United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Water
                June, 1985
Environmental Profiles
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents
                 •^
of Municipal Sludge:
Pentachlorophenol

-------
                                  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 OP CONTENTS


                                                                     Page

PREFACE	   i

1.  INTRODUCTION	  1-1

2.  PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR PENTACHLOROPHENOL
      IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE	  2-1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 	  2-1

    Landf illing	  2-2

    Incineration	  2-2 •

    Ocean Disposal	  2-2

3.  PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR PENTACHLOROPHENOL,
      IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE	\	  3-1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 	  3-1

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

    Landf illing	  3-17

    Incineration ..	  3-17

    Ocean Disposal 	  3-17

         Index of seawater concentration resulting  from
           initial mixing of sludge (Index 1) 	  3-18
         Index of seawater concentration representing a
           24-hour dumping cycle (Index 2) 	  3-21
         Index of toxicity to aquatic life (Index 3) 	  3-22
         Index of human toxicity resulting from seafood
           consumption (Index 4)	  3-24
                                   11

-------
                            TABLE OP CONTENTS
                               (Continued)
                                                                     Page
4v  PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR PENTACHLOROPHENOL
      IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE	  4-1

    Occurrence 	  4-1

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

    Human Effects 	.	  4-3

         Ingestion	  4-3
         Inhalation 	  4-4

    Plant Effects	  4-4

         Phytotoxicity	  4-4
         Uptake	  4-4

    Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 	  4-4

         Toxicity	  4-4
         Uptake	.......;		  4-5

    Aquatic Life Effects 	..	  4-5

         Toxicity	  4-5
         Uptake	  4-5

    Soil Biota Effects 	  4-6

         Toxicity	  4-6
         Uptake 	  4-6

    Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 	  4-6

5.  REFERENCES	  5-1

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

-------
                                SECTION 2

              PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR PENTACHLOROPHENOL
                       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 Pentachlorophenol

          The landspreading  of municipal  sewage sludge  is  expected  to
          result  in  slight  increases of  PCP concentration  in  amended
          soils  (see Index 1).

     B.   Effect on Soil  Biota And Predators of Soil Biota

          PCP concentrations in sludge-amended soils  are not  expected  to
          pose a toxic hazard to soil biota  (see Index  2).  As  a result,
          soil  biota inhabiting  sludge-amended soils  are  unlikely  to
          concentrate sufficient  PCP in  their  tissue  to  pose a  toxic
          hazard to their predators  (see  Index 3).

     C.   Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

          Phytotoxic effects  of PCP  on  plants  grown  in  sludge-amended
          soils  were not  determined due  to  a  lack  of data (see Indices
          4  and   6).     There   may  be  a   slight   increase  of   PCP
          concentrations   in  plants  consumed by  animals and  humans  (see
          Index  5).

     D.   Effect on Herbivorous Animals

          Forage  plants  grown  in  sludge-amended  soil  are  unlikely  to
          concentrate sufficient  PCP in  their tissues  to  pose a  toxic
          hazard  to herbivorous  animals  (see  Index  7).    Also,  the
          expected dietary  intake  of  PCP by  animals ingesting  sludge-
          amended  soils   while  grazing   is   unlikely  to   exceed   toxic
          concentrations  (see Index  8).

     E.   Effect on Humans

          The expected dietary  intake of PCP  due  to  the consumption  of
          edible plants grown on  sludge-amended  soil  is not  expected  to
         .pose a  human health  risk (see Index 9).   Direct ingestion  of
          sludge-amended  soil is unlikely to result in a PCP  health  risk
          to  toddlers   or  adults  (see   Index   12).      Conclusions
          concerning human  health  risk   resulting  from  consumption  of
          animal products derived  from animals  feeding  on plants  grown
                                   2-1

-------
          on sludge-amended soil, and aggregate human  toxicity risk were
          not drawn because index values  could not be calculated  due to
          lack of data (see Indices  10,  11,  and 13).

 II. LAMDPILLIHG

     Based  on  the recommendations  of the  experts at  the OWRS  meeting
     (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  meeting
     (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  ah assessment  for this  option in  the future.

 IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

     No significant increases of PCP levels in seawater  around disposal
     sites  are  expected as a result of sludge disposal (see  Index  1).
     Similarly, only slight increases  in  the PCP concentration occur at
     the typical site after a  24-hour dumping cycle (see  Index 2).

     No toxic conditions for aquatic life are  expected due to  PCP  in  the
     area  of  a  disposal   site.    Only  slight  incremental  increases  in
     hazard  occur unde-r  the  scenarios  evaluated  (see  Index 3).    No
     increase  in  human health  risks were  determined  to be  associated
     with PCP  when municipal  sewage sludge-  is  disposed  of in  the. ocean-
     (see Index 4). '                 •                         •     '
                                   2-2

-------
                                SECTION 3

             PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES. FOR PENTACHLOROPHENOL
                        IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I.   LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

     A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of Pentachlorophenol

          1.   Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)

           ~~   a.   Explanation -  Calculates concentrations  in Mg/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    0.0865 Ug/g  DW
                         Worst     30.434  Ug/g  DW
                                   3-1

-------
                    The  typical  and  worst  concentrations  are  the
                    mean   and   95th    percentile,    respectively,
                    statistically derived  from  sludge  concentration
                    data presented by U.S. EPA,  1982.   (See Section
                    4, p. 4-2.)

                ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil   ~
                    (BS) = 0.0 Ug/g DW

                    Data  are  not   immediately  available  on  soil
                    background concentrations of POP.   To calculate
                    Index 1,  the  background soil concentration  was
                    assumed to be 0 Ug/g DW.

               iii. Soil half-life of pollutant (tp = 0.0548 years

                    In  soil  microcosm  studies,  48  percent of  the
                    applied PCP persisted  20 days after application
                    (Cole and  Metcalf,  1980).    (See Section 4,  p.
                    4-6.)

          d.   Index 1 Values (yg/g DW)


                                   Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
0
0.0
0.0
5
0.00022
0.076
50
0.0021
0.74 '
500
0.00022
0.076
          e.   Value  Interpretation -  Value  equals  the  expected
               concentration in sludge-amended  soil.

          f.   Preliminary  Conclusion   -  The   landspreading   of
               municipal   sewage  sludge  is expected  to  result  in
               slight  increases  of  PCP  concentration  in  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.
                              3-2

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

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

               See Section 3, p. 3-2.

           ii. Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (TB) =
               40.0 Ug/g DW

               Oxygen uptake  by nitrifying  soil  bacteria  was
               reduced  by  50  percent   in   the  presence  of
               40 ug/g PCP  (Hale  et al., 1957).   (See  Section
               4, p. 4-10.)

     d.   Index 2 Values


                             Sludge Application Rate Cmt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
0
0.0
0.0
5
0.0000054
0.0019
50
0.000053
0.019
500
0.0000054
0.0019
     e.   Value Interpretation -  Value equal? factor  by which
          expected soil concentration  exceeds  toxic  concentra-
          tion.  Value >  1 indicates a toxic  hazard  may exist
          for soil biota.                                 •

     f.   Preliminary  Conclusion   -  PCP  concentrations   in
          sludge-amended  soils and  are not expected  to  pose  a
          toxic hazard to  soil biota.

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

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

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

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

               See Section 3, p.  3-2.


                        3-3

-------
             \iŁ.  Uptake factor of pollutant  in soil biota (UB) =
                    6.2 yg/g tissue DW (yg/g  soil  DW)"1
                x
                    In  a  soil  microcosm  study,  five  terrestrial
                    invertebrate species were exposed to  POP (Gile
                    et  al.,  1982).    Of. the  five exposed species,
                    worms  exhibited 'the highest  uptake  factor  for
                    the compound.   The  uptake factor  for  worms  was
                    chosen  because   it   represents   a   worst-case
                    value.  (See Section 4, p. 4-11.)

               iii. Feed  concentration   tozic  to predator   (TR)  =
                    50.0 yg/g DW

                    Data on the effects  of PCP  on typical predators
                    of  soil  biota were  not   immediately  available.
                    In  a  90-day  feeding  study,   rats fed   a  diet
                    containing  50   yg/g  DW  exhibited   elevated
                    hematocrits,    increased     hemoglobin,     and
                    increased liver weights.  Concentrations  of  PCP
                    below 50 yg/g DW had no effect (Knudson  et al.,
                    1974).   This  value  is  conservative because  it
                    is   the   lowest  feed   concentration  of   PCP
                    required  to produce  adverse   effects  in rats.
                    (See Section 4,  p. 4-9.)

          d.   Index 3 Values


                                  Sludge  Application  Rate  (mt/ha)
                   Sludge
               Concentration        0          5        50        500
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.000027
0.0094
0.00026
0.092
0.000027
0.0094
          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   -   Soil  biota   inhabiting
               sludge-amended  soils  are  unlikely   to   concentrate
               sufficient  PCP   in   their   tissue  to  pose  a  toxic
               hazard to their  predators.

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.
                              3-4

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

 c.    Data Used and Rationale

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

          See Section 3,  p.  3-2.

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

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

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

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

 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. 3-2.
                    3-5

-------
          ii.  Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue (UP)
     d.
Diet
Human
          Animal Diet:
          Rye grass   2.8  Ug/g  tissue  DW (ug/g soil DW)"1

          Human Diet:           —.
          Rice grain  0.35 Ug/g  tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)"1

          In a  soil  microcosm study,  rye  grass  exhibited
          an uptake  factor  of 2.8  for PCP (Gile  et  al.,
          1982).   Corn  plants  grown  in soil dosed  with
          PCP  exhibited  uptake  factor  in  the leaves  of
          0.81  (Lu -et al.,  1978).   The rye  grass uptake
          factor represents a worst-case value for forage
          plants.     Weiss   et  al.   (1982a,b)   reported
          radioactive  residues  of  4   ppm  in   rice  grains
          grown  on   plots  amended  with ^C-labeled  pep.
          Uptake  factor  was   based  on  reported  tissue
          concentration   and   application   rate.      (See
          Section 4,  p. 4-8.)

     Index 5 Values (pg/g DW)

                        Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
       '  Sludge
      Concentration       05         50       500
Animal
Typical
Worst
0.0
' 0.0
0.00060
0.21
0.0059
2.1 .
0.00060
0.21
        Typical
        Worst
0.0
0.0
0.000076
0.027
0.00074
0.26
0.000076
0.027
f.
          Value  Interpretation  -  Value  equals  the  expected
          concentration in  tissues  of plants grown  in  sludge-
          amended  soil.     However,   any  value  exceeding  the
          value  of  Index 6 for the  same or  a similar  plant
          species may be unrealistically  high  because  it  would
          be precluded by phytoxicity.

          Preliminary  Conclusion  -  There  may  be  a  slight
          increase of PCP concentrations  in  plants  consumed by
          animals and humans.
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
                         3-6

-------
               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.

          c.   Data Used and  Rationale

               i.   Maximum  plant  tissue  concentration  associated
                    with phytoxicity  (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.
                              3-7

-------
     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. Peed concentration  toxic to herbivorous  animal
               (TA) = 491.0 ug/g DW

               Female  yearling  cattle  fed  a  diet  containing
               491  Ug/g  technical  grade  PCP  for  118  days
               exhibited  reduced   weight   gain  and   feeding
               efficiency,   and    increased    liver   weights
               (McConnell  et al.,  1980).   McConnell  et  al.'
               (1980)  also   reported  that   female  yearling
               cattle  fed  a  diet  containing   analytical  grade
               PCP at  647  Ug/g DW  for  only 42  days exhibited
               minimal adverse  effects.   (See  Section  4,  p.
               4-9.)

     d.   Index 7 Values


                             Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
              Sludge
          Concentration      0        5          50        500
Typical"
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0000012
0.00043
0.000012
0.0042
0.0000012
0.00043
     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   -  Forage  plants   grown  in
          sludge-amended  soil  are  unlikely  to  concentrate
          sufficient  PCP in  their  tissues  to  pose  a  toxic
          hazard to herbivorous animals.

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

     a.   Explanation -  Calculates  the amount of pollutant  in
          a  grazing  animal's  diet  resulting  from  sludge
          adhesion  to  forage  or  from  incidental ingestion  of
          "sludge-amended  soil  and  compares  this   with   the
          dietary toxic  threshold  concentration  for   a  grazing
          animal.
                         3-8

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

c.   Data Used and Rationale

       i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

          Typical    0.0865  Ug/g DW
          Worst     30.434  yg/g DW

          See Section 3,  p.	.
      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
                    3-9

-------
               these scenarios, whether  forage  is harvested or
               grazed in the field.

          iii. Feed  concentration  toxic to  herbivorous animal
               (TA) = 491 pg/g DW

               See Section 3, p. 3-8.

     d.   Index 8 Values
                             Sludge Application- Rate (mt/ha)
              Sludge
          Concentration     0          5         50         500

             Typical       0.0     0.0000088  0.0000082   0.0000082
             Worst         0.0     0.0031     0.0031      0.0031
     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  expected  dietary intake
          of  PCP   by animals   ingesting  sludge-amended  soils
          while   grazing   is   unlikely   to   exceed   toxic
          concentrations.

Effect on Humans                  .

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

     a.   Explanation -  Calculates  dietary intake  expected  to
          result  from  consumption  of  crops  grown on  sludge-
          amended   soil.    Compares dietary  intake  with  the
          acceptable daily intake (ADI) 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).
                        3-10

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

      Toddler     74.5 g/day
      Adult      205   g/day

      The  intake  value for adults  is  based  on  daily
      intake  of  crop   foods   (excluding   fruit)  by
      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  (1984b).   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)

      Toddler    0.326
      Adult      0.987

      Total diet  studies did  not  detect  PCP in  the
      diet of  adults  in  FY  1978  (FDA,  1979).    PCP
      residues were  detected  sporadically  between  FY
      1976 and  1977.    The daily dietary  intake  (DI)
      of PCP  is  based-  on the  mean  value  of  the.  FDA
      Total   Relative    Daily   Intake    (ug/'kg/body-
      weight/day) for  'PCP between  1975 and  1977  of
      0.0141  Ug/kg  body  weight/day.    An  adult  body
      weight of  70  kg  is  assumed  for  determining  DI
      from FDA data  or  0.987  Ug/day.  Toddler intake
      is assumed to  be  33 percent  of the  adult  value
      or 0.326 Ug/day.  (See Section 4,  p.  4-3.)

 iv.  Acceptable  daily intake  of  pollutant   (ADI)  =
      2100 Ug/day

      An ADI  of  2100 Ug/day was  derived by  the  U.S.
      EPA  (1980)  based  on studies  showing a  NOEL  of
      3 mg/kg/day in rats.  The effect   of  concern  in
      these   studies   was    teratogenicity.       An
      uncertainty  factor  of   100   was   applied   in
      calculation of the  human ADI.   (See  Section  4,
      p.  4-3.)
               3-11

-------
     d.   Index 9 Values
          Group
   Sludge
Concentration
     Sludge Application
        Rate (rot/ha)

          5       50
500
          Toddler   Typical
                    Worst
          Adult
  Typical
  Worst
0.00016  0.00016 0.00018  0.00016
0.0016   0.0011  0.0094   0.0011

0.00047  0.00048 0.00054  0.00048
0.00047  0.0031  0.026    0.0031
     e.   Value Interpretation  -  Value equals  factor  by which
          expected intake exceeds  ADI.   Value  >  1  indicates a
          possible human  health threat.   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 -  The  expected dietary intake
          of PGP due  to the  consumption of  edible plants grown
          on  sludge-amended  soil  is not  expected  to  pose  a
          human health risk.

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

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

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes   that  all  animal
          products are  from  animals  receiving all their  feed
          from  sludge-amended  soil.  Assumes  that all  animal
          products  consumed   take   up  the   pollutant   at   the
          highest  rate  observed  for muscle  of  any  commonly
          •consumed species  or at  the  rate  observed  for  beef
          liver  or  dairy   products  (whichever   is   higher).
          Divides  possible  variations  in dietary  intake  into
          two categories:   toddlers (18 months  to 3 years)  and
          individuals  over 3  years  old.
                        3-12

-------
 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.

      Parker  et al.  (1980)  reported  terminal  serum
      PCP concentrations  of  33  to 77  ppm in  cattle
      fed  a  diet  containing  491  Ug/g  PCP  for  160
      days.   However,  the relationship between  serum
      and   tissue   concentrations    is   not    well
      understood.   Therefore,  an uptake factor  could
      not be estima-ted.

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
      meat, fish,  poultry,  eggs and  milk  products,
      are  derived  from  the  FDA Revised  Total .Diet
      (Penningtori,   1983),  food  groupings  listed  by
      the U.S.  EPA (1984b)  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)

      Toddler     0.326  Ug/day
      Adult      0.987  yg/day

      See Section 3,  p.  3-11.

  v.  Acceptable daily  intake  of  pollutant  (ADI) =
      2100 ug/day

      See Section 3,  p.  3-11.
               3-13

-------
     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  Toxicity  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 ADI.

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

     c..   Data Used and Rationale             .      •  .

            i. Animal tissue - Data not immediately available.

           ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

               Typical    0.0865 yg/g DW
               Worst     30.434  Ug/g DW

               See Section 3,  p. 3-1.

          iii. Background   concentration of  pollutant   in  soil
               (BS) = 0.0  yg/g DW

               See Section 3,  p. 3-2.

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

               See Section 3,  p. 3-9.

            v. Uptake  factor  of   pollutant  in  animal  tissue
               (UA) - Data not immediately available.
                        3-14

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

                Toddter,    39.4 g/day
                Adult  x   82.4 g/day

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

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

                Toddler     0.326 pg/day
                Adult      0.987 yg/day

                See Section 3,  p.  3-11.

          viii.  Acceptable daily  intake  of pollutant  (ADI)  =
                2100 Ug/day          .

                See Section 3,  p.  3-11.

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

      e.    Value Interpretation -  Same as  for Index  9.

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

4.    Index of Human Toxicity 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  ADI.

      b.    Assumptions/Limitations   -  Assumes   that  the   pica
           child  consumes  an  average   of  5  g/day of  sludge-
           amended soil.   If an ADI specific for a child is not
           available,  this index  assumes  the  ADI  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  ADI  provide  protection for the child,
           taking into  account  the smaller body size  and any
           other differences  in sensitivity.

                         3-15

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

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

          See Section 3, p. 3-2.

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

          Pica child    5    g/day
          Adult         0.02 g/day

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

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

          Toddler    0.326 Ug/day
          Adult      0.987 Ug/day

          See Section 3, p. 3-11.

      iv. Acceptable daily intake  of pollutant  (ADI)  =
         . 2100 Ug/day

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

d.   Index 12 Values
                                    Sludge Application
                                       Rate (mt/ha)
                  Sludge
Group
Toddler
Adult
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0
0
0
0
.00016
.00016
.00047
.00047

0
0
0
0
5
.00016
.00034
.00047
.00047

0.
0.
0.
0.
50
00016
0019
00047
00048

0
0
0
0
500
.00016
.00034
.00047
.00047
e.   Value Interpretation - Same as'for Index 9.

f.   Preliminary Conclusion - Direct  ingest ion of  sludge-
     amended soil  is  unlikely to result  in  a PCP  health
     risk to toddlers  or adults.
                   3-16

-------
          S.   Index of Aggregate Human Toxicity (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 ADI.

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

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

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

               e.   Value Interpretation - Same as  for Index 9.

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

II.  LAHDFILLING

     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

     For  the  purpose  of  evaluating  pollutant   effects  upon   and/or
     subsequent uptake  by  marine life  as a result  of  sludge  disposal,
     two types  of  mixing were modeled.   The  initial  mixing or  dilution
     shortly after dumping of a single load of  sludge represents  a high,
     pulse concentration  to which  organisms  may  be  exposed  for  short
     time periods  but which  could  be repeated  frequently;  i.e.,  every
     time a  recently dumped plume  is  encountered.   A  subsequent  addi-
     tional  degree  of mixing  can be  expressed by a further  dilution.
     This is  defined  as the  average  dilution  occurring when  a  day's
     worth of  sludge is dispersed  by  24  hours  of  current movement  and
     represents  the  time-weighted  average- exposure  concentration  for
     organisms in the disposal area.  This dilution accounts for  8 to 12
     hours of the  high  pulse concentration encountered by the  organisms
     during  daylight disposal operations  and 12 to 16 hours of  recovery
     (ambient  water  concentration)  during  the  night  when   disposal
     operations are suspended.
                                  3-17

-------
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 Nixing
     of Sludge (Index 1)

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

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

     3.   Data Used and Rationale

          a.   Disposal conditions

                          Sludge          Sludge'Mass         Length
                          Disposal     '    bumped 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
                             3-18

-------
     discharge the  sludge over 7902 m  and  exit  the site.
     The mean path  length for  the large and small tankers
     is 8041 m  or  approximately  8000  m.    Path  length is
     assumed  to   lie  perpendicular  to  the direction  of
     prevailing  current  flow.  For  the typical  disposal
     rate (SS) of  825  mt DW/day, it is  assumed  that this
     would  be  accomplished by  a  mixture of  four 3400 mt
     WW and four  1600 mt  WW  capacity barges.   The overall
     daily  disposal operation- would  last  from  8  to  12
     hours.    For  the  worst-case disposal  rate  (SS)  of
     1650 mt DW/day,  eight 3400  mt  WW and eight  1600 mt
     WW capacity  barges would  be utilized.   The overall
     daily  disposal operation  would  last  from  8  to  12
     hours.     For  both  disposal rate  scenarios,  there
     would be a 12  to 16  hour  period at night  in which no
     sludge  would  be dumped.   It  is  assumed that  under
     the  above   described  disposal   operation,   sludge
     dumping would occur every day of the year.

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

b.   Sludge  concentration of pollutant  (SC)
                     »T»                .         '
   '  Typical    0.0865 mg/kg DW
     Worst     30.434  mg/kg DW

     See Section 3, p.  3-1.

c.   Disposal site characteristics

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

     Typical      20 m             9500 m/day
     Worst         5 m             4320 m/day
     Typical site  values are  representative  of a  large,
     deep-water  site  with   an area  of  about  1500  km^
     located beyond the  continental shelf in  the New York
     Bight.  The pycnocline value  of  20 m  chosen  is  the
     average of  the  10  to  30 m  pycnocline  depth  range
     occurring  in  the  summer  and  fall; the  winter  and
     spring disappearance of the pycnocline is  not  consi-
     dered and  so  represents  a  conservative  approach  in
                   3-19

-------
           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  (COM,
           1984a).

           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,  1984b).

4.    Factors Considered  in Initial Nixing

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

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

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

      Thus   the  volume  of   initial  mixing   is defined  by  the
      tanker path,  a  200 m width, and  a depth  appropriate  to
      the  site.   For  the typical (deep  water)  site, this  depth
      is chosen as  the pycnocline value of 20 m.   For  the  worst
      (shallow  water)  site,  a value  of 10  m was   chosen.   At
      times  the  pycnocline  may be as  shallow as  5  m,  but  since
      the  barge wake  causes initial   mixing  to  at  least  10 m,
      the greater value was  used.
                         3-20

-------
     5.   Index 1 Values (ug/L)
               Disposal
               Conditions and
               Site Charac-     Sludge
               teristics    Concentration
                  Sludge Disposal
                  Rate (mt DW/day) .
               Worst
                        825
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0015
0.52
                1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.00017
0,061
0.00017
0.061
0.0015
0.52
     6.   Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected increase
          in PCP  concentration  in seawater  around  a disposal  site
          as a result of sludge disposal  after initial  mixing.

     7.   Preliminary Conclusion - No significant increases of .PCP
          levels in  seawater.  around  disposal sites  are  expected  as
          a result of sludge disposal.

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

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

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

     3.   Data Used and Rationale

          See Section 3,  pp.  3-18 to  3-20.
                             3-21

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

          See Section 3, p. 3-21.

     5.   Index 2 Values (Ug/L)
               Disposal               x
               Conditions and
               Site Charac-    Sludge
               teristics    Concentration
                      Sludge Disposal
                      Jlate (mt DW/day)
                     0
        825
          1650
               Typical
               Worst
    Typical
    Worst

    Typical
    Worst
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.000047
0.016

0.00041 '
0.14
0.000094
0.033

0.00082
0.29
     6.   Value  Interpretation   -  Value   equals   the   effective
          increase   in   PCP  concentration   expressed   as  a   TWA
          concentration   in  seawater   around  a   disposal   site
          experienced  by an organism over a 24-hour  period.

     7.   Preliminary  Conclusion - Only  slight  increases  in  the PCP
          concentration occur at  the typical  site  after  a  24-hour
          dumping cycle.

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

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

          Wherever  a  short-term,  "pulse" exposure may  occur as  it
          would from  initial mixing,  it is usually evaluated using
          the
                maximum
criteria  values   of  EPA's  ambient  water
          quality  criteria  methodology.     However,  under   this
          scenario,   because  the  pulse  is  repeated  several  times
          daily on a long-term basis,  potentially  resulting  in  an
          accumulation of injury,  it  seems  more appropriate to  use
          values  designed   to   be   protective   against   chronic
          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.
                             3-22

-------
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. 3-21.

     b.   Ambient water quality criterion (AWQC) - 34 Ug/L

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

        .  The  value  chosen to   protect  marine  organisms  is
          based  on  the results  of  chronrc  toxicity tests  on
          adult  Eastern  oysters  (crassostrea  Virginia).    The
          lowest  acute  toxicity  value  is  53  Ug/L for a  fish
          species (U.S. EPA, 1980).   (See Section 4, p.  4-5.)

4.   Index 3 Values
          Disposal                         Sludge Disposal
          Conditions and                   Rate (mt DW/day)
          Site Charac-    Sludge
          teristics    Concentration      0      825     1650

          Typical     '   Typical        0.0   0.0000051  0.0000051
                         Worst          0.0   0.0018     0.0018

          Worst          Typical        0.6   0.000043   0.000043
                         Worst          0.0   0.015      0.015
     Value Interpretation  -  Value equals  the  factor by  which
     the  expected  seawater  concentration  increase   in  PCP
     exceeds the protective value.  A value >  1  indicates that
     acute or chronic toxic conditions may exist  for organisms
     at the site.

                        3-23

-------
     6.   Preliminary Conclusion  - No  toxic  conditions due  to PCP
          in  sludge  were  determined.    Only  slight  incremental
          increases in hazard occur under the scenarios evaluated.

D.   Index  of Human  Toxicity  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  acceptable  daily  intake  (ADI)  of  the
          pollutant.

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

     3.   Data Used and  Rationale

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

               See Section 3,  p. 3-22.

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

          b.   Dietary consumption of seafood (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 (PS)

               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
                             3-24

-------
 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.
 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, i'n  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  l'0~6  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 (COM, 1984a).  Near-shore  area  612  has  an area
 of    approximately   4300   km2  and    constitutes
               3-25

-------
      approximately   24 percent   of   the   total   seafood
      landings  (CDM,   1984b).    Therefore  the  fraction of
      all  seafood  landings  (FSt)  from  the   Bight  which
      could  originate from  the area  of impact  of either
      the  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)
      tbt ~ 7200
[10 x 8000 m x  9500  m x 10"6 km2/m2] x 0.0002   _ .    in
* - = - ' - = 2.1 x 10
                   7200 km2                           .

      For the worst (near shore) site:
      PSt =           =                                  (3)
            4300 km2
  [10 x 4000 m  x  4320 m x 10"6 km2/m2] x 0.24     ,   in_3
                          *                     — y • o x i u
                  4300 km2

      To  construct  a worst-case  harvesting  scenario,  it
      was assumed  that  the  total seafood consumption  for
      an  individual  could  originate   from  an  area  more
      limited  than   the   entire   New   York   Bight.     For
      example,  a particular  fisherman  providing  the entire
      seafood  diet   for  .himself or   others  .could  fish
   -  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:

      FSW = - AI  .  = 0.11                       (4)
            7200 km2

      For the worst  (near shore) site:

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

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

      The value chosen  is the weighted average BCF  of  PCP
      for  the  edible   portion  of   all  freshwater   and
      estuarine    aquatic   organisms   consumed   by   U.S.
                    3-26

-------
     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  health
     from  the  potential  toxic  effects  of PCP  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.  (See Section 4, p. 4-5.)

     Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant (DI)
     = 0.987 Ug/day

     See Section 3, p. 3-11.

     Acceptable  daily    intake   of  pollutant   (ADI)   =
     2100 yg/day
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  0.00047 0.00047 0.00047
Worst    0.00047 0.00047 0.00047

Typical  0.00047 0.00047 0.00047
Worst    0.00047 0.00047 0.00047
3 All  possible  combinations  of  these  values  are  not
  presented.   Additional  combinations  may be  calculated
  using the formulae in the Appendix.

D 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.

Value  Interpretation  -  Value  equals  factor  by  which
theexpected intake exceeds  the  ADI.   A  value  >1 indicates
a possible human health  threat.  Comparison with the null
index value at 0 mt/day  indicates  the  degree  to which  any
                    3-27

-------
     hazard  is   due  to   sludge   disposal,  as   opposed   to
     preexisting dietary sources.

6.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  No   increase in  human  health
     risks were determined in this assessment.
                        3-28

-------
                              SECTION 4

           PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR PENTACHLOROPHENOL
                     IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE         ^^

   PCP is a commercially produced bactericide,
   fungicide, and slimicide used primarily for
   the preservation of wood, wood products,
   and other materials.  As a chlorinated
   hydrocarbon,  its biological properties have
   also resulted in its use as an herbicide,
   insecticide,  and molluscicide.  Technical
   PCP contains  significant contaminants such
   as chlorinated benzenes  and dibenzofurans.
   Although PCP  and Na-PCP  are disseminated
   in the environment, there is a paucity of
   data on their environmental concentration,
   fate, and effects.

   A.  Sludge

       1.  Frequency of Detection

           62 out of 438 samples (14%)  from 40
           POTWs contained  PCP

           2 out of 42 sample's (5%)'from 10 POTWs
           contained PCP

           In samples from  25. municipal sewage
           plants, PCP occurred in 502  of the
           samples

           68 out of 223 sludge samples (30.5%)
           from  Michigan contained measureable
           amounts of PCP (Detection  Limit =
           0.03  Ug/g)

       2.  Concentration

           10 to 10,500 pg/L range for  62 of  438
           samples from 40  POTWs
           150 to 250 Mg/L range for  2  of 42
           samples from 10  POTWs

           Maximum levels of PCP from 25
           municipal plants -
           liquid phase: 58 Mg/L
           anaerobically digested sludge:  1200  Wg/kg
           effluent:  12 ug/L
U.S. EPA,  1980
(p. A-l, A-2)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 41, 50)
DeWalle
et al., 1982
(p. 144)

U.S. EPA, 1983a
(p. A-14)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 41, 50)
DeWalle
et al., 1982
(p. 145)
                                 4-1

-------
        0.0865 and 30.434 mg/kg DW, mean
        and 95th percentile, respectively,
        from 40 POTWs study.
        Out of 223 sludge samples from
        Michigan, 68 contained PCP at the
        following levels (yg/g):

        .  Range       Mean       Median

        0.2-8,495   81 + 685       5.0

B.  Soil - Unpolluted

    Data not immediately available.

C.  Water - Unpolluted

    1.  Frequency of Detection

        Data not immediately available.

    2.  Concentration

        a. -Freshwater    .             .

            Williamette River - 1969, daily  •
            and hourly samples over a 24-hour
            period showed PCP levels ranging
            between 0.10 and 0.70 yg/L

        b.  Seawater

            Data not immediately available.

        c.  Drinking water

            Finished drinking water from
            Corvallis, Oregon in 1970 contained
            0.06 Mg/L

            Highest concentration reported  in
            drinking water was 1.4 yg/L PCP

D.  Air

    No airborne concentrations reported in  the
    literature
 Statistically
 derived  from
 sludge concen-
 tration  data
 presented  in
 U.S.  EPA,  1982
 (p. 41)

 U.S.  EPA,  1983a
 (p. A-14)
Buhler et al.,
1973
(p. 929)
Buhler et al.,
1973
(p. 933)

NAS, 1977
(p. 750)
NRC, 1982
(p. 55)
                              4-2

-------
E.  Food

    1.  Total Average Intake

          U8/kg body weight/day
        FY75   FY76   FY77   FY78

        0.0240.01740.0009ND

    2.  Concentration

        PCP not detected in FY78 diet study
Total
• Food No.
Type Samples
Dairy
Legumes
Sugars and
Adjuncts
30
30

30
No.
With
' PCP
2
1

6
Range of
Cone.
(UK/g)
Trace-0.010
0.010

0.01-0.02
             PCP not found in other food types

             Peanut butter - 11 samples  contained
             an average of 0.028 Ug/g PCP

II.  HUMAN EFFECTS.

     A.   Ingestion                   .

         1.  Carcinogenicity

             Data not immediately available.

         2. .Chronic Tozicity

             a.  ADI

                 2100 pg/day for a 70 kg person


             b.  Effects

                 Female rats were exposed to  PCP
                 at several doses.   At the
                 30 mg/kg/day level of treatment, a
                 reduced rate of body weight  gained
                 and increased specific  gravity of
                 the urine were observed.   Pig-
                 mentation of the liver  and kidneys
                 was observed in females exposed  to
                 10 or 30 mg/kg/day.
                                                        FDA, no date
                                                        (Attachment G)
                                                        FDA,  1979
                                                        (Attachment E)
                                                        Johnson and
                                                        Manske, 1976
                                                   Heikes,  1980
                                                   (p.  341)
                                                   U.S.  EPA,  1980
                                                   (p.  C-37)
                                                   U.S.  EPA,  1984c
                                                   (p. 6)
                                  4-3

-------
         3.  Absorption Factor

             Data not immediately available.

         4.  Existing Regulations

             U.S. EPA ambient water quality criteria
             for protection of human health =
             1010 Ug/L.

     B.  Inhalation

         Not included because incineration
         is not evaluated.

III. PLANT EFFECTS

     A.  Phytotoxicity

         Tomatoes and tree  seedlings grown in
         PGP impregnated wood flats exhibited
         severe toxic symptoms

     B.  Uptake

         See Table 4-1.

         PCP is readily absorbed by the roots
         of sugar cane but  is not translocated
         to other portions  of .the plants (grown
         in culture solution, tissue concentra-
         tion not provided)

         PCP is absorbed readily by plant roots
         and leaves

IV.  DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS

     A.  Toxicity

         See Table 4-2.

         "Information on the toxicity of PCP is
         complicated by the presence of contami-
         nants, such as dibenzo-p-dioxins and
         dibenzo furans, in technical PCP samples."

         The toxicity of technical PCP is directly
         proportional to the amount of toxic con-
         taminants present  such as hexachloro-
         benzene, dibenzodioxin, dibenzofurans.

         PCP contains a wide variety of poten-
         tially toxic contaminants
U.S. EPA,  1980
(p. C-37)
U.S. EPA, 1979
(p. 274-277)
U.S. EPA, 1979
(p. 273)
U.S. EPA, 1979
(p. 18)
NRC, 1982
(p. 33)
Parker et al.,
1980 (p. 366.)
Plimmer, 1973
(p. 42)
                                   4-4

-------
     B.  Uptake
         Available data indicate that the bio-
         logical handling of PCP is rather similar
         across mammalian species.  PCP is rapidly
         absorbed and once absorbed is distributed
         throughout the body.  Half-life for elimina-
         tion of an acute single dose is 8 to 9 days.
         Half-life for chronic dosages is 20 days.

         In a microcosm experiment, the following
         terminal levels of PCP were measured:
                                  U.S. EPA, 1984a
                                  (p. 111-16)
         Soil
         Rye grass -
         Crickets
         Vole
1.22 Ug/g
3.5  Ug/g
1.16 Ug/g
3.20 ug/g
         In a microcosm experiment with a soil
         application of 1.12 kg/ha, the mean
         accumulation in terrestrial animals
         (5 species exposed for 5 days) was
         0.672 Ug/g, 15%. of which was the
         parent compound.   Accumulation in the
         entire body of the vole was 0.530 Ug/g»
         7% of which was the parent compound.

V.   AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS

     A.  Toxicity

         1.  Freshwater

             Data not immediately available.

         2.  Saltwater

             a.  Acute

                 53 Ug/L for fish species


             b.  Chronic

                 34 Ug/L for Eastern oyster
                 (crassostrea virginica)

     B.  Uptake

         Bioconcentration  factor = 11.   Based  on
         edible portion of all freshwater and
         estuarine organisms consumed by  Americans.
                                  Gile et al.,
                                  1982
                                  (p. 298-299)
                                  Cole and
                                  Metcalf, 1980
                                  U.S.  EPA,  1980
                                  (p.  B-21)
                                  U.S.  EPA,  1980
                                  (p. B-27)
                                  U.S.  EPA,  1980
                                  (p. C-3)
                                   4-5

-------
VI.  SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
     A.  Toxicity

         PCP is extremely toxic to almost all forms
         of bacteria, algae~and fungi.

         P.CP applied to soils at 20 and 10 kg/ha
         did not cause any apparent toxicity, but
         did cause an increase in PCP-decomposing
         microorganisms by about 3 orders of mag-
         nitude within 2-3 weeks.

         See Table 4-3.
     B.  Uptake

         See Table 4-4.

VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING PATE AND TRANSPORT
U.S.  EPA,  1979
(p. 231)

Watanabe,  1977
(p. 99)
     Soluble in water at 20 mg/L at 30°C
     Vapor pressure = 1.1 x 10~* mm Hg at 20°C

     PCP is not persistent in soil.  It is partly
     volatilized or mineralized, partly degraded
     and incorporated into soil constituents as
     unextractable residues.

     Molecular formula:  CgHCl^O
     Molecular weight:   266
     Melting point:      1908C
     Boiling point:      310°C
     Specific gravity:   1.978  (at 20°C

     Soluble in alcohol, acetone, ether, pine
     oil, and benzene.  Slightly soluble in
     water.

     Persistence after application = 3 years
     (medium not stated)

     After 20 days in the soil, 48% of the applied
     PCP remained, 19% as the parent  compound or
     transformation products.

     Factors affecting decomposition  in soil:
      — PCP more persistent in dry soils than
         water-saturated soils
      — PCP more persistent in clay  soils than
         sandy soils
NAS, 1977
(p. 750)

Weiss et al.,
1982b
NRC, 1982
NRC, 1982
(p. 55)

Cole and
Metcalf, 1980
(p. 987)   •

Bevenue et al.,
1967
(p. 88)
                                   4-6

-------
PCP more persistent when there is less         Kaufman, 1978
organic matter in the soil                     (p. 28)
PCP more persistent when temperatures
not optimum for microbial growth
                         4-7

-------
                              TABLE 4-1.   UPTAKE OF PENTACHLOROPHENOL BY PLANTS
Plant
Rye grass
Rice
Corn
Soil
Tissue Type
leaf topsoil
in lab
grains sandy
clay
leaf silty
clay loam
Chemical
Form
Applied
PCP
PCP
(99% pure)
PCP
Range of
• Soil
Concentration
(Pg/g)
0.93-5.36 mean
1.22 Mg/g
23 kg/ha
1.25 yg/g
Range of
Tissue
Concentration
(Pg/g)
3.5
4
1.01
Uptake
Factor
2.8
0.35a
0.81
References
Gile et al.
(p. 298)
Weiss et al
1982a/(p.
Lu et/ al. ,
, 1982
1189)
1978
a Value derived by converting reported application rate (kg/ha) to soil concentration (pg/g) by assuming •
  2000 mt/ha (see Section 3, p. 3-1).  The reported plant tissue concentration was divided by the derived
  soil concentration to yield the uptake factor.

-------
                                   TABLE 4-2.  TOXICITY OF PENTACHLOROPHENOL TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND HFLDLIFE
Species (N)a
Mouse

Rat
Guinea Pig
Rabbit
Dog
Rats (20 per
group)


Hamster


Rats (30 per
group)

4>
i
VD

Rat

Pig (24)
•


Cattle -
female year-
lings (15)





Calf (1)


Chemical Form
Administered
PCP

PCP
PCP
PCP
PCP
PCP
PCP


PCP


PCP





• PCP

PCP



Analytical and
technical PCP






PCP


Peed
Concentration '
(lig/g DW)
NRb

NR
NR
NR
NR
0-25
'..' • 50

200
NR


NR





NR

NR



647

491





NR


Water
Concentration
(mg/1)
NR

NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR

NR
NR


NR





NR

NR



NR

NR





60


Daily Intake
(mg/kg)
120-140

27-100
' 100
100-130
150-200
0-1.25
2.5

NR
5
•

0-30


* •


146-175.

0-15



20

15





NR
•

Duration
of Study
—

—
—
~
—
90 days
90 days
,
90 days
Days 6-15
of gesta-
tion
22-24 mo s





NR

30 days



42 days

118 days





7 weeks


Effects
LD5o Acute oral doses

LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
No effect
Increased hemoglobin,
hematocrit,- and liver wt.
Reduced growth rate
Fetal death or resorption- ""
,.''

No significant increase
in tumors at any dosage.
No toxic effects in males
at 10 mg/kg/day or less.
No toxic effects in females
at 3 mg/kg/day or less.
Oral LDjQ

All groups (except con-
trol) experienced a 3-202
reduction in total
leucocycles
Analytical PCP: minimal
adverse effects
Technical PCP: reduced
weight gain; decreased
feed efficiency; pro-
gressive anemia; increase
in liver and lung weights
decrease in thymus weight
No apparent effect


References
NAS, 1977
(p. 751)




Knudson et al.,
1974 (p. 141)


NAS, 1977
(p. 753)

Schwetz et al . ,
1978 (p. 301)




NRC, 1982
(p. 34)
Hi 11am and
Greichus, 1983
(p. 601)

McConnell et
al., 1980
(p. 468, 487)





Bevenue and
Beckman, 1967
(p. 91)
N = Number of experimental animals when reported.
NR = Not reported.

-------
                  TABLE 4-3.  TOXICITY OF PENTACHLOROPHENOL TO SOIL BIOTA
Species
Soil
Microbes
Chemical
Form
Applied
POP*
Soil
Type
Silt
Loam
Soil
Concentration
(wg/g)
0-200.^
^^ Effects
N
At 40 Mg/g» oxygen
uptake by soil microbes
was reduced by 50%; at
200 Ug/g, almost
complete oxygen uptake
retardation occurred
References
Hale et
1957
(p. 336
al. ,
, 339)
a Sodium pentachlorophenate
                                            4-10

-------
TABLE 4-4.  UPTAKE OP PENTACHLOROPHENOL BY SOIL BIOTA
Species
Crickets
Snails
Pi 11 bugs
Worms
Mealworm larvae
Chemical Form
Application
PCP
PCP
PCP
PCP
PCP
Soil
Type
topsoil
topsoil
topsoil
topsoil
topsoil
Range of
Soil Concentration Range of Tissue
(pg/g) . Concentration (pg/g)
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
0.78-1.16
1.56-2.71
2.14
7.67
1.22
Bioconcentration
Factor
0.67-0.94
1.3-2.2
1.7
6.2
ND
References
Gile
Gile
Gile
Cile
Gile
et
et
et
et
et
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
1982
1982
1982
1982
1982
(P-
(p.
(P-
(P.
(p.
298)
298)
298)
298)
298)

-------
                                SECTION 5

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

Bevenue, A., and H. Beckman.   1967.   Pentachlorophenol:   A Discussion of
     Its Properties and  Its  Occurrence as a Residue  in  Human  and Animal
     Tissues.  Residue Rev. 19:83-133.

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.

Buhler,  D.,  M.  E. Rasmus sen,  and H.  S.  Nakane.   1973.   Occurrence  of
     Hexachlorophene and  Pentachlorophenol  in Sewage and Water.   Env.
     Sci. Tech. 7(10):929-934.

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

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

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

Cole,   L.,   and   R.   Metcalf.     1980.     Environmental   Destinies   of
     Insecticides,  Herbicides,  and Fungicides in  the  Plants,  Animals,
     Soil,   Air,  and  Water  of Homologous  Microcosms.    In;  Giesy,  J.
     (ed.), Microcosms in  Ecological  Research.  Tech.   Inform.   Center,
     U.S. Department  of Energy, Washington D.C.

DeWalle, F., D. A. Kalman, R. Dills, et al., 1982.   Presence of  Phenolic
     Compounds  in  Sewage, Effluent,  and  Sludge  From Municipal  Sewage
     Treatment Plants.   Water Sci.  Tech.  14:143-50.

Food and Drug Administration.   1979.    FY78  Total  Diet  Studies—Adult
     (7305.003).   Unpublished.

Gile, J.,  J.  C.  Collins, and J. W.  Gillet.   1982.   Fate and Impact  of
     Wood  Preservatives  in  a  Terrestrial  Microcosm.    J.  Agric.  Food
     Chem.  30:295-301.

                                   5-1

-------
Hale,  M.,  F.  H.  Hulcher, and  W. E.  ChappellX.  1957.   The  Effects  of
     Several   Herbicides   on  Nitrification   in  a   Field   Soil  Under
     Laboratory Conditions.  Weeds 5:331-341.      \

Heikes,  D.    1980.    Residues  of  Pentachloronitrobenzene  and  Related
     Compounds in Peanut Butter.  Bull. Env. Contain. Tox. 24:338-343.

Hillam,   R.,  and   Y.   Greichus.     1983.      Effects   of    Purified
     Pentachlorophenol on  the  Serum Proteins of Young  Pigs.  Bull. Env.
     Contam. Tox. 31:599-604.

Johnson,  R.,  and  D.  Manske.    1976.  Pesticide Residues in  Total Diet
     Samples (IX).  Pest. Monit. J. 9(4):157-169.

Kaufman, D.  D.  1978.   Degradation of Pentachlorophenol in Soil and  by
     Soil Microorganisms.  In; Rao,  K. (ed.),  Pentachlorophenol.    Plenum
     Press, New York, NY.

Knudsen,  I., H.  G.-  Verschuuren, Tonkelaar,  et al.   1974. -  Short-Term
     Toxicity of Pentachlorophenol in Rats.  Toxicology 2:141-152.

Lu, P., R. L.  Metcalf, and L.  K.  Cole.  1978.   The Environmental  Fate  of
     C-Pentachlorophenol  in  Laboratory  Model   Ecosystems.    In;  Rao,  K
     (ed.), Pentachlorophenol.  Plenum Press, New York, NY.

McConnell,  E.,  J.  A.  Moore, B.  N.  Gupta, et  al.   1980.   The  Chronic
     Toxicity  of  Technical  and  Analytical Pentachlorophenol  in  Cattle.
     I. Clinicopathology Tox..Appl. Pharm. 52:468-490.

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

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

National Research Council.   1982.   An Assessment of the  Health Risks of
     Seven Pesticides Used for Termite Control.   NTIS-PB83-136374.

Parker,  C.,  W. A.  Jones, H.  B. Mathews,  et   al.   1980.   The  Chronic
     Toxicity  of  Technical  and  Analytical  Pentachlorophenol  in Cattle
     II.  Chemical Analysis of Tissues.  Tox.  Appl. Pharm. 55:359-369.

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

Plimmer, J.  1973.  Technical  Pentachlorophenol:   Origin  and Analysis of
     Base-Insoluble Contaminants.   Env.  Health Persp.,  September  1973,
     p. 41-48.

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.

                                   5-2

-------
Schwetz, B., J.  F.  Quast, P. A. Keeler,  et  al.   1978.   Results of Two-
     Year  Toxicity  and  Reproduction  Studies  on Pentachlorophenol   in
     Rats.   In;  Rao,  K.  (ed.),  Pentachlorophenol.   Plenum  Press,  New
     York, NY.

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

Thornton, I., and P. Abrams.  1983.   Soil  Ingestion - A Major Pathway  of
     Heavy Metal  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.     1979.     Reviews   of   the
     Environmental  Effects of  Pollutants:   XI.    Chlorophenols.    EPA
     600/1-79-012.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Cincinnati,
     OH.  June.

U.S.  Environmental   Protection  Agency.    1980.    Ambient  Water  Quality
     Criteria for Pentachlorophenol.   EPA 440/5-80-065.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.     1982.     Fate   of.  Priority
     Pollutants in Publicly-Owned  Treatment Works.  EPA 440/1-82-303.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   1983a.   Process Design Manual-for
     Land Application of Municipal  Sludge.  EPA 625/1-83-016.

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

U.S.. Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1984a.   Drinking Water  Criteria
     Document for Pentachlorophenol.   Preliminary Draft.   Environmental
     Criteria and Assessment Office,  Cincinnati, OH.

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   1984c.   Health Effects Assessment
     for Pentachlorophenol.   EACO-CIN-H043.   Environmental Criteria  and
     Assessment Office,  Cincinnati, OH.  September.

Watanabe,  I.    1977.    Pentachlorophenol-Decomposing  and   PGP-Tolerant
     Bacteria in Field  Soil Treated with PCP.   Soil Biol.  9:99-103.

Weiss,  V.,   P.   Mora.   I.  Scheunert,   et   al.     1982a.     Fate   of
     Pentachlorophenol-l^C  in   Soil  Under  Controlled  Conditions.     J.
     Agric. Food Chem.   30:1186-1190.
                                   5-3

-------
Weiss,  V.,  I.  Scheunert,  W.  Klein,  and  F.  Korte.   1982b.   Fate  of
     Pentachlorophenol-l^C  Łn   Soil  Under  Controlled  Conditions.    J.
    . AgriŁ.  Food Chem.   30:1191-1194.
                                  5-4

-------
                                   APPENDIX

          PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR PENTACHLOROPHENOL
                          IN MUNICIPAL  SEWAGE  SLUDGE
     I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AMD-MARKETING

        A.  Effect on Soil Concentration of Pentachloropbenol

            1.  Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)

                a.  Formula

                          (SC x AR) * (BS x MS)
                    CSs "        AR -f MS

                    CSr = CSS [1 +

                    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  (pg/g DW)
                         AR  = Sludge application rate  (mt/ha)
                         MS  =2000  m't  ' ha/DW  =  assumed  mass  of  soil  in
                               upper 15 cm  !
                         BS  = Background  concentration  of  pollutant   in
                               soil (ug/g DW)
                         tŁ  = Soil half-life of pollutant (years)
                         n   =99 years

                b.  Sample calculation

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


        n nnnim., /  nu - (0.0865 Ug/g DW x 5 mt/ha) + (0.0 Ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
        0.000215ug/g DW - 	•	    	(5  mt/ha  DW  * 2000 mt/ha  DW)	

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


0.00022 ug/g DW = 0.000215 Ug/g DW  [1 + 0.5(1/0'°548)  * o.5(2/0-°548) *  ...   +

                             Q>5(99/0.0548)]


        B.  Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil  Biota

            1.  Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index  2)


                                      A-l

-------
            Formula
            Index 2 = ~
            where:
                 T!  = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
                       sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
                 TB  = Soil  concentration   toxic   to   soil   biota
                       (ug/g DW)
        b.  Sample calculation

        0.00.0033, - °°°°
                       0g

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

        a.  Formula

            _ .    ,   *1 x UB '
            Index 3 = — — -

            where:

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

        b.  Sample calculation


                    °-000215 "g/S Dw  x 6-2  "«/« tissue DW (ug/g soil DW) "
        0 0000267 =


C.  Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

    1.  Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)

        a.  Formula


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

-------
             b.  Sample calculation -  Values  were not caluclated  due Co
                 lack of data.

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

             a.  Formula

                 Index 5 = Ix x UP

                 where:

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

             b.  Sample Calculation

0.000604 yg/g DW = 0.000215 yg/g DW x 2.8 yg/g  tissue DW (yg/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 (yg/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 = =|
                           TA
                 where:
                      15   = Index   5   =   Concentration  of  pollutant  in
                            plant  grown  in sludge-amended  soil  (yg/g DW)
                      TA   = Feed   concentration   toxic   to  herbivorous
                            animal (yg/g DW)
                                  A-3

-------
        b.  Sample calculation

        0.00000123 =
                              /n
                     491.0 ug/g DW

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

        a .  Formula

            If AR = 0; Index 8=0


            If.AR t 0; Index  8 =  SC  XS
            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

            »U* 0,0.00000881-
E.  Effect on Humans

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

        a.  Formula

                      (Is x  DT)-  + DI
            Index 9 . - _ -


            where:

                 Ij  = Index  5  =  Concentration  of   pollutant   in
                       plant grown in sludge-amended soil  (pg/g DW)
                 DT  = Daily human dietary intake of affected  plant
                       tissue (g/day DW)
                 DI  = Average daily human dietary  intake  of
                       pollutant (ug/day)
                 ADI = Acceptable daily  intake  of pollutant
                       (yg/day)
                              A-4

-------
             b.  Sample calculation (toddler)
. nrtni,0 _ (0.000076 ug/g DW x  74.5 g/day)  +  0.326  Ug/day
°-°00158 ~                  2100 ug/day
         2.  Index  of  Human  Toxicity  Resulting  from  Consumption  of
             Animal  Products  Derived  from  Animals  Feeding  on  Plants
             (Index 10)

             a.  Formula

                             (Is  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)
                      ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
                            (Ug/day)

             b.  Sample   calculation   (toddler)   -  Valu.es   were   not
                 calculated due to lack of data.
         3.  Index  of  Human  Toxicity  Resulting  from  Consumption  of
             Animal Products  Derived  from Animals Ingesting  Soil  (Index
             11)

             a.  Formula

                 If AR = 0; Index  11  =     (BS X GS *  "A * DA) * DI
                                                    ADI

                 T_ AD  , .. T'     ..       (SC x GS x  UA x DA) + DI
                 If AR F 0; Index  11  = 	7Tr;	
                                                    ADI
                 where:
                      AR  = Sludge application rate (mt  DW/ha)
                      BS  = Background  concentration  of  pollutant   in
                            soil (ug/g DW)
                      SC  = Sludge concentration of pollutant  (ug/g DW)
                      CS  = 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)
                                   A-5

-------
             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 (yg/day)
             ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
                   (pg/day)

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

4.  Index  of  Human  Tozicity  Resulting  from  Soil  Ingestion
    (Index 12)

    a.  Formula

                   (Ii x  DS) + DI
        Index 12 = 	—	


        where:

             II  = 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 (pg/day)
             ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
                   (Ug/day)

    b.  Sample calculation (toddler)       .
             - (0.000215 yg/g DW x 5 g/day) + 0.326 ug/day
             —             — 	_, -_  —I .
                                2100 ng/day
5.  Index of Aggregate Human Toxicity (Index 13)

    a.  Formula
        Index 13 = I9 + IIQ +  In  +  Ii2 -  (>

        where:

             Ig  = Index  9 =  Index of human toxicity  resulting
                   from plant  consumption  (unitless)
                 = Index 10 =  Index of human toxicity  resulting
                   from consumption  of  animal  products derived
                   from animals feeding  on  plants  (unitless)
                 = Index 11 =  Index of human toxicity  resulting
                   from consumption  of  animal  products derived
                   from animals ingesting  soil  (unitless)
                          A-6

-------
                          = Index 12 = Index of  human toxicity resulting
                            from soil ingestion (unitless)
                      DI  = Average   daily   human   dietary   intake   of
                            pollutant (lag/day)
                      ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
                            (yg/day)

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

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

          1.   Formula

                          SC x ST x PS
               Index 1 =
                           W x D x L

               where:

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

          2.   Sample  Calculation


C 00017 Ug/L    0.0865 mg/kg  DW x 1600000 kg WW x 0.04 kg DW/kg WW x  103  ug/mg
                         200 m x 20 m x 8000 m  x 103 L/m3
                                   A-7

-------
     B.   Index of  Seawater  Concentration Representing  a 24-Hour  Dumping Cycle
          (Index 2)
          1.   Formula
               Index 2 =
               where :
 SS x SC
V x D x L
                    SS = Daily sludge disposal rate (kg DW/day)
                    SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
                    V  = Average current velocity at site (ra/day)
                    D  = Depth  to  pycnocline  or   effective   depth  of
                         mixing for shallow water site (m)
                    L  = Length of tanker path (m)

          2.   Sample Calculation

                     825000 kg DW/day x 0.0865 mg/kg DW x 103 ue/mg
     0.000047 ug/L =
                      9500 m/day x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/m3
     C.   Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
(Select
toxicity       .   .
or hazard)

          1.   Formula           '

     '  -        Index' 3 = IV  , •         . .      '
                         AWQC    •

               where:

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

          2.   Sample Calculation
               o.OOOOOS =
     D.   Index  of  Human  Toxicity Resulting  from  Seafood  Consumption
          (Index 4)
          1.   Formula
               Index 4 =
                          (12 x BCF x 10~3 kg/g x FS x  QF)  + DI
                                             ADI
                                      A-8

-------
               where:

               12 =  Index   2   =   Index   of   seawater--vconcentration
                     representing  a 24-hour dumping cycle (yg~/L)
               QF =  Dietary consumption of seafood (g WW/day)
               FS =  Fraction of  consumed  seafood  originating  from  the
                     disposal site  (unitless)                  .
               BCF = Bioconcentration  factor of pollutant (L/kg)
               DI =  Average dail-y-^human  dietary  intake  of  pollutant
                     (Ug/day)      ^"^x^
               ADI = Acceptable  daily  intake of pollutant (ug/day)

          2.  Sample Calculation

0.00047 =

(0.000047 Ug/L x  11 L/kg  x  10~3 kg/g  x  0.000021 x  14.3 g WW/day)  +  0.987 Ug/day
                                   2100  pg/day
                                   A-9

-------