United Slates
Environmental Protection
Aqency
Off'ce of Water
Regulations and Standards.
Washington, DC 20460
Water
                                      June, 1989
   lethylene  bis(2-chloroaniline'
        *y              *

-------
                                 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 4,4'-METHYLENE BIS
      (2-CHLOROANILINE) IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 	   2-1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 	   2-1

    Landfilling 	   2-2

    Incineration 	-	   2-2

    Ocean Disposal 	   2-2

3.   PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR 4,4'-METHYLENE BIS
      (2-CHLOROANILINE) IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE	   3-1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 	   3-1

         Effect on soil concentration of 4,4'-Methylene Bis
           (2-ChloroaniLine) (Index 1)	; . . .   3-1
         Effect on soil biota and predators of soil  biota
           (Indices 2-3) 	   3-3
         Effect on plants and plant tissue
           concentration (Indices 4-6) 	   3-4
         Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8)  	   3-7
         Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 	   3-10

    Landf illing 	'	   3-16

    Incineration 	   3-16

    Ocean Disposal 	   3-16

4.   PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR 4,4'-METHYLENE BIS
      (2-CHLOROANILINE) IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 	   4-1

    Occurrence	   4-1

         Sludge 	   4-1
         Soil - Unpolluted 	   4-1
         Water - Unpolluted 	   4-2
         Air 	   4-2
         Food 	   4-3

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

    Human Effects 	  4-3

         Ingestion 	  4-3
         Inhalation 	  4-4

    Plant Effects 	  4-5

         Phytotoxicity 	  4-5
         Uptake 	  4-5

    Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects	  4-5

         Toxicity 	  4-5
         Uptake 	  4-5

    Aquatic Life Effects 	•	  4-5

    Soil Biota Effects 	  4-5

    Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 	  4-5

5 .   REFERENCES	".	  5-1

APPENDIX.  PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
    4,4'-METHYLENE BIS (2-CHLOROANILINE) IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
    SLUDGE	  A-l
                                   111

-------
                                SECTION 1

                               INTRODUCTION
     This  preliminary  data  profile   is  one  of  a  series   of  profiles
dealing  with  chemical  pollutants  potentially  of  concern  in municipal
sewage . sludges.    4,4'-Methylene bis  (2-chloroahiline)  (MOCA)'  was  ini-
tially  identified as  being of  potential  concern  when  sludge  is land-
spread  (including distribution-and-marketing).*  This  profile is  a  com-
pilation  of  information that may  be  useful in  determining  whether  MOCA
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  pollutant  by  a  given pathway  to  cause  a  given  effect
(e.g., sludge •*  soil •*  plant uptake •*• animal uptake •*  human  toxicity).
The values and assumptions  employed in these calculations tend to repre-
sent  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",  Sec-
tion 4.   Information  in  the profile  is  based  on  a compilation  of  the
recent  literature.   An  attempt  has  been, made  to  fill  out  the profile
outline to the greatest  extent  possible.   However,  since this is  a  pre-
liminary analysis, the literature has  not been exhaustively perused.
     The  "preliminary  conclusions" drawn  from each  index in Section  3
are  summarized  in  Section  2.    The  preliminary  hazard  indices will be
used as a screening tool  to determine which pollutants and  pathways  may
pose a hazard.   Where a potential hazard  is  indicated  by interpretation
of  these  indices,  further analysis will  include a  more  detailed  exami-
nation  of potential  risks  as well  as an  examination  of  site-specific
factors.   These  more rigorous  evaluations  may  change  the  preliminary
conclusions  presented  in  Section 2,  which are based  on a  reasonable
"worst case" analysis.
     The  preliminary   hazard   indices  for   selected   exposure  routes
pertinent to  landspreading and  distribution and marketing  are  included
in  this  profile.   The calculation formulae  for these  indices are shown
in the Appendix.   The indices are rounded to two significant figures.
* Listings  were  determined  by  a  series  of  expert  workshops  convened
  during  March-May,  1984  by   the  Office   of   Water   Regulations  and
  Standards (OWRS)  to  discuss landspreading,  landfilling,  incineration,
  and ocean disposal, respectively,  of  municipal  sewage  sludge.
                                   1-1

-------
                                SECTION 2

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

  I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

     A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of 4,4-Methylene Bis
          (2-Chloroani1ine)

          Soil concentrations of MOCA are expected to  increase  slightly
          with  5   to  50  mt/ha  application rates  of  municipal  sewage
          sludge.   Long  term  applications of sewage  sludge  are  expected
          to result in  moderate  increases of MOCA concentrations  in  the
          amended  soils (see Index  1).

     B.   Effect on Soil Biota or Predators of  Soil  Biota

          Conclusions  were  not  drawn about  the  effect  of  MOCA on  soil
          biota  and predators  because index values  could  not be  calcu-
          lated  due to lack of immediately available  data  (see  Indices  2
          and  3).

     C.   Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

          Conclusions  were  not  able"to be  drawn concerning  the  effects
          of MOCA  on  plants (see Index 4);  however,  the application  of
          municipal sewage  sludge  to soil is not  expected to result  in
          increased concentrations  of MOCA  in  plant  tissue grown on  the
          amended  soils (see Index  5).   Phytotoxic  levels  were  also  not
          able to  be  determined  due  to a  lack of  data  (see  Index  6).

     D.   Effect on Herbivorous  Animals

          The  consumption of plant  tissue grown  on sludge-amended  soils
          by herbivorous animals is  not  expected to  pose a  toxic hazard
          due  to MOCA ingestion (see  Index 7).    Also, the consumption  of
          crops  to which sludge-amended  soil  or sludge adheres is  not
          expected to  pose a  MOCA  hazard  to  herbivorous  animals  (see
          Index  8).

     E.   Effect on Humans

          Conclusions  could not  be  drawn about  the  potential effect  of
          MOCA on  humans  because index  values   could not  be calculated
          due  to  lack of immediately available  data (see  Indices  9  to
          13).
                                  2-1

-------
 II. LANDPILLING

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

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.   The U.S.  EPA reserves  the right
     to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.

 IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

     Based  on  the recommendations  of the  experts  at the  OWRS  meetings
     (April-May,  1984),  an assessment  of this reuse/disposal option  is
     not being  conducted  at  this time.   The U.S.  EPA reserves  the right
     to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
                                   2-2

-------
                           SECTION 3

       PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR 4,4'-METHYLENE BIS
          (2-CHLOROANILINE)  IN MUNICIPAL  SEWAGE  SLUDGE
LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of 4,4'-Methylene Bis
     (2-Chloroaniline)

     1.   Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

                 i. Sludge concentration of  pollutant (SC)

                    Typical    18.0 Ug/g DW
                    Worst      86.0 Ug/g DW
                              3-1

-------
     Information on  sludge  concentrations of MOCA is
     derived   primarily  from   studies   of  Adrian,
     Michigan where  a  MOCA  manufacturing plant oper-
     ated "(U.S. EPA, 1980;  Parris  et  al., 1980).  In
     Adrian,   MOCA   concentrations   in   sludge  are
     reported   to   range  between  0.006   Ug/g  for
     "return"  sludge to  86.0 Ug/g  for  sludge from
     dry  beds  at   the   wastewater  treatment   plant.
     The  value of  18.0 Ug/g  (DW)  applies  to  acti-
     vated  sludge.     To be  conservative,  the  two
     highest  values of  known sludge  concentrations
     of MOCA,  18.0  Ug/g and 86.0 Ug/g,  are used for
     the  typical  and  worst  case  sludge  concentra-
     tions, respectively.  (See Section 4, p. 4-1.)

 ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
     (BS) = 2.9 Ug/g DW

     Estimates of the  ambient  soil  concentrations of
     MOCA  have been derived  from  soil  analyses  in
     Adrian, Michigan (U.S. EPA, 1980).   Soil   levels
     by roadways vary by distance  from the MOCA man-
     ufacturing  plant,   being  13  ppm  (W/W)  at  0.4
     mile to  2.1 ppm at over 1 mile  from the   plant.
     MOCA levels in  garden  soils are  in the range of
     0.08 to  2.9 ppm on the surface,  but  decline to
     0.01  to  0.86  for  subsurface  garden soils.   At
     two  Adrian wastewater  treatment  plant   sites,
     the  soil  concentrations  of MOCA  were 1.6  and
     6.5 ppm.  The value  of 2.9  Ug/g  DW was selected
     as  a  conservative  estimate  of  the  range  of
     reported  soil  concentrations.    (See  Section 4,
     pp. 4-1 and 4-2.)

iii. Soil half-life of  pollutant (ti) = 5.3 years

     The  half-life   of   MOCA  has  been  reported  to
     range  between   3.69  hours  to  12.96  hours  for
     photolysis.  12.96  hours   for   oxidation,  and
     1.07 x  10^ hours   for  volatilization  (Versar,
     1980).   Based  on   these  estimates,  an  average
     half-life of 4.667  x 104 hours or  5.3  years has
     been   derived   (Versar,   1980).     Given  the
     scarcity of data on  MOCA, this estimate  is used
     as  a  reasonable   first   approximation  of  the
     chemical's  half-life in  soil.     It  should  be
     noted   the  underlying   assumption   of   this
     estimate is that all of  the above  processes are
     involved  in  the  decomposition  of  MOCA.    (See
     Section 4, p.  4-2.)
               3-2

-------
          d.   Index 1 Values (mg/g DW)


                                   Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
0
2.9
2.9
5
2^9
3.1
50
3.3
4.9
500
24
25
          e.   Value  Interpretation  - Value  equals  the  expected
               concentration in sludge-amended soil.

          f.   Preliminary Conclusion  - Soil  concentrations  of MOCA
               are expected to increase slightly with  5  to 50 mt/ha
               application rates of municipal  sewage  sludge.   Long-
               term applications  of sewage  sludge  are  expected  to
               result in  moderate  increases of MOCA  concentrations
               in the amended soils.

B.   Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota

     1.   Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)

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

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

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

                    See Section 3,  p.  3-3.

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

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

          e.   Value Interpretation -  Value equals  factor by which
               expected soil concentration  exceeds  toxic concentra-
               tion.  Value >  1  indicates a toxic  hazard  may exist
               for soil biota.
                              3-3

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

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

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

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

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

                    See Section 3, p. 3-3.

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

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

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

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

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

C.   Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

     1.   Index of  Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)

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

          b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  pollutant  form  in
               sludge-amended  soil   is   equally   bioavailable  and
               toxic  as form used in study  where  toxic  effects were
               demonstrated.
                              3-4

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

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

          See Section 3, p. 3-3.

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

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

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

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

Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)

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

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

c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

          See Section  3,  p. 3-3.  "

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

          Animal  Diet:
          Radishes    0 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g  soil  DW)"1

          Human Diet:
          Onion Tops and  Bulbs
                      0 ug/g  tissue DW (ug/g soil  DW)"1
                    3-5

-------
               In  the  only  immediately  available  study  of
               plant  tissue uptake  of  MOCA  (U.S.  EPA,  1980),
               no  MOCA  residues could  be found  in  onion  tops
               and bulbs,  radishes,  or  zucchini squash,  all of
               which  were  grown in  garden  soil  contaminated
               with MOCA.   (See  Section 4, p. 4-3.)

     d.   Index 5 Values  (ug/g  DW)


                                 Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
                      Sludge
Diet
Animal

Human
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
500
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
     e.   Value  Interpretation  -  Value  equals  the  expected
          concentration  in  tissues  of plants grown  in sludge-
          amended  soil.    However,  any  value  exceeding  the
          value  of  Index  6 for  the  same  or  a  similar  plant
          species may be  unrealistically  high  because it would
          be precluded by phytotoxicity.

     f.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  The application  of munici-
          pal  sewage  sludge to soil  is not  expected to result
          in increased  concentrations of MOCA  in  plant tissue
          grown on the amended soil.

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

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

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations   -   Assumes    that   tissue
          concentration  will  be  a  consistent  indicator   of
          phytotoxicity.
                         3-6

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

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

          d.   Index 6  Values -  Values  were not calculated  due to
               lack of data.

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

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

D.   Effect on Herbivorous Animals

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

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

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

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

                    The  pollutant  concentration   values   used   are
                    those Index  5 values  for an  animal  diet  (see
                    Section  3,  p.  3-6).

                ii. Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous  animal
                    (TA) =  125  Ug/g DW

                    Several   studies   have been  conducted   on   the
                    toxicity and/or carcinogenicity  associated with
                    the ingestion  of  MOCA.   In a  summary  of this
                    research (U.S.  EPA,   1981), the  lowest  dietary
                              3-7

-------
          concentration  associated  with  neoplasia (i.e.,
          long neoplasms or  lung  adenocarcinomas) in rats
          was a protein  deficient diet  containing 125 ppm
          of MOCA.  Total  incidence  of  neoplasms are sig-
          nificantly higher  in  rats  on  diets,  either pro-
          tein   adequate    or    deficient,    with   MOCA
          concentrations of  250 ppm.  With  the absence of
          more pertinent  data,  the  dietary  concentration
          of 125  ppm  of MOCA in  feed  is used  as a first
          approximation  of  the  toxic   feed  concentration
          for herbivorous  animals,  although the validity
          of   such   generalization   has   yet   to   be
          established.  (See Section 4,  p. 4-5.)

     Index 7 Values


                        Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
         Sludge
     Concentration        0         5       50        500
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
e.   Value Interpretation  -  Value equals factor  by which
     expected  plant  tissue  concentration   exceeds  that
     which is  toxic to  animals.   Value  >  1  indicates  a
     toxic hazard may exist for herbivorous  animals.

f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  The  consumption  of  plant
     tissue grown  on sludge-amended, soils  by  herbivorous
     animals  is  not expected to  pose  a  toxic hazard  due
     to MOCA ingestion.

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

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

b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  that   sludge   is
     applied  over  and  adheres  to growing forage,  or that
     sludge constitutes  5 percent  of   dry  matter  in  the
     grazing  animal's  diet, and  that  pollutant  form  in
     sludge  is  equally  bioavailable  and  toxic  as  form
     used  to demonstrate toxic  effects.  Where  no sludge
     is applied  (i.e.,  0 mt/ha),  assumes diet is  5  per-
     cent soil  as a basis for comparison.
                    3-8

-------
Data Used and Rationale

  i. Sludge concentration of pollutant  (SC)

     Typical  18.0 yg/g  DW
     Worst    86.0 yg/g  DW

     See Section 3, p. 3-1.

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

     Studies  of sludge  adhesion  to  growing forage
     following  applications of  liquid or filter-cake
     sludge  show  that when  3  to  6 mt/ha  of sludge
     solids  is  applied,  clipped  forage  initially
     consists of  up to  30  percent sludge  on a dry-
     weight basis  (Chaney and  Lloyd,  1979;  Boswell,
     1975).   However,  this contamination diminishes
     gradually  with  time and  growth,  and  generally
     is not detected in  the  following year's growth.
     For example,  where pastures  amended at  16  and
     32 mt/ha were  grazed throughout  a growing sea-
     son (168 days),  average  sludge  content  of for-
     age    was    only    2.14   and    4.75 percent,
     respectively (Bertrand et  al.,  1981).   It seems
     reasonable to  assume that  animals  may  receive
     long-term  dietary  exposure to 5  percent sludge
     if maintained  on a forage to  which  sludge  is
     regularly  applied.   This estimate  of  5  percent
     sludge is  used  regardless  of  application rate,
     since  the  above  studies  did not  show  a clear
     relationship between application  rate  and  ini-
     tial  contamination,  and   since  adhesion  is  not
     cumulative yearly because of die-back.

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

iii. Peed  concentration  toxic  to  herbivorous animal
     (TA)  = 125  Ug/g DW

     See Section 3,  p.  3-7.
               3-9

-------
     d.   Index 8 Values


                             Sludge Application Rate (rot/ha)
              Sludge
          Concentration        0        5       50       500
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0072
0.034
0.0072
0.034
0.0072
0.034
     e.   Value  Interpretation  -  Value equals  factor by which
          expected dietary  concentration  exceeds toxic concen-
          tration.   Value  >  1  indicates  a  toxic  hazard  may
          exist for grazing animals.

    'f.   Preliminary Conclusion -  The  consumption of crops to
          which  sludge-amended  soil or  sludge adheres  is  not
          expected  to  pose   a  MOCA   hazard  to  herbivorous
          animals.

Effect on Humans

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

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

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

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

               The  pollutant  concentration  values  used  are
               those  Index  5  values  for  a  human diet  (see
               Section 3, p. 3-6).

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

               Toddler     74.5 g/day
               Adult      205   g/day
                        3-10

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

         iii.  Average daily  human  dietary  intake of pollutant
               (DI) - Data not  immediately available.

          iv.  Cancer potency = 0.325  (mg/kg/day) ~*

               A  potency  estimate  of  0.325   (mg/kg/day)~^  was
               employed by  the  U.S. EPA Office of  Toxic  Sub-
               stances, as  calculated  from  70-year  risk esti-
               mates  presented  in  Table 1 of U.S.  EPA,  1983b.
               (See Section 4, p.  4-3.)

           v.  Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 0.215 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  ug/mg
                          Cancer potency

     d.   Index 9  Values  - Values  were  not  calculated  due  to
          lack of data.

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

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

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

     a.   Explanation  -   Calculates   human  dietary   intake
          expected to result from pollutant  uptake by  domestic
                        3-11

-------
 animals  given  feed  grown  on  sludge-amended  soil
 (crop or pasture land)  but  not  directly contaminated
 by adhering  sludge.   Compares  expected  intake  with
 RSI.

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

 Data Used and Rationale

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

      The  pollutant   concentration   values  used   are
      those  Index  5  values  for an  animal diet  (see
      Section 3,  p.  3-6).

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

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

      Toddler    43.7 g/day
      Adult       88.5 g/day

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

 iv.  Average daily human  dietary intake of pollutant
      (DI) - Data not immediately available.
               3-12

-------
           v.  Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
               0.215 Ug/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-11.

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

     e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

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

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

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

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

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

           i. Animal  tissue  - Data  not  immediately available.

           ii. Sludge  concentration  of pollutant  (SC)
                A
              Typical     18.0 Ug/g  DW
              Worst      86.0 Ug/g  DW

              See Section  3,  p. 3-1.

          iii. Background  concentration  of  pollutant  in soil =
              2.9 yg/g DW

              See Section  3,  p. 3-2.

           iv. Fraction of  animal diet  assumed  to be soil (GS)
              = 5%

              See Section  3,  p. 3-9.


                        3-13

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

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

           Toddler    39.A g/day
           Adult      82.4 g/day

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

      vii. Average   daily   human   dietary   intake   of
           pollutant   (DI)   -   Data   not    immediately
           available.

     viii. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI)  = 0.215 ug/day

           See Section 3, p. 3-11.

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

e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

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

Index of Human Cancer Risk from Soil Ingestion (Index 12)

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

b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes   that   the  pica
     child  consumes  an  average  of  5   g/day  of  sludge-
     amended  soil.    If  the RSI specific  for  a child  is
     not  available,  this index assumes  the  RSI for a  10
     kg  child is  the  same as that  for a 70 kg  adult.   It
     is  thus assumed that  uncertainty  factors used  in
     deriving the  RSI provide  protection  for  the  child,
     taking  into  account  the  smaller body  size and  any
     other differences in sensitivity.
                    3-14

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

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

               See Section  3, p. 3-3.

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

               Pica child    5    g/day
               Adult         0.02 g/day

               The  value  of  5  g/day  for  a pica  child  is a
               worst-case   estimate  employed  by  U.S.  EPA's
               Exposure  Assessment  Group  (U.S.  EPA,  1983a).
               The  value  of  0.02  g/day  for an  adult  is  an
               estimate from U.S. EPA,  1,984.

          iii. Average daily human  dietary intake of pollutant
               (DI) - Data not immediately available.

           iv. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 0.215 ug/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-11.

     d.   Index  12 Values - Values were not  calculated due to
          lack, of data.

     e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

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

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

     a.   Explanation  -   Calculates  the  aggregate  amount  of
          pollutant in the  human diet resulting  from  pathways
          described in Indices  9  to 12.   Compares  this amount
          with RSI.
                                     *
     b.   Assumptions/Limitations - As described  for Indices 9
          to 12.

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

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

     e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

     f.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  Conclusion  was  not  drawn
          because index values  could  not  be calculated.
                        3-15

-------
 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.   The U.S. 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.   The U.S. EPA reserves  the right
     to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.

 IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

     Based on" the recommendations  of  the  experts  at the  OWRS  meetings
     (April-May,   1984),  an assessment  of this reuse/disposal option  is
     not being conducted  at  this  time.   The U.S. EPA reserves  the right
     to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
                                   3-16

-------
                              SECTION 4

   PRELIMINARY  DATA PROFILE  FOR  4,4'-METHYLENE BIS(2-CHLOROANILINE)
                      IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE  SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE

   MOCA is a commercially important curing agent for  Rappaport and
   polymer and epoxy-resin systems containing iso-    Morales, 1978
   cyanates.  Production in 1972 estimated at 3.3     (p. 19)
   million kg.

   A.  Sludge

       1.  Frequency of Detection

           Data not immediately available.

       2.  Concentration

           Sludge samples from Adrian, .MI             U.S.  EPA, 1980
           (MOCA production plant nearby) in          (p.  12)
           1979 contained MOCA as follows:

           Return sludge - 0.006 Ug/g
           Digested sludge - 1.70 Ug/g
           Sludge (DW)  - 18.00 Ug/g
           Sludge (DW)  - 86.00 Ug/g

           Activated sludge,  Adrian,  MI,               Parris  et al.,
           18.0 Ug/g (DW)                             1980  (p. 500)

   B.  Soil - Unpolluted

       1.  Frequency of Detection

           Data not immediately available.

           However, it  is known that  herbicide-        Hsu and Bartna,
           derived  chloroaniline residues  are          1974  (p.  444)
           immobilized  by physical  adsorption  to
           both the organic  and the inorganic
           fraction of  the soil as  well as by
           chemical binding  to the  soil organic
           matter and that this binding greatly
           increases  their persistence in  the
           environment.

       2.  Concentration

           In  Adrian, MI,  levels  of MOCA  in            U.S. EPA, 1980
           various  soils  in  1979  were as               (p. 13)
           follows:
                                4-1

-------
        Adrian roads, surface soil -
          <0.05-590  ug/g  (WW)
        Garden soil from homes near MOCA
        plant -
          0.08-2.90 ug/g (surface)
          0.02-0.86 Ug/g (2-6 in. subsurface)
          0.01-0.07 ug/g (6-10 in. subsurface)

        Adrian roads, surface -
          13 ug/g (WW) (near MOCA plant)
          2.1 Ug/g (WW) (1 mile from MOCA plant)

        Soil half-life = 5.3 years

    Water - Unpolluted

    1.  Frequency of Detection

        Data not immediately available.

    2.  Concentration

        a.  Freshwater

            In Adrian, MI, levels of MOCA
            in various waters in 1979 were
            as follows:
            Industrial Site -
              deep well water
              surface runoff
            Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) -
              effluent water
            Raisin River Water (near STP
            outfall)

        b.  Seawater

            Data not immediately available.

        c.  Drinking water

            Data not immediately available.

D.  Air

    1.  Frequency of detection

        Data not immediately available.
      Versar,  1980
      Parris  et  al.,
      1980 (p.  500)
Ug/L
 1.5
 1.0

<0.5
                              4-2

-------
 2.   Concentration

     In Adrian,  MI,  Levels  of  MOCA in
     the air near  the  MOCA  plant  in 1979'
     were  A.57  Ug/m^ (method not cited)
    E.  Food

        1.  Total Average Intake

            Data not immediately available.

        2.  Concentration

            In Adrian, MI, thoroughly washed
            samples of onion tops and bulbs,
            zucchini, and radishes from contami-
            nated gardens showed no evidence of
            MOCA residues.

II. HUMAN EFFECTS

    A.  Ingestion

        1.  Carcinogenicity

                   Qualitative Assessment
    a.
            b.
           Sufficient evidence in three
           animal species; tumor induction
           at several sites.

           Potency

           A potency estimate of 0.325
           (mg/kg/day)"^ was employed by
           the U.S. EPA Office of Toxic
           Substances as calculated from
           70-year risk estimate presented
           in Table 1 of U.S. EPA, 1983b.

           Effects

           Malignant lung adenocarcinomas,
           primary lung neoplasms, mammary
           adenocarcinomas, hepatocellular
           carcinomas and Zymbal gland car-
           cinomas were found in rats.
2.  Chronic Toxicity

    Data not presented since carcinogenic
    potency will  be used to assess hazard.
                                                       U.S. EPA, 1980
                                                       (p. 14)
                                               U.S.  EPA,  1980
                                               (p. 36)
                                                       U.S.  EPA,  1983b
                                                       (p.  15)
                                                       U.S.EPA,  1983b
                                                       (p.  17)
                                                      U.S. EPA,  1983b
                                                      (p. 20)
                          4-3

-------
B.
3.  Absorption FactOT

    Data not immediately available.

4.  Existing Regulations

    "MOCA is an animal carcinogen and has
    been banned in food and food-contact
    surfaces by the FDA."

Inhalation
    1.
    Carcinogenicity

           Qualitative assessment
        a.
        c.
           Not tested for carcinogenicity by
           inhalation route.  Some indica-
           tion of bladder cancer from occu-
           pational exposure in humans.

           Potency

           Not derived for inhalation route.
           However, the U.S. EPA Office of
           Toxic  Substances has employed the
           oral potency value to estimate
           risk, of human inhalation exposure,
           assuming 100 percent absorption of
           inhaled MOCA.

           Effects

           Not tested in animals by the
           inhalation route.  Possible
           bladder cancer in humans.
2.  Chronic Toxicity

    Data not  immediately available.

3.  Absorption  Factor

    Assumed to  be  100 percent.


4.  Existing  Regulations

    Manufacture temporarily banned by State
    of Michigan in  1979.
                                                   Parris et al.,
                                                   1980 (p. 497)
                                                   U.S. EPA, 1983b
                                                   (p. 11, 14)
                                                   U.S. EPA, 1983b
                                                   (p. 17)
                                                   U.S. EPA, 1983b
                                                   (p. 11, 14)
                                                   U.S. EPA, 1983b
                                                   (p. 17)
                                                   U.S. EPA, 1983b
                                                   (p. 3)
                              4-4

-------
III. PLANT  EFFECTS

     A.  Phytotoxicity

         Data not immediately available.

     B.  Uptake

         In Adrian, MI, thoroughly washed samples of    U.S. EPA,  1980
         onion tops and bulbs, zucchini, and radishes   (p. 36)
         from contaminated gardens showed no evidence
         of MOCA residues.

 IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS

     A.  Toxicity

         LD50:     750 Ug/kg (oral) - rats              U.S. EPA,  1981
                  5000 Ug/kg (dermal) - rabbits         (p. 8)

         Lowest-observed-adverse-effect levels          U.S. EPA,  1981
         (LOAEL) for tumors                             (pp. 9-11)
         Mice:  200 ppm (diet)
         Rats:  500 ppm (diet)
         Dogs:  8 to 15 pg/kg/day (oral)
         Rats:  25.0 ppm (protein adequate diet)
                125 ppm (protein inadequate diet)

     B.  Uptake

         Data not immediately available.

  V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS

     Data not immediately available.

 VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS

     Data not immediately available.

VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT

     Molecular wt:     267                               Rappaport and
     Density:         1.44 g/mL at  24°C                  Morales,  1978
     Melting point:    100 to  109°C                       (p.  19-20)
     Vapor pressure:   3.7 x 10~6 mm Hg  at  20"C
                      5.1 x 10~6 mm Hg at 30°C

     Soil half-life:   5.3 years                          Versar,  1980
                                   4-5

-------
                                 SECTION  5

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

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

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

Hsu,  T.,  and   R.   Bartha.   1974.     Interaction   of  Pesticide-Derived
     Chloroaniline  Residues  with  Soil  Organic  Matter.   Soil  Science
     116(6):444-452.

Parris,  G.  E.,   G.  W.   Diachenko,  R. C.  Entz  et  al.  1980.   Waterborne
     Methylene  Bis(2-Chloroaniline)  and  2-Chloroaniline  Contamination
     Around   Adrian,   Michigan.     Bull.   Environ.  Contam.   Toxicol.
     24:497-503.

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

Rappaport, S.  M., and  R.  Morales. 1978.   Air-Sampling and  Analytical
     Method  for   4,4-Methylene  Bis(2-Chloroaniline).   Analytical  Chem.
     51(1): 19-23.

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

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

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.    1980.   Potential Health  Effects
     from Persistent Organics in Wastewater  and  Sludges  Used for  Land
     Application.    EPA   600/1-80-025.   U.S   Environmental   Protection
     Agency,  Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.    1981.   Chemical  Hazard  Informa-
     tion Profile: 4,4*  Methylene  Bis(2-Chloroaniline).   Draft  Report.
     Environmental Criteria and  Assessment Office.   U.S.  Environmental
     Protection  Agency,  Cincinnati,  OH.   February  8.
                                   5-1

-------
                               APPENDIX

     PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR 4,4'-METHYLENE BIS
             (2-CHLOROANILINE) IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

   A.  Effect on Soil Concentration of 4,4'-Methylene Bis
       (2-Chloroani 1 ine )

       1.  Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)

           a.  Formula

                     (SC x AR) + (BS x MS)
            -   G!SS ~        AR -f MS
               CSr = CSS  [1 +  0.5

               where:

                    CSS = Soil  concentration  of   pollutant   after  a
                          single    year's    application    of    sludge
                          (Ug/g DW)
                    CSr = Soil  concentration  of  pollutant  after  the
                          yearly   application   of   sludge  has   been
                          repeated for n + 1 years (ug/g DW)
                    SC  = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
                    AR  = Sludge application rate (mt/ha)
                    MS  = 2000  mt   ha/DW  =  assumed mass   of  soil  in
                          upper 15 cm
                    BS  = Background  concentration  of  pollutant   in
                          soil (ug/g DW)
                    t^.  = Soil half-life of pollutant (years)
                    n   = 99 years

           b.   Sample calculation

               CSS is calculated for AR = 0,  5, and  50  mt/ha only


   •»  ai7ft«flA  ., /  TMJ - (18 Ug/g DW x 5 mt/ha) + (2.9 ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
   2. 93765586  Ug/g DW -               (J mj./ha  QW +  200Q mt/ha  ^


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


   23.9629350  ug/g DW = 2.93765586 ug/g DW [1 + 0.5(1/5'3) +

                        0.5(2/5'3)  + ...  + 0.5(99/5-3)]
                                 A-l

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

    1.  Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)

        a.  Formula

                      1^
            Index 2 = —


            where:

                 I±  = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
                       sludge-amended soil (pg/g DW)
                 TB  = Soil  concentration   toxic  to   soil   biota
                       (yg/g DW)

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

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

        a.  Formula

            T  ,   ,   *1 x UB
            Index 3 = —~	


            where:

                 II  = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
                       sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
                 UB  = Uptake  factor  of pollutant  in  soil  biota
                       (yg/g tissue DW  [ug/g  soil  DW]"1)
                 TR  = Feed  concentration toxic  to  predator  (ug/g
                       DW)

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

C.  Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

    1.  Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)

        a.  Formula


            Index 4 = —
            where:
                 II  = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
                       sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
                 TP  = Soil concentration toxic to plants (yg/g DW)
                              A-2

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

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

        a.  Formula

            Index 5 = Ii x UP

            where:

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

        b.  Sample Calculation

            0 Ug/g  DW  =  2.9 Ug/g DW x  0 ug/g tissue  DW  (ug/g soil
            DW)'1

    3.  Index   of   Plant   Concentration  Increment   Permitted   by
        Phytotoxicity (Index 6)

        a.  Formula

            Index 6 = PP

            where:

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

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

D.  Effect on Herbivorous Animals

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

        a.  Formula


            Index 7 =
            where:
                 15   = Index  5   =  Concentration  of   pollutant   in
                       plant grown in sludge-amended soil  (ug/g DW)
                 TA   = Feed  concentration   toxic   to  herbivorous
                       animal  (ug/g DW)
                              A-3

-------
        b.  Sample calculation

                   n -  0  Ug/g DW
                     " 125 Ug/g DW

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

        a.  Formula

            If AR = 0; Index 8=0

                                  SC  x  GS
            If AR £ 0;  Index  8  =
                                    TA
            where:
                 AR  = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)      :
                 SC  = Sludge concentration of pollutant (yg/g DW)
                 GS  = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
                 TA  = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
                       animal (ug/g DW)
        b.  Sample calculation

            If AR = 0; Index 8=0

            I£ a , „ 0.0072 . iB
E.  Effect on Humans

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

        a.  Formula

                      (I5  x  DT)  + DI
            Index 9 = - — -


            where:

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

        b.  Sample   calculation   (toddler)   -   Values,  were   not
            calculated due to lack of data.
                              A-4

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

    a.  Formula

                    (15  x UA x DA) + DI
        Index 10 =  	_	


        where:

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

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

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

   " a.  Formula
        _. AD    .   _  ,    ..        (BS  x GS x  UA x  DA) + DI
        If AR  = 0;  Index  11 =  	—	
                                           KbJL

        _, AD   , n   ,  ,    .,       (SC x  GS  x UA x DA) + DI
        If AR  f 0;  Index  11 =


        where:

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

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

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

    a.  Formula

                    (Ii  x  DS)  + DI
                        RSI

        where:

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

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

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

    a.  Formula

                                               3DI
        Index 13 =  Ig  +  I10  +  In  + Ij.2 ~ (    RSI

        where:

             Ig  =  Index   9 =  Index  of  human  toxicity/cancer
                    risk   resulting   from   plant   consumption
                    (unitless)
                 =  Index  10 =  Index  of  human  toxicity/cancer
                    risk  resulting  from  consumption  of  animal
                    products  derived  from  animals  feeding  on
                    plants (unitless)
                 =  Index 11  =  Index  of  human  toxicity/cancer
                    risk  resulting  from  consumption  of  animal
                    products  derived  from  animals  ingesting soil
                    (unitless)
                 =  Index 12  =  Index  of  human  toxicity/cancer
                    risk    resulting    from    soil    ingestion
                    (unitless)
             DI  =  Average   daily   human   dietary   intake   of
                    pollutant (yg/day)
             RSI =  Cancer risk-specific intake ~(yg/day)

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

-------
 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.   The U.S. 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.   The U.S. EPA  reserves  the right
     to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.

 IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

     Based on  the  recommendations  of  the experts  at  the  OWRS  meetings
     (April-May, 1984),  an assessment of  this reuse/disposal option  is
     not being conducted at  this  time.   The U.S. EPA  reserves the right
     to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
                                  A-7

-------