United Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Water
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington. DC 20-160
                                               June, 1385
2,4,6-Trichlorop

-------
                                 PREFACE
     This document is one of  a  series  of preliminary assessments dealing
with  chemicals  of potential  concern  in municipal  sewage  sludge.   The
purpose of these  documents  is to:  (a)  summarize  the  available data for
the  constituents  of  potential  concern,  (b) identify  the key environ-
mental  pathways  for  each  constituent  related  to  a reuse and disposal
option  (based on  hazard  indices), and  (c) evaluate  the  conditions under
which such a pollutant may  pose a hazard.   Each document provides a sci-
entific basis  for making an  initial  determination  of whether  a pollu-
tant, at levels currently observed in  sludges,  poses  a  likely hazard-to
human health  or  the  environment  when  sludge  is  disposed  of  by  any of
several methods.   These  methods  include landspreading on  food chain or
nonfood chain  crops,  distribution  and marketing  programs, landfilling,
incineration and ocean disposal.

     These documents are intended to  serve as a rapid screening tool to
narrow an initial list of pollutants to those of  concern.   If a signifi-
cant  hazard is  indicated by  this preliminary  analysis,  a  more detailed
assessment will  be  undertaken  to  better quantify  the  risk  from  this
chemical and to derive criteria  if warranted.   If a hazard  is shown to
be unlikely, no further  assessment will be conducted at  this  time;  how-
ever, a reassessment will  be  conducted after  initial  regulations  are
finalized.  In no  case,  however,  will  criteria be derived  solely on the
basis of information presented in this document.

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                                     Page

 PREFACE	    i

 1.   INTRODUCTION	  1-1

 2.   PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
       IN  MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE	  2-1

      Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing	  2-1

      Landfilling 	  2-1

      Incineration 	  2-1

      Ocean  Disposal	  2-1

 3.   PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES  FOR 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
       IN  MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE	   3-1

     Landspreadirig and Distribution-and-Marketing 	  3-1

     Landf ill ing 	  3-1

     Incineration 	  3-1

     Ocean Disposal 	  3-1

          Index  of seawater concentration resulting
            from initial mixing  of sludge (Index 1)  	  3-1
          Index  of seawater concentration representing
            a  24-hour dumping cycle (Index 2)  	  3-5
          Index  of toxicity to aquatic  life  (Index 3) 	  3-6
          Index  of human cancer  risk resulting
            from seafood consumption (Index  4)	  3-8

 4.   PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
•      IN  MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE	  4-1

     Occurrence  	  4-1

          Sludge 	  4-1
          Soil - Unpolluted 	  4-1
          Water  - Unpolluted	  4-1
          Air		  4-2
          Food	  4-2
                                    11

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
                               (Continued)

                                                                     Page
    Human Effects 	  4-2

         Ingestion 	  4-2
         Inhalation 	  4-3

    Plant Effects 	  4-3

         Phytotoxicity 	  4-3
         Uptake 	  4-3

    Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 	  4-3

         Toxicity 	  4-3
         Uptake 	  4-3

    Aquatic Life Effects 	  4-3

         Toxicity 	  4-3
         Uptake 	  4-4

    Soil Biota Effects 	  4-4

         Toxicity 	  4-4
         Uptake 	  4-4

    Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport  	  4-4

5 .   REFERENCES	  5-1

APPENDIX.  PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
    2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE	.'	  A-l

-------
                                SECTION 1

                               INTRODUCTION
     This  preliminary  data  profile  is  one  of  a  series  of  profiles
dealing  with chemical  pollutants  potentially of  concern  in  municipal
sewage sludges.   2,4,6-Trichlorophenol  was  initially identified as being
of potential  concern  when sludge  is  ocean  disposed."* This  profile is a
compilation  of  information  that  may  be useful  in  determining  whether
2,4,6-trichlorophenol  poses  an  actual  hazard  to  human  health   or  the
environment when sludge is disposed of by this method.
     The  focus  of  this  document  is  the   calculation  of  "preliminary
hazard  indices"  for  selected  potential exposure  pathways,  as shown  in
Section  3.    Each  index  illustrates  the .hazard  that could result from
movement  of   a  pollut-ant  by  a given  pathway  to   cause  a  given  effect.
(e.g., sludge -*• seawater •*  marine  organisms  •> human toxicity).   The val-
ues and  assumptions  employed in  these  calculations  tend  to represent a
reasonable  "worst  case";   analysis  of  error  or   uncertainty  has  been
conducted  to  a limited degree.    The  resulting value  in  most cases  is
indexed  to  unity;  i.e.,   values   >1  may  indicate  a potential  hazard,
depending upon the assumptions of  the calculation.
     The data used for  index  calculation  have been selected  or estimated
based  on  information  presented   in  the  "preliminary  data   profile",
Section 4.   Information in  the profile is based on  a compilation  of the
recent  literature.    An attempt  has been  made  to  fill  out the  profile
outline to the greatest extent  possible.   However,  since  this  is  a pre-
liminary analysis, the literature  has not been exhaustively perused.
     The  "preliminary conclusions" drawn  from each  index in   Section  3
are  summarized  in Section  2.  The preliminary hazard  indices will  be
used as a  screening  tool  to determine which  pollutants  and  pathways may
pose a hazard.  Where a potential hazard is  indicated  by  interpretation
of these  indices,  further analysis will  include a more detailed  exami-
nation  of  potential  risks  as well  as an  examination  of  site-specific
factors.   These  more rigorous evaluations,  may  change  the preliminary
conclusions  presented in  Section 2,  which  are  based  on a  reasonable
"worst case" analysis.
     The  preliminary   hazard  indices   for   selected   exposure   routes
pertinent to  ocean disposal practices are included  in this profile.  The
calculation formulae  for  these indices are  shown  in the  Appendix.   The
indices are rounded to two significant figures.
* Listings  were  determined  by  a  series  of  expert  workshops  convened
  during  March-May,  1984  by   the  Office  of   Water   Regulations   and
  Standards (OWES)  to  discuss landspreading,  landfilling,  incineration,
  and ocean disposal,  respectively,  of  municipal  sewage  sludge.
                                   1-1

-------
                                SECTION 2

            PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
                        IN  MUNICIPAL.SEWAGE SLUDGE
     The  following  preliminary  conclusions  have  been  derived  from the
calculation of  "preliminary hazard  indices",  which  represent conserva-
tive or  "worst  case" analyses  of hazard.   The  indices and  their basis
and  interpretation  are  explained  in   Section  3.    Their  calculation
formulae are shown in the Appendix.

  I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

     Based on  the recommendations  of  the experts  at the  OWRS  meetings
     (April-May,  1984),  an assessment of  this reuse/disposal option is
     not  being  conducted  at  this  time.    EPA  reserves   the right  to
     conduct such an assessment for this  option in the future.

II.  LANDFILLING

     Based on  the •recommendations  of  the experts  at the  OWRS  meetings
     (April-May,  1984),  an assessment of  this reuse/disposal option is
     not  being  conducted  at  this  time.    EPA  reserves   the right  to
     conduct such an assessment for this  option in the future.

III. INCINERATION

     Based on  the recommendations  of  the experts  at the  OWRS  meetings
     (April-May,  1984),  an assessment of  this reuse/disposal option is
     not  being  conducted  at  this  time.    EPA  reserves   the  right  to
     conduct such an assessment for this  option in the future.

 IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

     Slight increases in  seawater  concentration  of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
     is  evident  in  all  the scenarios  evaluated  for  initial mixing  of
     disposed sludge (see Index 1).
                                             A
     Slight concentration  increases  were apparent  in all  the  scenarios
     evaluated for a 24-hour dumping cycle (see Index 2).

     The index  of  toxicity to aquatic life  could  not be  calculated  due
     to lack, of  data (see Index 3).

     Slight incremental  increases  related  to human health  were  assessed
     for all the scenarios evaluated (see Index 4).
                                   2-1

-------
                                SECTION 3

           PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR  2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
                        IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I.   LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

     Based on  the recommendations  of  the experts  at the  OWRS  meetings
     (April-May,  1984),  an assessment  of  this reuse/disposal  option is
     not  being  conducted  at  this  time.    EPA  reserves  the  right  to
     conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.

II.  LANDFILLING

     Based on  t.he recommendations  of  the experts  at the  OWRS  meetings
     (April-May,  1984),  an assessment  of  this reuse/disposal  option is
     not  being  conducted  at  this  time.    EPA  reserves  the  right  to
     conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.

III. INCINERATION

     Based on  the recommendations  of  the experts  at the  OWRS  meetings
     (April-May,  1984),  an assessment  of  this reuse/disposal  option is
     not  being  conducted  at  this  time.    EPA  reserves  the  right  to
     conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.

IV.  OCEAN DISPOSAL

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

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

          1.   Explanation - Calculates increased concentrations  in  Ug/L
               of pollutant  in  seawater  around an  ocean disposal  site
               assuming initial  mixing.
                                   3-1

-------
2.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  that   the   background
     seawater  concentration of  pollutant  is unknown or zero.
     The  index  also  assumes  that  disposal  is by  tanker  and
     that  the  daily  amount  of sludge  disposed  is uniformly
     distributed   along   a   path  transversing   the  site  and
     perpendicular  to   the  current  vector.     The   initial
     dilution  volume  is  assumed  to be .  determined by  path
     length,  depth  to   the  pycnocline  (a  layer   separating
     surface  and deeper  water masses),  and an  initial plume
     width  defined as  the  width  of the  plume 4  hours after
     dumping.   The  seasonal disappearance  of the pycnocline is
     not considered.

3.   Data Used and Rationale

     a.   Disposal conditions

                     Sludge         Sludge Mass        Length
                     Disposal        Dumped by a       of Tanker
                     Rate (SS)    Single Tanker (ST)   Path (L)

          Typical    825 mt DW/day    1600 mt WW         8000 m
          Worst     1650 mt DW/day    3400 mt WW         4000 m
          The typical value  for  the sludge disposal rate assumes
          that  7.5  x  10^  mt WW/year  are available  for dumping
          from  a metropolitan coastal  area.   The  conversion to
          dry weight  assumes 4  percent  solids  by weight.   The
          worst-case  value  is  an  arbitrary  doubling  of  the
          typical value to allow for potential future increase.

          The assumed  disposal  practice  to be  followed  at the
          model  site  representative of  the  typical case  is  a
          modification of  that proposed  for  sludge disposal at
          the formally designated  12-mile site  in the New York
          Bight  Apex  (City of New  York,  1983).   Sludge  barges
          with  capacities  of 3400  mt  WW would be  required to
          discharge a  load in no less than 53  minutes  travel-
          ing at  a  minimum speed of 5 nautical miles  (9260 m)
          per hour.  Under  these conditions,  the  barge  would
          enter  the site,  discharge the  sludge  over 8180 m and
          exit  the  site.    Sludge  barges  with  capacities  of
          1600 mt WW  would be required to discharge  a  load in
          no less than 32  minutes  traveling at  a  minimum speed
          of  8   nautical   miles  (14,816  m)  per  hour.    Under
          these  conditions,  the  barge would  enter  the  site,
          discharge the  sludge  over 7902 m and exit  the site.
          The mean path length for  the large  and  small  tankers
          is 8041 m  or approximately  8000 m.   Path  length is
          assumed  to   lie  perpendicular  to   the  direction  of
          p'revailing  current flow.  For  the  typical  disposal
          rate  (SS) of 825 mt DW/day,  it is  assumed  that  this
          would  be  accomplished  by  a  mixture of  four  3400 mt
                         3-2

-------
     WW and four  1600 mt  WW  capacity barges.   The overall
     daily  disposal operation  would  last  from  8  to  12
     hours.   For  the worst-case  disposal  rate  (SS)  of
     1650 mt DW/day,  eight 3400 mt  WW and eight  1600  mt
     WW capacity  barges  would  be  utilized.   The overall
     daily  disposal operation  would  last  from  8  to  12
     hours.    For  both   disposal  rate  scenarios,  there
     would be a 12  to 16  hour  period at  night  in which no
     sludge would  be dumped.   It  is assumed  that  under
     the   above   described  disposal  operation,   sludge
     dumping would occur every day of the year.

     The  assumed   disposal  practice  at  the  model  site
     representative  of  the  worst  case  is  as   stated  for
     the typical site, except  that  barges  would dump half
     their  load  along   a track,  then  turn  around  and
     dispose of the  balance  along  the same  track in order
     to prevent a barge  from dumping outside of the site.
     This  practice  would   effectively  halve  the  path
     length compared to  the typical site.

b.   Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

     Typical    2.3 mg/kg DW
     Worst      4.6 mg/kg DW

     The typical  and worst sludge concentrations  are  the
     mean  and  maximum   values,   respectively,   from   a
     summary of sludge  data  from a  U.S.  EPA  study  of  50
     publicly-owned  treatment works  (POTWs)  (Camp Dresser
     and McKee,  Inc. (COM),  1984a).   Concentrations  of
     2,4,6-trichlorophenol were detected in only  2 of  438
     samples (0.46  percent)  from  40  POTWs  and  in  none  of
     the samples  from  an  additional  10  POTWs   (U.S.  EPA,
     1982a).  It  has been reported  that  trichlorophenols
     disappear within  a  few days  from  activated  sludge
     systems and aerated  lagoons, possibly  as  a result  of
     microbiological  degradation  mechanisms   (U.S.   EPA,
     1979a).

c.   Disposal site characteristics

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

     Typical      20 m             9500 m/day
     Worst         5 m             4320 m/day
                    3-3

-------
          Typical  site values  are representative of  a large,
          deep-water  site  with  an  area  of   about   1500  km^
          located  beyond  the  continental  shelf in the New York
          Bight.   The pycnocline  value of 20  m  chosen is the
          average  of  the 10  to  30  m  pycnocline depth range
          occurring  in the  summer  and  fall;  the winter  and
          spring disappearance  of  the pycnocline is  not consi-r
          dered  and  so represents a conservative approach  in
          evaluating annual  or long-term  impact.   The  current
          velocity of  11  cm/sec   (9500 m/day)   chosen  is based
          on  the average  current  velocity in  this  area (CDM,
          1984b).

          Worst-case values are representative of a  near-shore
          New  York Bight  site  with  an area  of  about  20  km^.
          The  pycnocline   value  of 5 m chosen is the minimum
          value  of the 5  to  23 m depth  range of the  surface
          mixed  layer and is  therefore  a worst-case  value.
          Current  velocities  in  this  area   vary  from 0  to
          30 cm/sec.   A   value of   5 cm/sec  (4320  m/day)  is
          arbitrarily  chosen  to  represent a  worst-case value
          (CDM,  1984c).

4.   Factors Considered in Initial Mixing

     When a  load of  sludge is  dumped from a moving  tanker,  an
     immediate  mixing occurs   in  the  turbulent wake  of  the
     vessel,  followed  by  more gradual  spreading  of  the plume.
     The  entire plume,  which  initially  constitutes   a  narrow
     band the  length of the  tanker path,  moves more-or-Iess  as
     a  unit  with  the prevailing  surface  current  and,  under
     calm conditions,  is  not  further dispersed  by  the current
     itself.   However, the current acts to separate  successive
     tanker  loads,  moving each  out  of the  immediate  disposal
     path before the next  load is  dumped.

     Immediate   mixing   volume   after   barge   disposal   is
     approximately equal   to  the   length  of  the  dumping track
     with a  cross-sectional area  about  four times that defined
     by   the   draft   and  width   of  the  discharging  vessel
     (Csanady,   1981,   as  cited   in  National  Oceanic   and
     Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),  1983).   The  resulting
     plume  is  initially   10 m  deep by 40 m wide  (O'Connor  and
     Park,   1982,  as   cited   in  NOAA,   1983).     Subsequent
     spreading  of  plume  band width  occurs at   an average  rate
     of approximately  1 cm/sec  (Csanady et al., 1979,  as cited
     in NOAA,  1983).   Vertical mixing  is  limited by  the depth
     of the  pycnocline or ocean floor,  whichever  is  shallower.
     Four hours  after  disposal,  therefore,  average plume width
     (W) may be computed as follows:

     W = 40 m  +  1  cm/sec  x 4  hours x  3600 sec/hour x  0.01  m/cm
     = 184 m = approximately 200 m
                         3-4

-------
          Thus  the  volume  of  initial  mixing  is   defined  by  the
          tanker  path,  a 200 m width, and  a depth  appropriate to
          the site.   For the  typical  (deep water)  site,  this  depth
          is chosen as the  pycnocline  value  of 20 m.  For the worst
          (shallow water)  site,  a  value  of   10 m  was  chosen.   At
          times the  pycnocline  may  be as  shallow as  5  m,  but  since
          the barge  wake causes  initial   mixing  to at  least  10 m,
          the greater value was used.

     5.   Index 1 Values (ug/L)
               Disposal
               Conditions and
               Site Charac-     Sludge
               teristics    Concentration
                  Sludge Disposal
                  Rate (mt DW/day)
                        825
                1650
               Typical
               Worst
Typical
Worst

Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0046
0.0092

0.039
0.078
0.0046
0.0092

0.039
0.078
     6.   Value Interpretation - Value  equals  the  expected increase
          in 2,4,6-trichlorophenol concentration in  seawater around
          a  disposal  site  as  a  result  of  sludge  disposal  after
          initial mixing.

     7.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -   Slight  increases  in  seawater
          concentration  of  2,4,6-trichlorophenol  is  evident  in  all
          the  scenarios  evaluated  for  initial  mixing of  disposed
          sludge.

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

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

     2.   Assumptions/Limitations  - Incorporates all of  the assump-
          tions  used  to calculate  Index  1.    In  addition,  it  is
                              3-5

-------
          assumed   that  organisms  would   experience  high-pulsed
          sludge concentrations  for  8  to 12 hours  per day and then
          experience  recovery  (no  exposure to sludge)  for 12 to 16
          hours  per day.   This  situation  can  be  expressed  by. the
          use of a TWA  concentration of sludge constituent.

     3.   Data Used and Rationale

          See Section 3, pp. 3-2 to 3-4.

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

          See Section 3, pp. 3-5 to 3-6.

     5.   Index 2 Values (ug/L)
               Disposal
               Conditions and
               Site Charac-    Sludge
                teristics   Concentration
                  Sludge Disposal
                  Rate (mt DW/day)
                        825
                1650
               Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0012
0.0025
0.0025
0.0050
               Worst
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.011
0.022
0.022
0.044
     6.   Value   Interpretation  -   Value   equals   the   effective
          increase  in  2,4,6-trichlorophenol  concentration expressed
          as a TWA  concentration  in  seawater  around a disposal site
          experienced by-an'organism over a 24-hour period.

     7.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  Slight  concentration  increases
          were apparent  in all  the   scenarios  evaluated  for  a  24-
          hour dumping cycle.

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

     1.   Explanation - Compares  the effective  increased  concentra-
          tion of pollutant  in seawater around  the  disposal site
          resulting  from  the  initial mixing  of  sludge   (Index  1)
          with the  marine  ambient  water quality  criterion  of  the
          pollutant,  or  with  another  value judged   protective  of
          marine  aquatic   life.   For  2,4,6-trichlorophenol,  this
          value  is  the criterion  that  will  protect  marine  aquatic
          organisms from both acute and chronic  toxic effects.

          Wherever  a  short-term,  "pulse" exposure  may occur  as  it
          would  from  initial  mixing, it is usually evaluated using
          the  "maximum"  criteria values  of  EPA's  ambient  water
                              3-6

-------
     quality  criteria   methodology.     However,   under  this
     scenario,  because   the  pulse  is  repeated several  times
     daily on  a long-term basis,  potentially  resulting  in an
     accumulation of  injury,  it seems more  appropriate to use
     values   designed   to   be   protective    against   chronic
     toxicity.    Therefore,   to  evaluate  the  potential  for
     adverse  effects  on marine  life  resulting  from  initial
     mixing  concentrations,   as  quantified   by Index  1,  the
     chronically derived criteria values are used.

2.   Assumptions/Limitations -  In addition  to  the assumptions
     stated  for Indices  1  and  2,  assumes  that   all  of  the
     released pollutant  is  available  in  the  water  column  to
     move through predicted  pathways  (i.e.,  sludge to seawater
     to aquatic  organism to  man).  The  possibility of  effects
     arising from  accumulation in  the  sediments  is  neglected
     since the U.S.   EPA presently  lacks  a satisfactory method
     for deriving sediment criteria.

3.   Data Used and Rationale

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

          See Section 3,  p. 3-5.

     b.   Ambient water  quality  criterion  (AWQC)  -  Data  not
          immediately available

          Water  quality  criteria  for  the   toxic  pollutants
          listed under  Section  307(a)(l)  of  the   Clean  Water
          Act of 1977 were  developed  by  the  U.S. EPA  under
          Section 304(a)(l) of  the  Act.   These criteria  were
          derived  by  utilization   of   data   reflecting   the
          resultant-  environmental  impacts  and human   health
          effects of  these pollutants if  present  in any  body
          of  water.    No  criteria  were  available  for  this
          compound;    thus   Index   3   values   could   not   be
          calculated.

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

5.   Value Interpretation  -  Value equals  the  factor by  which
     the  expected  seawater  concentration  increase  in  2,4,6-
     trichlorophenol   exceeds  the protective  value.   A  value
     > 1  indicates that  acute  or chronic  toxic  conditions  may
     exist for organisms  at the site.

6.   Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn  because
     index values could  not be  calculated.
                         3-7

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

     1.   Explanation  - Estimates  the  expected  increase  in human
          pollutant  intake   associated   with  the  consumption  of
          seafood, a fraction  of which originates from the disposal
          site vicinity,  and  compares the  total  expected pollutant
          intake with  the  cancer risk-specific intake  (RSI)  of the
          pollutant.

     2.   Assumptions/Limitations -  In addition  to  the assumptions
          listed  for  Indices  1 and  2,  assumes  that  the   seafood
          tissue  concentration increase  can  be estimated  from the
          increased    water    concentration   (Index   2)    by   a
          bioconcentration factor.   It also  assumes  that,  over the
          -long  term,  the   seafood   catch  from  the  disposal  site
          vicinity will be diluted to  some  extent  by the  catch from
          uncontaminated areas.

     3.   Data Used and Rationale

          a.    Concentration  of  pollutant   in  seawater  around  a
               disposal site (Index 2)

               See Section 3,  p. 3-6.

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

          b.    Dietary consumption of seafood (QF)

               Typical  •   14.3 g WW/day
               Worst       41.7 g WW/day

               Typical  and  worst-case  values are  the mean and  the
               95th  percentile,   respectively,   for   all   seafood
               consumption in  the  United States  (Stanford  Research
               Institute (SRI) International, 1980).

          c.    Fraction  of  consumed  seafood originating  from  the
               disposal site (FS)

               For  a  typical   harvesting scenario,   it  was  assumed
               that the total  catch  over a wide region is  mixed  by
               harvesting,  marketing and  consumption  practices,  and
               that  exposure   is  thereby  diluted.    Coastal  areas
               have  been  divided  by  the  National  Marine  Fishery
               Service (NMFS)   into reporting  areas for  reporting  on
               data on  seafood  landings.   Therefore it was  conven-
               ient  to  express the  total  area affected  by  sludge
               disposal as  a   fraction  of  an NMFS  reporting  area.
                              3-8

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

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

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

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

Next,   the  value  of  AI   must   be  expressed  as  a
fraction of an NMFS  reporting area.  In the  New York
Bight,  which  includes  NMFS  areas 612-616  and  621-
623,   deep-water   area   623   has    an    area   of
approximately 7200  km2  and constitutes  approximately
0.02 percent of  the total seafood  landings for  the
Bight (CDM,  1984b).  Near-shore area 612 has  an area
of    approximately    4300    km2   and    constitutes
approximately  24  percent   of   the   total   seafood
landings  (CDM,  1984c).    Therefore  the  fraction  of
all  seafood  landings   (FSC)  from  the  Bight  which
could originate  from the  area  of impact  of  either
the

               3-9

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

         For the typical (deep water) site:
         -<,  _ AI x 0.02% =                                (2)
         ebt ' 7200
[10 x 8QOO m  x  9500 m x 10~6 km2/m21  x  Q.QOQ2    .  ,    1A _s
-1 - : - ' -  =  2.1  x 10  ->
                      7200 km2

         For the worst (near shore) site:

         FSt = ALJE_2«  =                                  (3)
               4300 km2

    [10 x 4000 m x  4320  m x  10~6  km2/m2]  x 0.24 _          3
                             —                    — «7 • Q X 1 0
                      4300 km2

         To  construct a worst-case  harvesting  scenario,   it
         was  assumed  that  the  total   seafood  consumption for
         an  individual  could  originate  from  an  area  more
         limited  than   the   entire   New  York.  Bight.    For
         example, a particular  fisherman providing  the entire
         seafood  diet   for   himself   or  others   could  fish
         habitually within a  single NMFS reporting  area.   Or,
         an   individual   could   have   a  preference   for   a
         particular species  which is  taken  only over  a  more
         limited area,  here assumed  arbitrarily  to  equal  an
         NMFS  reporting  area.    The  fraction  of  consumed
         seafood (FSW)  that  could originate from the area  of
         impact under this  worst-case scenario  is  calculated
         as follows:
         For the typical (deep water) site:

                  AI
               7200 km2
FSW = 	    „  = 0.11                       (4)
         For the worst (near shore) site:
                  AI
               4300 km2
FSW =        „ = 0.040                       (5)
    d.   Bioconcentration   factor   of   pollutant   (BCF)   =
         150 L/kg

         The  value  chosen  is  the  weighted average  BCF  of
         2,4,6-trichlorophenol for  the edible portion of  all
         freshwater  and  estuarine aquatic  organisms  consumed
         by  U.S.   citizens  (U.S.   EPA,  1980).   The  weighted
         average BCF  is  derived  as part  of  the  water  quality
         criteria  developed by  the U.S.  EPA  to  protect  human
                        3-10

-------
               health  from  the  potential  carcinogenic  effects  of
               2,4,6-trichlorophenol   induced   by   ingestion   of
               contaminated  water  and   aquatic   organisms.     The
               weighted average  BCF is calculated  by  adjusting the
               mean normalized BCF  (steady-state  BCF  corrected to 1
               percent  lipid  content)   to   the   3  percent   lipid
               content  of  consumed fish  and  shellfish.   It  should
               be  noted that  lipids   of  marine  species  differ  in
               both structure and  quantity  from those  of freshwater
               species.   Although  a  BCF  value calculated entirely
               from marine  data  would be more  appropriate for this
               assessment, no such data are presently available,

          e.   Average daily human  dietary  intake of  pollutant (DI)
               = 0 Ug/day

               Although no  data  are immediately available  on  DI,  a
               value  of  0  ug/day  is   assumed  so  that  index  values
               can be calculated.


          f.   Cancer potency = 1.98 x 10~2 (mg/kg/day)"1

               The  cancer  potency  value  is   derived   by U.S.  EPA
               (1980) based  on studies of hepatocellular carcinomas
               and  adenomas developed in  mice  dosed  with  2,4,6-
               trichlorophenol .

          g.   Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 3.535  ug/day

               The RSI  is  the  pollutant  intake value  which results
               in  an  increase  in  cancer  risk  of   10~°  (1  per
               1,000,000).   The  RSI  is  calculated from  the  cancer
               potency using the  following formula:

               RSI =  1Q"6 x 70 kg x 103 UE/mg
                            Cancer potency
4.   Index 4 Values

     Disposal
     Conditions and
     Site Charac-   Sludge      Seafood
     teristics   Concentration3 Intake3>°
Sludge Disposal
Rate (mt DW/day)

0     825       1650
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6xlO~8
0.00049
0.000064
0.0016
3.1xlO~8
0.00097
0.00013
0.0031
     a  All   possible   combinations   of   these   values   are   not
        presented.   Additional combinations may be  calculated  using
        the formulae in the Appendix.
                             3-11

-------
b  Refers to  both the dietary consumption of  seafood  (QF)  and
   the  fraction  of  consumed  seafood  originating  from  the
   disposal  site (FS).   "Typical"  indicates  the  use of  the
   typical-case  values  for  both  of these parameters;  "worst"
   indicates the use of the worst-case values for both. .

5.   Value  Interpretation -  Value  >  1  indicates  a  potential
     increase  in cancer  risk  of  >  10~6  (1  per  1,000,000).
     Comparison   with   the   null   index  value   at   0  mt/day
     indicates the degree to  which  any hazard  is  due  to sludge
     disposal, as opposed to pre-existing dietary sources.

6.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  Slight  incremental  increases
     related  to  human   health   were  assessed   for   all  the
     scenarios evaluated.
                          3-12

-------
                              SECTION 4

          PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE  FOR 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
                      IN MUNICIPAL  SEWAGE  SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE

   2,4,6-Trichlorophenol is used as a bactericide
   and fungicide in Che preservation of wood, leather,
   and glue and in the treatment of mildew on textile.
   It is also used as an ingredient in the preparation
   of insecticides and soap germicides.  The primary
   use of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol is as an intermediate
   in the synthesis of pesticides including 2,4,6-
   trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4,6-T) and Ronnel.

   A.   Sludge

        1.   Frequency of Detection

             2,4,6-trichlorophenol was detected in
             2 of 438 sludge samples (0.46 percent)
             from 40 POTWs.  Not observed in sludge
             samples from additional 10 POTWs studied.

        2.   Concentration

             11 and 16 Ug/L from 2 samples from 40
             POTWs.
             2.3 and 4.6 mg/kg (mean and maximum,
             respectively) from 50 POTWs.

        Soil - Unpolluted

        Data not immediately available.

        Water - Unpolluted

        1.   Frequency of Detection

             2,4,6-trichlorophenol has  been detected
             in finished drinking water.
             "It is generally accepted  that
           . chlorinated phenols  will undergo
             photolysis  in aqueous  solutions as  a
             result of ultraviolet  radiation and
             that photodegradation  leads  to the
             substitution of  hydroxyl groups in
             place of the chlorine  atoms  with
             subsequent  polymer  formation."
U.S.  EPA,
1979a
(p. 465)
U.S. EPA,
1982a
(p. 42)
U.S. EPA,
1982a
(p. 42)

CDM, 1984a
(p. 14)
U.S. EPA,
1979b
(p. 86-1)

U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. A-8)
                                 4-1

-------
              "Trichlorophenols disappear  in a  few
              days from aerated lagoons or activated
              sludge systems."

              Cone ent rat i on

              Data not immediately available.
    D.   Air
         Data on levels of trichlorophenols in
         air are not available.
    E.   Food

         1.   Frequency of Detection

              "Exposure to other chemicals could
              result in exposure to trichlorophenols
              via metabolic degradation of the parent
              compound."

              "Livestock have been shown to form
              trichlorophenol residues from the
              metabolism of a variety of chemicals
              including 2,4,6-T, Silvex, Ronnel,
              1,3,5-trichlorobenzene, and
              hexachlorocylclohexane

              Ingestion of food containing pesticides
              which degrade to chlorophenols could
              result in human, exposure to trichloro-
              phenol, though probably at very low
              levels.

         2.   Concentration

              Data not immediately available.

II. HUMAN EFFECTS

    A.   Ingestion

         1.   Carcinogenicity

              Cancer potency = 1.98 x
              10~2 (mg/kg/day)-1

              Based on hepatocellular carcinoma
              and adenoma responses of male mice
              ingesting 650 to 1,300 mg/kg/day of
              2,4,6-trichlorophenol.
 U.S.  EPA,
 1979a
 (p.  465)
 U.S. EPA,
 1979a
 (p. 465)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-51)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-52)
U.S. EPA,
1979a
(p. 465-6)
U.S. EPA,
1980
(p. C-133)
                                  4-2

-------
     B.
2.   Chronic Toxicity

     Data not immediately available.

3.   Absorption Factor

     Data not immediately available.

4.   Existing Regulations

     Data not immediately available.

Inhalation
          Data not immediately available.

III. PLANT EFFECTS

     A.   Phytotoxicity

          "Information on effects, biotransformation,
          and elimination of trichlorophenols and
          tetrachlorophenols in plants is not
          available.   No dose-response data have
          been reported for. vascular plants."

          Corn and pea plants can metabolize
          pentachlorocyclohexane to the 2,4,6-
          2,3,5-,  and 2,4,5-trichlorophenol isomers.

     B.   Uptake

          See Table 4-1.

 IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS

     A.   Toxicity

          See Table 4-2.

     B.   Uptake

          See Table 4-3.

  V. AQUATIC LIFE  EFFECTS

     A.   Toxicity

          1.   Freshwater

               52  Ug/L of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol is
               the lowest concentration at  which
               tainting of the flesh of the rainbow
               trout  occurs.
                                                U.S. EPA,
                                                1979a
                                                (p. 468)
                                                U.S. EPA,
                                                1980
                                                (p.  C-52)
                                                CCHA,  no  date
                                                (p.  5)
                                   4-3

-------
     B.
     Acute toxicity values for 2,4,6-
     trichlorophenoL for fish and crustacean
     species range from 320 t'o 9,040 Ug/L.

     Chronic toxicity values for 2,4,6-
     trichlorophenol range from 530 to
     970 Ug/L for early life stages of
     the fathead minnow.

2.   Seawater

     Data not immediately available.

Uptake

Bioconcentration factor = 150 L/kg

Based on the edible portion of all
freshwater and estuarine aquatic
organisms consumed by U.S. citizens.
 VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
     A.   Toxicity
          "Several genera of bacteria are capable of
          metabolizing chlorophenols.   2,4,5-
          trichlorophenol is more resistant to soil
          microbial degradation than is 2,4,6-
          trichlorophenol."

          2,4,5-Trichlorophenol inhibits growth of
          bacteria at concentrations of 10 to 400 mg/L.
          The test organism, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, was
          more resistant than other organisms tested.
          2,4,5-Trichlorophenol also inhibits a number
          of fungal species at concentrations of 2 to 5
          mg/L.  Most fungi are inhibited at concentra-
          tions around 10 mg/L.
     B.   Uptake
          Under experimental conditions, 2,4,6-
          trichlorophenol inhibits 02 uptake in mixed
          microbial populations at concentrations
          of 50 to 100 Ug/g, but has no effect
          at 1 to 10 Ug/g.
                                                          U.S. EPA, 1980
                                                          (p. B-6, 7)
                                                          U.S. EPA, 1980
                                                          (p. B-8)
                                                          U.S. EPA,
                                                          1980
                                                          (p. 053)
                                                U.S.  EPA,
                                                1979a
                                                (p.  467)
                                                U.S.  EPA,
                                                1979a
                                                (p. 467)
                                               U.S.  EPA,
                                               1979a
                                               (p. 466)
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT

     Molecular weight:  197.5
     Melting point:  68"C (2,4,5-trichlorophenol)         U.S.  EPA,
                     69.5°C (2,4,6-trichlorophenol)        1980
     Boiling point:  Sublimes (2,4,5-trichlorophenol)      (p. A-2)
                     246°C (2,4,6-trichlorophenol)
                                   4-4

-------
Density:  1.4901 (2,4,6-trichlorophenol)
Water solubility:  0.1 to 0.2 g/100 g
Vapor pressure:  1 mm Hg/72.0°C
                 (2,4,5-trichlorophenol)
                 1 mm Hg/76.5°C
                 (2,4,6-trichlorophenol)
Very soluble in organic solvents                     U.S.  EPA,
                                                     1979a
                                                     (p.  466)

Microbial degradation appears to be a major          U.S.  EPA,
elimination mechanism.  Bacterial species cap-       1979a
able of metabolizing 2,4,6-trichlorophenbl           (p.  466)
have been isolated from soil and activated sludge
                              4-5

-------
                                              TABLE  4-1.   UPTAKE OF  2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL BY  PLANTS


Plant/Tissue
Tomato/roots
i
a\
Tomato/ stems &
leaves

Chemical Form
Applied
2,4,6-
trichlorophenol

2,4,6-
trichlorophenol
Soil
Concentration
Soil Type • (pg/g)
llydroponic 3.5


llydroponic 3.5

Control Tissue
Concentration Bioconcentration
(pg/g DW) Factor3 References
73.3 20.94 Fragiadakis et al.,
(p. 1317)

1.4 0.4 Fragiadakis et al.,
(p. 1317)



1981


1981

8 BCF = tissue concentration/solution concentration.

-------
                                   TABLE 4-2.  TOXICITY OF 2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Rats
-P- Rabbits
i
^j
Rabbits

Rats
Rats


Chemical
Form Fed
2,4
2,4
2,4
2,4
2,4

2,4

2,4
2,4


,5-Ta
,5-T
,5-T
,5-T
,5-T

,5-T

,5-T
,5-T


Feed
Concentration
(pg/g)
NRb
NR
NR
NR
NR

NR

NR
NR


Water Daily
Concentration Intake
(rag/L) (mg/kg)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR

NR

NR
NR


18
159
53
820-2900
1-10

500

10-100
300-1000


Duration
•of Study
78 days
78 days
154 days

28 days

28 days

NR
NR


Effects
No toxic effects
No toxic effects
No toxic effects
LD50
No toxic effects
(20 doses)
Slight kidney and liver
changes
No toxic effects
Minor histopathologic
changes in kidney and
1 iver
References
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.

U.S.

U.S.
U.S.


EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,

EPA,

EPA,
EPA,


1979a
1979a
1979a
1979a
1979a

1979a

1979a
1979a


(p. 468)
(p. 468)
(p. 468)
(p. 469)
(p. 469)

(p. 469)

(p. 469)
(p. 469)

•
a 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol.
b NR = Not reported.

-------
                                  TABLE 4-3.  UPTAKE OF 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL BY DOMESTIC AHIHALS AND WILDLIFE



Species
Sheep


•P-
oo
Cattle



Cattle




Chemical
Form Fed
2,4,5-Tb
herbicide



2,4,5-Tb
herbicide


2,4,5-Tb
herbicide


Feed
Concentration Tissue
((Jg/g) Analyzed
2,000 muscle
fat
liver
kidney

2,000 muscle
fat
liver
kidney
100 milk
1,000 milk &
cream
Range of
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g)
0.13
<0.05
6.1
0.9

0.05
<0.05
0.42
0.10
0.05
0.15-0.39



Dioconcentratibn
Factor3
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
<0.001

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001




References
Clark et al., 1975 (p. 576)




Clark et al., 1975 (p. 575)



Bjerke et al., 1972 (p. 965)


a BCF = tissue concentration/feed concentration.
b 2,4,5-trichlorophenol is a photodecomposition product  of  the  herbicide  2,4,5-T.

-------
                                SECTION 5

                               REFERENCES
Bjerke, E.  L.,  J. L.  Herman,  P. W.  Miller,  and  J.  H. Wetters.   1972.
     Residue Study of  Phenoxy  Herbicides  in Milk and Cream.   J.   Agric.
     Food Chem.  20(5):963-967.

Camp Dresser and  McKee,  Inc.   1984a.   A Comparison of  Studies  of Toxic
     Substances  in POTW  Sludges.  Prepared  for U.S. EPA  under  Contract
     No. 68-01-6403.   Annandale,  VA.   August.

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

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

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

Clark,  D. E., J.  S.  Palmer, and  R.  D. Radeleff, et al.  1975.   Residues
     of Chlorophenoxy  Acid Herbicides  and the  Phenolic Metabolites  in
     Tissues of  Sheep and Cattle.  J. Agric."Food Chem.   23(3):573-578.

Fragiadakis, A., N.  Sotiriou,  and F.  Korte.   1981.   Absorption,  Balance,
     Metabolism   of   l^C-2,4,6-Trichlorophenol   in   Hydroponic   Tomato
     Plants.  Chemosphere  10(11):1315-1320.

National  Oceanic   and Atmospheric   Administration.    1983.    Northeast
     Monitoring  Program  106-Mile  Site  Characterization Update.    NOAA
     Technical   Memorandum  NMFS-F/NEC-26.   U.S.  Department  of  Commerce
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  August.

Stanford Research  Institute  International.   1980.   Seafood  Consumption
     Data Analysis.   Final Report,  Task  II.   Prepared  for the U.S.  EPA
     under Contract No. 68-01-3887.   Menlo Park, California.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency.   1979a.   Reviews  of  Environmental
     Effects of Pollutants:   Chlorophenols.    EPA-600/1-79-012.    U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.

U.S.   Environmental    Protection • Agency.      1979b.       Water-Related
     Environmental Fate  of 129  Priority  Pollutants.    Volume  II.    EPA-
     440/4-79-029b.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Washington,
     D.C.

U.S. Environmental   Protection Agency.   1980.   Ambient  Water Quality
     Criteria   for   Chlorinated  Phenols.     EPA  440/5-80-032.     U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

                                   5-1

-------
U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1982a.   Fate of  Priority Pollu-
     tants in  Publicly-Owned  Treatment  Works.   EPA 440/1-82/303.   U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.     1982b.    Test   Methods  for
     Evaluating  Solid  Waste.    SW-846.    U.S.   Environmental  Protection
     Agency,  Washington, D.C.
                                   5-2

-------
                                APPENDIX

     PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
                        IN MUNICIPAL  SEWAGE  SLUDGE
  I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

     Based on  the recommendations  of  the experts  at the  OWRS  meetings
     (April-May,  1984),  an  assessment of  this reuse/disposal option is
     not  being conducted  at  this  time.    EPA  reserves  the  right  to
     conduct  such an assessment for this  option in the future.

II.  LANDPILLING

     Based on  the recommendations  of  the experts  at the  OWRS  meetings
     (April-May,  1984),  an  assessment of  this reuse/disposal option is
     not  being conducted  at  this  time.    EPA  reserves  the  right  to
     conduct  such an assessment for this  option'in the future.

III. INCINERATION

     Based on  the recommendations  of  the experts  at the  OWRS  meetings
     (April-May,  1984),  an  assessment of  this reuse/disposal option is
     not  being conducted  at  this  time.    EPA  reserves  the  right  to
     conduct  such an assessment for this  option in the future.

IV.  OCEAN DISPOSAL
     A.   Index of  Seawater  Concentration  Resulting from  Initial  Mixing
          of Sludge (Index 1)

          1.   Formula
               Index 1  =
 SC x ST x PS
  W x D x L
               where:
                    SC =
                    ST =
                    PS =
                    W  =
                    D  =

                    L  =
Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
Sludge mass dumped by a single tanker (kg WW)
Percent solids in sludge (kg DW/kg WW)
Width of initial plume dilution (m)
Depth  to  pycnocline   or   effective  depth
mixing for shallow water site (m)
Length of tanker path (m)
of
                                  A-l

-------
             2.   Sample Calculation

0.0046 Ug/L =  2.3 mg/kg  DW x 1600000 kg WW x 0.04 kg DW/kg WW x  1Q3  ug/mg
                            200 m x 20  m  x 8000  m x 103 L/m3


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

             1.   Formula

                             SS x SC
                  Index 2 =
                            V x D x L

                  where:

                       SS = Daily sludge disposal rate (kg DW/day)
                       SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
                       V  = Average current velocity at site (m/day)
                       D  = Depth  to   pycnocline   or   effective   depth  of
                            mixing for shallow water site (m)
                       L  = Length of tanker path (m)

             2.   Sample Calculation

        0.0012 Ug/L = 825000 kg  DW/day  x  2.3  mg/kg  DW  x 1Q3 Ug/mg
                           9500  m/day x 20 m  x  8000 m  x  103  L/m3

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

             1.   Formula


                  Index 3 =   AWQC

                  where:

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

             2.   Sample  Calculation  - Values  were not  calculated due  to
                  lack of data.
                                      A-2

-------
        D.    Index of Hunan Cancer  Risk Resulting from Seafood  Consumption
             (Index 4)

             1.    Formula

                  _ .    ,     (12 x  BCF  x  IP"3 kg/g x FS x OF) +  PI
                  Index  4 =  	RSI     	 	

                  where:

                  12 =   Index  2  = Index of seawater concentration
                         representing  a  24-hour  dumping cycle  (ug/L)
                  QF =   Dietary  consumption of  seafood (g WW/day)
                  FS- -   Fraction of consumed seafood originating from  the
                         disposal site (unitless)
                  BCF =   Bioconcentration  factor of pollutant  (L/kg)
                  DI =   Average  daily human dietary intake of pollutant
                         (Ug/day)
                  RSI =   Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)

             2.   Sample  Calculation

                  1.6 x  10"8 =

(0.0012  Ug/L x 150 L/kg x 10~3 kg/g x 0.000021 x 14.3 g WW/day)  + 0 Ug/dav
                                  3.535  Ug/day
                                     A-3

-------