of the
wastewaters. The next several slides deal with sublethal
effects of the wastewaters under continuous flow conditions.
Slide
Slide
Slide
Etc.
The next series of slides present data from our chronic
(i.e., full-life-cycle) study.
Slide
Slide
Etc.
-------
- 4 -
The most significant feature of this last slide is that
we have been able to determine the concentration at or below
which the wastewater is without any adverse effect upon the
organism during its entire life span. This concentration is
750 ppm. It is important to recognize that these organisms
were exposed continuously to this concentration of waste-
water, and that this concentration is the no-effect concen-
tration. What this means in terms of ocean disposal is
simply that once the wastewaters have dispersed to a con-
centration equivalent to 750 ppm, the wastewaters cannot
produce any adverse toxicological or biological effects.
Furthermore, this concentration is the Limiting Permissible
Concentration or LPC.
The concept of a Limiting Permissible Concentration
(LPC) in determining acceptable discharge rates (i.e.,
release times) for ocean disposed wastewaters is acceptable
and adequate in cases where the only available data on
wastewater toxicity are results of acute bioassays. To our
knowledge, EPA adopted this concept because of its accept-
ability and its flexibility in administering a broad and
complex situation. LPC, in reality, is an estimate of a
concentration which will be without effect in the marine
environment (i.e., a chronic no-effect level).
-------
- 5 -
As more data are accumulated on the toxicology of a
particular wastewater, the LPC becomes of less and less
practical utility. In other words, the LPC is used because
certain data are not available. It follows that, when addi-
tional data are obtained, they should replace the LPC and
should be used for determining discharge rate. We now have
the data necessary for supplanting the LPC.
In addition to the fact that it is an estimate, the LPC
concept has one great disadvantage in ocean-disposal situa-
tions; this being that it does not take into account the
potential toxic effects of higher-than-LPC concentrations;
i.e., it does not acknowledge continuous wastewater disper-
sion. Rather, the LPC concept implies that dispersion
occurs instantaneously to the LPC and then proceeds no
further. This does not happen.
The waste concentrations in the wake of a moving barge
immediately begin to decline after release and finally - at
some point in time - decline to levels indistinguishable
from normal seawater concentrations of waste constituents.
The rate of concentration decline is what we studied in the
dispersion studies described by Dr. Falk. When those results
are analyzed, we will know accurately the time required for
dispersion to take wastewater concentrations down to an
actual no-effect level, and we will know what concentrations
exist and for how long they exist during the time between
-------
- 6 -
With this knowledge, the exposure times and concentra-
tions involved can be considered in light of the acute and
subacute data and thus a determination can be made as to
whether effects would occur as a result of exposure to these
higher than no-effect concentrations for the periods of time
involved. I think that the next few slides will effectively
illustrate this approach to determining release time.
Slides
As a final check to insure the adequacy and safety of
this approach, we ran a series of experiments in which fish
and shrimp were exposed to declining wastewater concentra-
tions. These experiments are summarized in the next few
slides.
Slides
In summary, based upon the results we have obtained to
date, we firmly believe that these wastewaters can be dis-
charged into the ocean with a release time of approximately
five hours with no environmental effects. When the results
of the recent dispersion study at the actual disposal site
are analyzed and coupled with the comprehensive toxicity
data I have just discussed, we will be able to very accur-
ately determine a discharge rate which will insure that
disposal of these wastewaters presents no hazard in the
marine environment.
-------
1000001
en
H
UJ
U
O
U
a:
UJ
I
u
a.
a.
10000
5000
1000-
500-
100
0.1
LC 50 OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATER TO
CYPRIMQDOM VAPJEGATUS FRY
RAW WASTEWATER
0.5 1.0
5 10
TIME IN HOURS
so
too
-------
100000
50000-
2
fl-
ex.
- 10000
§
a:
§
o
§
O
OS
Ul
1
5000
1000
500
100-H
0.1
i
LC 50 OF GRASSELLI WASTEV/ATEH TO
VARIEGATUS FRY
H- ADJUSTED WASTEWATER
0.5 1.0
5 10
TIME IN HOURS
so 100
-------
100000
0.
Q.
§
u
o
z:
o
U
cc
UJ
UJ
10000
5000
1000
500
100-
0.1
i
LC 50 OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATERS TO
CYPRINODON VARIEGATUS JUVENILES
RAW WASTEWATER
0.5 1.0
5 10
TIME IN HOURS
so
too
-------
50000-
a
a
•z.
o
z
UJ
o
6
0
Cd
CO
10000
SOOO
1000
500
100-
0.1
LC 50 OF GRASSELLI WASTEVJATERS TO ,
CvPRirjQDO^ VARIEGATUS JUVENILES
H-ADJUSTED WASTEWATER
0.5 1.0
5 10
TIME IN HOURS
SO 100
-------
(£
UJ
u
100000
50000
2
a
a.
2 IOOOOH
£
cc
h-
g 5000H
O
z
o
O
1000-
100-
0.1.
i
LC 50 OF GRASSELLI WASTEVVATERS TO
CYPRi^ODON VARIEGATUS
RAW WASTEWATER
0.5
1.0
i
10
so 100
TIME IN HOURS
-------
lOOOOO
50000-
Q.
a
g 10000
c:
h-
•z.
LJ
O
O
O
LU
I
tiJ
fe
5000-^
1000-
500-
100
ai
i
LC 50 OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATERS TO
VARJEGATUS ADULTS
H- ADJUSTED WASTEVVATER
0.5 1.0 5 10
TIME IN HOURS
so
100
-------
100000-
50000-
a
a.
2
| 10000-
CK
UJ
O
2
O
U
UJ
UJ
5000^
1000-
500-
100
0.1
COMPOSITE OF Six SEPARATE GRAPHS
0.5 1.0
5 10
TIME IN HOURS
so 100
-------
EFFECT OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATER ON HATCHABILITY OF
CYFRINODON VARIEGATUS EGGS
Wastewater
Concentration
(ppm)
188
375
712
750
949
1266
-1500
1687
2250
3000
4000
Control
Control
•
Source of Data
Chronic Study
Chronic Study
Subchronic Study
Chronic Study
Subchronic Study
Subchronic Study
Chronic Study
Subchronic Study
Subchronic Study
Subchronic Study
Subchronic Study
Subchronic Study
Chronic Study
Mean Percent
Hatch
98
96
95
95
89
95
,86
94
94
96
98
96
98.5
-------
LCSO'S* OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATER TO 1-7 DAY OLD FRY OF
C. VARIEGATUS FOR VARIOUS EXPOSURE TIMES
Exposure LC50 in ppm (957. CL)
Time (Hr.) Raw Waste pH Adjusted Waste
0.25 > 100000 > 100000
0.5 < 56000 > 32000 > 100000
0.75 79742 (51643-118604) 67529 (52379-77942)
1.0 < 56000 > 32000 38799 (32561-45139)
2.0 30806 (19022-41969) < 32000 > 10000.
4.0 < 32000 > 18000 43240 (28397-50431)
8.0 9019 (6148-10732) 8006 (5863-9666)
12.0 4269 (3133-5001) 6659 (4303-8480)
24.0 2771 (2596-2957) ' 3813 (3527-4126)
48.0 < 3200 > 1800 4221 (2229-4965)
96.0 1269 (1043-1467) 978 (442-1916)
* LC50 values reflect mortality which occurred during exposure plus a
96-hour post-exposure period.
-------
LC50'S*OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATER TO 30-DAY-OLD JUVENILE
C. VARIEGATUS FOR VARIOUS EXPOSURE TIME
Exposure LC50 in ppm (95% CL)
Time (Hr.) Raw Waste pH Adjusted Waste
0.25 93595 (73385-107358) > 100000
0.5 28448 (18265-36758) < 75000 > 56000
0.75 30661 (27733-36656) 34095 (26028-46283)
1.0 18570 (16162-20485) < 32000 > 10000
2.0 12376 (10834-14558) < 24000 > 14000
4.0 10453 (8955-11733) 11397 (10235-12431)
8.0 11616 (10724-12549) 9347. (8366-10743)
12.0 6731 (6133-7318) 9403 (8550-10223)
24.0 3074 (2822-3336) 3842 (3513-4152)
48.0 . < 1800 > 1000 < 3200 > 1800
96.0 1249 (1027-1383) 1327
* LC50, values reflect mortality which occurred during exposure plus a
96-hour post-exposure period.
-------
LCSO'S* OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATER TO ADULT C.. VARIEGATUS
FOR VARIOUS EXPOSURE TIMES
Exposure LC50 In prrni (95% CL)
Time (Hr.) . Raw Waste pH Adjusted Waste
0.25. > 100000 > 100000
0.5 43900 > 100000
0.75 59420 (39750-81200) 86401
1.0 < 32000 > 18000 43555 (34359-52745)
2.0 57734
4.0 14172 (11691-16717) < 14000 > 5600
8.0 < 12000 > 8700 . 6355 (4977-7524)
12.0 < 7500 > 3200 6567 (4229-7756)
24.0 5226 (4595-5743) . 5774
48.0 < 4200 > 2400 < 4200 > 3200
96.0 1370 (679-1634)
* LC50 values reflect mortality which occurred during exposure plus a
96-hour post-exposure period.
-------
SUMMARY OF MORTALITY EXPERIENCED BY C. VARIEGATUS DURING THE
FIRST 28 DAYS POST-HATCH AS A RESULT OF EXPOSURE TO VARIOUS
CONCENTRATIONS OF pH-ADJUSTED GRASSELLI WASTEWATER
Mortality
Exposure
Concentration
£ul/l; ppm)
Control A
Control B
712 ppm A
712 ppm B
949 ppm A
949 ppm B
1,266 "ppm A
1,266 ppm B
1,687 ppm A
1,687 ppm B
2,250 ppm A
2,250 ppm B
3,000 ppm A
3,000 ppm B
4,000 ppm A
4,000 ppm B
Day
Number
1
0
0
0
4
1
0
. 0
3
0
2
19
38
30
39
40
14
(%)
(2.5)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(10.0)
(2.5)
(0)
(0)
(7.5)
(0)
(5.0)
(47.5)
(95.0)
(75.0)
(97.5)
(100)
Day
Number
2
0
0
0
4
1
0
3
4
0
10
28
39
39
40
40
28
00
(5.0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(10.0)
(2.5)
(0)
(7.5)
(10.0)
(0)
(25.0)
(70.0)
(97.5)
(97.5)
(100)
(100)
Post-Exposure
'. Day
Number
2
0
0
0
4
1
0
4
4
0
11
28-
39
39
40
40
42
a)
(5.0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(10.0)
(2.5)
(0)
(10.0)
(10.0)
(0)
(27.5)
' (70.0)
(97.5)
(97.5)
(100)
(100)
-------
MEAN LENGTH AMONG GROUPS OF C. VARIEGATUS FRY EXPOSED TO
pH-ADJUSTED
Nominal
Concentration
Cul/1; ppm)
Control A
Control B
712 ppm A
712 ppm B
949 ppm A
949 ppm B
1,266 ppm A
1,266 ppm B
1,687 ppm A
1,687 ppm B
2,250 ppm A
2,250 ppm B
3,000 ppm A
3,000 ppm B
4,000 ppm A
4,000 ppm B
GRASSELLI WASTEWATER DURING THE
POST-HATCH
Mean Standard Length
and Standard
Exposure
Day 14 Day 28
0.5 + 0.1 1.2 + 0.2
0,6 + 0.1 1.3 + 0.1
0.6 + 0.1 1.3 + 0.1
0.8 + 0.2 . 1.3 + 0.1
0.5+0.1 1.2+0.1
006 + 0.2 1.3 + 0.1
0.6 + 0.1 1.3 + 0.1
0.6+0.1 1.3+0.1
0.5 +0.2 1.2 + 0.2
-a 1.3+0.1
0.5+0.1 1.3+0.1
0.5 +0.1 1.4 + 0.1
0.5 + 0.1 1.6 + 0.0
0.5 + 0.0 1.8 + 0.0
-b
' -- •-.
FIRST 28 DAYS
(in Centimeters)
Deviation
Post-Exposure
Day 42
1.3 + 0.2
1.4 + 0.1
1.4+ 0.1
1.4 + 0.1
1.4 + 0.1
1.4 + 0.1
1.4 + 0.1
1.4+0.1
1.3+0.2'
1.3 ± 0.1
1.4 + 0.2
1.7+0.2
2.4 + 0.0
2.5 + 0.0
'
No measurements
No fish
-------
SUMMARY OF TIME-INDEPENDENT TOXICITY TEST WITH GRASSELLI
PH-ADJUSTED WASTEWATER
Nominal
Concentration
(ppm)
Control
1,050 ppm
1,400 ppm
1,867 ppm
2;489 ppm
3,319 ppm
4,425 ppm
5,900 ppm
•
Mortality
•
Exposure
24 hr.
No. (7,)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
7 (35)
20 (100)
20 (100)
48 hr.
No. a>
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
20 (100)
20 (100)
20 (100)
96 hr.
NO. ay
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (5)
20 (100)
20 (100)
20 (100)
144 -hr. .
NO. ay
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (15)
4 (20)
4 (45)
20 (100)
20 (100)
20 (100)
192 hr.
NO. ay
o (oy
o coy
5 (25)
A (20)
18 (90)
20 (100)
20 (100) .
20 (100)
240 hr.
NO. ay
o (0)
0 (0)
5 (25)
4 (20)
18 (90)
20 (100)
20 (100)
20 (100)
Post-
Exposure
336 hr.
NO. ay
o (oy
o (oy
5 (2sy
4 (20y
18 (90y
20 (looy
20 (100)
20 (100)
-------
100000
50000
10000-
5000
a.
z
I
o
& 1000
ui
500-
100
O.I
LC 50 OF GRASSELLI WASTEWATER TO
MYSIDOPSIS BAHIA
* . •
PH-ADJUSTED WASTEWATER
as LO
s 10
TIME IN HOURS
50 100
-------
SURVIVAL OF C+ VARIEGATUS EXPOSED FOR THE FIRST
150 DAYS OF THEIR LIFE CYCLE TO VARIOUS CONCENTRATIONS OF
pH-ADJUSTED GRASSELLI WASTEWATER
Wastewater Concentration
(ppai)
188
375
750
1500
3000
Control
% Survival Through 150 Days
Replicate A
100
100
100
100
0
100
Replicate B
100
100
100
96
0
100
-------
EGG PRODUCTION AMONG FEMALE C± VARIEGATUS EXPOSED TO
VARIOUS CONCENTRATIONS OF pH-APJUSTED GRASSELLI WASTEWATER
Wastewater Concentration (ppm)
188
375
750
1500
Control
Number of Eggs Produced*
First Spawning
1010
999
1162
1064
2270 .
Second Spawning
1095
1177
908
1373
848
* Total of two replications at each spawning period.
^=^:--;^S^S^^
-------
PERCENT HATCHABILITY OF EGGS PRODUCED BY FEMALE C, VARIEGATUS
WHICH HAD BEEN EXPOSED TO
Wastewater Concentration
(ppm)
188
375
750
1500
Control
VARIOUS CONCENTRATIONS
OF pH-ADJUSTED WASTEWATER
Mean Percent Hatch*
First Spawning
98
96
95
86
99
Second Spawning
97
86
84
90
96
* Average of two replications at each spawning period,
-------
SURVIVAL OF SECOND GENERATION C.. VARIEGATUS FRY EXPOSED
TO VARIOUS CONCENTRATIONS OF pH-ADJUSTED GRASSELLI WASTEWATER
Wastewater Concentration
(ppm) % Survival
188 100
375 85
750 93
1500 95
Control 93
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS OBSERVED DURING
CHRONIC EXPOSURE OF C.. VARIEGATUS TO VARIOUS CONCENTRATIONS
OF pH-ADJUSTED GRASSELLI WASTEWATER
Wastewater Concentration Observed Effects Through
(ppm) 150 Days of Exposure
188 None
375 None
750 None
1500 Slightly Impaired Egg Hatchability*
tr
3000 Complete Mortality
Control , None
* This effect may not be due to direct action of the wastewaters0
-------
WfvsrewKreR DISPERSIONS TO WHICH C.VMUU.KTU*
WKRl ftvipoaftO FOR 2.^ HOURS
I DODO
iwtw
I
i
10'
TIME IN HOURS
-------
SUIUUATtD WftSTtw/sreR
WIR« ««PO»*O
TO VM«CM
HOURS
IOOOQ
i JJ
------- |