United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Water
June, 1985
Environmental Profiles
t
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge:
Phenol
-------
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 PHENOL IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 2-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landfilling 2-1
Incineration 2-1
Ocean Disposal 2-1
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR PHENOL IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Landf illing 3-1
Index of groundwater concentration resulting
from landfilled sludge (Index 1) 3-1
Index of human toxicity resulting
from groundwater contamination (Index 2) 3-8
Incineration 3-10
Ocean Disposal 3-10
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR PHENOL IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-2
Water - Unpolluted 4-2
Air 4-2
Food 4-2
Human Effects 4-2
Ingestion 4-2
Inhalation 4-4
Plant Effects 4-5
11
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-5
Toxicity 4-5
Uptake 4-5
Aquatic Life Effects 4-5
Toxicity 4-5
Uptake 4-6
Soil Biota Effects 4-6
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-6
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
PHENOL 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. Phenol was initially identified as being of potential
concern when sludge is placed in a landfill.* This profile is a
compilation of information that^ may be useful in determining whether
phenol poses an actual hazard to human health or the environment when
sludge is disposed of by this method.
The focus of this document is the calculation of "preliminary
hazard indices" for selected potential exposure pathways, as shown in
Section 3. Each index illustrates the hazard that could result from
movement of a pollutant by a given pathway to cause a given effect
(e.g., sludge •*• groundwater •* human toxicity). The values and assump-
tions 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 landfilling 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 PHENOL IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
The following preliminary conclusions have been derived from the
calculation of "preliminary hazard indices", which represent conserva-
tive or "worst case" analyses of hazard« The indices and. their basis
and interpretation are explained in Section 3. Their calculation
formulae are shown in the Appendix.
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
II. LANDPILLING
When municipal sewage sludge is disposed of in a landfill and the
worst scenario is evaluated, a substantial increase in phenol con-
centrations in groundwater can be expected. Under all other condi-
tions, the increase is anticipated to be slight (see Index 1). The
increase of phenol concentrations in groundwater, due to the land-
fill disposal of municipal sewage sludge, is not expected to pose a
toxic hazard to humans (see Index 2).
III. INCINERATION
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
2-1
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR PHENOL
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
II. LANDPILLING
A. Index of Groundwater Concentration Resulting from Landfilled
Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates groundwater contamination which
could occur in a potable aquifer in the landfill vicin-
ity. Uses U.S. EPA's Exposure Assessment Group (EAG)
model, "Rapid Assessment of Potential Groundwater Contam-
ination Under Emergency Response Conditions" (U.S. EPA,
1983a). Treats landfill leachate as a pulse input, i.e.,
the application of a constant source concentration for a
short time period relative to the time frame of the anal-
ysis. In order to predict pollutant movement in soils
and groundwater, parameters regarding transport and fate,
and boundary or source conditions are evaluated. Trans-
port parameters include the interstitial pore water
velocity and dispersion coefficient. Pollutant fate
parameters include the degradation/decay coefficient and
retardation factor. Retardation is primarily a function
of the adsorption process, which is characterized by a
linear, equilibrium partition coefficient representing
the ratio of adsorbed and solution pollutant concentra-
tions. This partition coefficient, along with soil bulk
density and volumetric water content, are used to calcu-
late the retardation factor. A computer program (in
FORTRAN) was developed to facilitate computation of the
analytical solution. The program predicts pollutant con-
centration as a function of time and location in both the
unsaturated and saturated zone. Separate computations
and parameter estimates are required for each zone. The
prediction requires evaluations of four dimensionless
input values and subsequent evaluation of the result,
through use of the computer program.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Conservatively assumes that the
pollutant is 100 percent mobilized in the leachate and
that all leachate leaks out of the landfill in a finite
period and undiluted by precipitation. Assumes that all
soil and aquifer properties are homogeneous and isotropic
throughout each zone; steady, uniform flow occurs only in
3-1
-------
the vertical direction throughout the unsaturated zone,
and only in the horizontal (longitudinal) plane in the
saturated zone; pollutant movement is considered only in
direction of groundwater flow for the saturated zone; all
pollutants exist in concentrations that do not signifi-
cantly affect water movement; for organic chemicals, the
background concentration in the soil profile or aquifer
prior to release from the source is assumed to be zero;
the pollutant source is a pulse input; no dilution of the
plume occurs by recharge from outside the source area;
the leachate is undiluted by aquifer flow within the
saturated zone; concentration in the saturated zone is
attenuated only by dispersion.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Unsaturated zone
i. Soil type and characteristics
(a) Soil type
Typical Sandy loam
Worst Sandy
These two soil types were used by Gerritse et
al. (1982) to measure partitioning of elements
between soil and a sewage sludge solution
phase. They are used here since these parti-
tioning measurements (i.e., K^ values) are con-
sidered the best available for analysis of
metal transport from landfilled sludge. The
same soil types are also used for nonmetals for
convenience and consistency of analysis.
(b) Dry bulk density
Typical 1.53 g/mL
Worst 1.925 g/mL
Bulk density is the dry mass per unit volume of
the medium (soil), i.e., neglecting the mass of
the water (COM, 1984).
(c) Volumetric water content (6)
Typical 0.195 (unitless)
Worst 0.133 (unitless)
The volumetric water content is the volume of
water in a given volume of media, usually
expressed as a fraction or percent. It depends
on properties of the media and the water flux
estimated by infiltration or net recharge. The
3-2
-------
volumetric water content is used in calculating
the water movement through the unsaturated zone
(pore water velocity) and the retardation
coefficient. Values obtained from COM, 1984.
(d) Fraction of organic carbon (foc)
Typical 0.005 (unitless)
Worst 0.0001 (unitless)
Organic content of soils is described in terms
of percent organic carbon, which is required in
the estimation of partition coefficient, Kd.
Values, obtained from R. Griffin (1984) are
representative values for subsurface soils.
ii. Site parameters
(a) Landfill leaching time (LT) = 5 years
Sikora et al. (1982) monitored several sludge
entrenchment sites throughout the United States
and estimated time of landfill leaching to be 4
or 5 years. Other types of landfills may leach
for longer periods of time; however, the use of
a value for entrenchment sites is conservative
because it results in a higher leachate
generation rate.
(b) Leachate generation rate (Q)
Typical 0.8 m/year
Worst 1.6 m/year
It is conservatively assumed that sludge
leachate enters the unsaturated zone undiluted
by precipitation or other recharge, that the
total volume of liquid in the sludge leaches
out of the landfill, and that leaching is com-
plete in 5 years. Landfilled sludge is assumed
to be 20 percent solids by volume, and depth of
sludge in the landfill is 5m in the typical
case and 10 m in the worst case. Thus, the
initial depth of liquid is 4 and 8 m, and
average yearly leachate generation is 0.8 and
1.6 m, respectively.
(c) Depth to groundwater (h)
Typical 5 m
Worst 0 m
Eight landfills were monitored throughout the
United States and depths to groundwater below
3-3
-------
them were listed. A typical depth to ground-
water of 5 m was observed (U.S. EPA, 1977).
For the worst case, a value of 0 m is used to
represent the situation where the bottom of the
landfill is occasionally or regularly below the
water table. The depth to groundwater must be
estimated in order to evaluate the likelihood
that pollutants moving through the unsaturated
• . soil will reach the groundwater.
(d). Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 0.5 m
Worst Not applicable
The dispersion process is exceedingly complex
and difficult to quantify, especially for the
unsaturated zone. It is sometimes ignored in
the unsaturated zone, with the reasoning that
pore water velocities are usually large enough
so that pollutant transport by convection,
i.e., water movement, is paramount. As a rule
of thumb, dispersivity may be set equal to
10 percent of the distance measurement of the
analysis (Gelhar and Axness, 1981). Thus,
based on depth to groundwater listed above, the
value for the typical case is 0.5 and that for
the worst case does not apply since leachate
moves directly to the unsaturated zone.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical A. 884 mg/kg DW
Worst 82.060 mg/kg DW
The typical and worst values are the median and
95 percent cumulative frequency values, respec-
tively, statistically derived from the data
present in U.S. EPA 1982. (See Section A,
p. 4-1.)
(b) Soil half-life of pollutant (tŁ) = 2 days
U.S. EPA (1985) cites studies indicating that
biodegradation of phenol in soil occurs on the
order of about 2 days. This value was used as
an approximate half-life. (See Section 4,
p. 4-6.)
3-4
-------
(c) degradation rate (u) = 0.35 day"*
The unsaturated zone can serve as an effective
medium fcrv reducing pollutant concentration
through a variety of chemical and biological
decay mechanisms which transform or attenuate
the pollutant. While these decay processes are
usually complex, they are approximated here by
a first-order rate constant. The degradation
rate is calculated using the following formula:
=0,693
H
(d) Organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc) =
16.2 mL/g
The organic carbon partition coefficient is
multiplied by the percent organic carbon
content of soil (fOc^ to derive a partition
coefficient (K(j)> which represents the ratio of
absorbed pollutant concentration to the
dissolved (or solution) concentration. The
equation (Koc x fOc^ assumes that organic
carbon in the soil is the primary means of
adsorbing organic compounds onto soils. This
concept serves to reduce much of the variation
in K,} values for different soil types. The
value of Koc is from Lyman, 1982.
Saturated zone
i. Soil type and characteristics
(a) Soil type
Typical Silty sand
Worst Sand
A silty sand having the values of aquifer por-
osity and hydraulic conductivity defined below
represents a typical aquifer material. A more
conductive medium such as sand transports the
plume more readily and with less dispersion and
therefore represents a reasonable worst case.
(b) Aquifer porosity (0)
Typical 0.44 (unitless)
Worst 0.389 (unitless)
Porosity is that portion of the total volume of
soil that is made up of voids (air) and water.
Values corresponding to the above soil types
3-5
-------
are from Pettyjohn et al. (1982) as presented
in U.S. EPA (1983a).
. (c) Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K)
Typical 0.86 m/day
Worst A.04 m/day
The hydraulic conductivity (or permeability) of
the aquifer is needed to estimate flow velocity
based on Darcy's Equation. It is a measure of
the volume of liquid that can flow through a
unit area or media with time; values can range
over nine orders of magnitude depending on the
nature of the media. Heterogenous conditions
produce large spatial variation in hydraulic
conductivity, making estimation of a single
effective value extremely difficult. Values
used are from Freeze and Cherry (1979) as
presented in U.S. EPA (1983a).
(d) Fraction of organic carbon (foc) =
0.0 (unitless)
Organic carbon content, and therefore adsorp-
tion, is assumed to be 0 in the saturated zone.
ii. Site parameters
(a) Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and
well (i)
Typical 0.001 (unitless)
Worst 0.02 (unitless)
The hydraulic gradient is the. slope of the
water table in an unconfined aquifer, or the
piezometric surface for a confined aquifer.
The hydraulic gradient must be known to
determine the magnitude and direction of
groundwater flow. As gradient increases, dis-
persion is reduced. Estimates of typical and
high gradient values were provided by Donigian
(1985).
(b) Distance from well to landfill (A&)
Typical 100 m
Worst 50 m
This distance is the distance between a
landfill and any functioning public or private
water supply or livestock water supply.
3-6
-------
(c) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 10 m
Worst 5 m
These values are 10 percent of the distance
from well to landfill (All), which is 100 and
50 m, respectively, for typical and worst
conditions.
(d) Minimum thickness of saturated zone (B) = 2 m
The minimum aquifer thickness represents the
assumed thickness due to preexisting flow;
i.e., in the absence of leachate. It is termed
the minimum thickness because in the vicinity
of the site it may be increased by leachate
infiltration from the site. A value of 2 m
represents a worst case assumption that
preexisting flow is very limited and therefore
dilution of the plume entering the saturated
zone is negligible.
(e) Width of landfill (W) = 112.8 m
The landfill is arbitrarily assumed to be
circular with an area of 10,000 m^.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Degradation rate (p) = 0 day"*
Degradation is assumed not to occur in the
saturated zone.
(b) Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (BC) = 0 yg/L
It is assumed that no pollutant exists in the
soil profile or aquifer prior to release from
the source.
4. Index Values - See Table 3-1.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals the maximum expected
groundwater concentration of pollutant, in Ug/L, at the
well.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - When municipal sewage sludge is
disposed of in a landfill and the worst scenario is
evaluated, a substantial increase in phenol
concentrations in groundwater can be expected. Under all
other conditions, the increase is anticipated to be
slight.
3-7
-------
B. Index of Human Tozicity Resulting from Gronndvater
Contamination (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calculates human exposure which could
result from groundwater contamination. Compares exposure
with acceptable daily intake (ADI) of pollutant.
..2. . Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes long-term exposure to
maximum concentration at well at a rate of 2 L/day.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of groundwater concentration resulting from
landfilled sludge (Index 1)
See Section 3f p. 3-9.
fa. Average human consumption of drinking water (AC) =
2 L/day
The value of 2 L/day is a standard value used by
U.S. EPA in most risk assessment studies.
c. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI) - Data not immediately available.
d. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
7000 pg/day
Due to the lack of human data, this value was
derived from studies performed on rats that were
given oral doses of 50 mg/kg/day (U.S. EPA, 1980).
This level of phenol ingestion resulted in renal
damage. ADI value was derived using an uncertainty
factor of 500 and assuming a body weight of 70 kg.
(See Section 4, p. 4-3.)
4. Index 2 Values - See Table 3-1.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor due only to
groundwater contamination by landfill by which expected
intake exceeds ADI. The value does not account for the
possible increase resulting from daily dietary intake of
pollutant since DI data were not immediately available.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - The increase of phenol
concentrations in groundwater, due to the landfill
disposal of municipal sewage sludge, is not expected to
pose a toxic hazard to humans.
3-8
-------
u>
vo
TABLE 3-1. INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
(INDEX 2) .
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics*
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
LOxlO'16
3.0xlO-20
2
W
T
T
T
T
i.exio"15
S.OxlQ-19
Condition of
3 4
T T
W NA
T W
T T
T T
9.5xlO"14 0.13
2.7xlO~17 3.8xlO"5
Analysis3'"'0
5
T
T
T
W
T
5.6xlO~16
1.6x10-"
6
T
T
T
T
W
4.2xlO"15
1.2xlO~18
7
W
NA
W
W
W
480
0.14
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
<*Dry bulk density (Pdry)» volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
SHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AS,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
III. INCINERATION
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWES meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
3-10
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR PHENOL IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
Phenol is a large volume industrial chemical
produced almost entirely as an intermediate
for the preparation of other chemicals. These
include synthetic polymers such as phenolic
resins, bisphenol, and caprolactam plastics
intermediates, and chlorinated and alkylated
phenols.
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
Detected in 218 of 438 samples (50%)
from 40 POTWs
Detected in 25 of 42 samples (60%)
from 10 POTWs
Detected in 11 of 13 combined sludges
Detected in 51 of 229 samples (178
samples were below detection limits
of 0.03 yg/g) from 25 treatment
plants in Michigan
2. Concentration
5 to 17,000 yg/L range for 218
samples from 40 POTWs
97 to 4,500 yg/L range for 25
samples from 10 POTWs
Phenol concentration in 13 combined
and Loehr,
sludges: 123 yg/L (WW) median; 27 to
4,310 yg/L (WW) range; 4.2 yg/g (DW)
median, 0.9 to 113 yg/g (DW) range
50% cumulative frequency phenol concen-
tration in sludge: 4.884 yg/g
95% cumulative frequency phenol concen-
tration in sludge: 82.060 yg/g
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. A-l)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 41)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 49)
Naylor and Loehr,
1982 (p. 20)
U.S. EPA, 1983b
(p. A-14)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 41)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 49)
Naylor
1982 (p. 20)
Statistically
derived from
U.S. EPA, 1982
4-1
-------
9 yg/g (DW) mean, 2.0 yg/g (DW)
median, 0.05 to.288 Ug/g (DW) range
for 51 samples from 25 treatment plants
in Michigan
B. Soil — Unpolluted
Data not immediately available.
C. Water - Unpolluted
1. . Frequency of Detection
Unspecified concentrations of phenol
in 2 of 110 water supplies; not detected
in finished water supplies.
2. Concentration
1.5 yg/L mean, 0.0 to 6.7 yg/L
range for lower Mississippi River
<0.5 to 5.0 yg/L in Detroit River,
1972 to 1977
Acceptable daily intake from water
3.5 mg/L
D. Air
Data not immediately available.
E. Food
Free and conjugated phenol are normal consti-
tuents of animal matter. They are likely
formed in the intestinal tract by micro-
bial metabolism of 1-tyrosine and p-hydroxy-
benzoic acid.
There are no market basket surveys of free
and conjugated phenol to estimate the daily
dietary intake of phenol.
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
The International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC) has not evaluated
U.S. EPA, 1983b
(p. A-14)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-3)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-3)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-37)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-5)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-5)
U.S. EPA, 198A
(p. 8)
4-2
-------
the risk associated with the inges-
tion of phenol, but using the IARC
criteria for evaluating the overall
weight of evidence of carcinogenicity
to humans, phenol is most appropri-
ately classified as a Group 3 chemical.
b. Potency
None demonstrated for ingestion
route.
c. Effects
Data not immediately available.
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. ADI
7.0 mg/day
No data was available for humans, so U.S. EPA, 1980
the above value was derived from rat (p. C-37)
studies where 50 mg/kg/day oral
doses resulted in renal damage. An
uncertainty factor of 500 and body
weight of 70 kg were used to derive
the human ADI.
b. Effects
There are reports of phenol poison- U.S. EPA, 1980
ings at concentrations ranging from (p. C-25)
0.14 to 0.43 g/kg bodyweight (assumes
an adult bodyweight of 70 kg).
However, people have also survived
such doses.
Other observed effects due to oral U.S. EPA, 1980
ingestion of phenol are burning (p. C-27)
mouth, mouth sores, skin rash,
abdominal pain, diarrhea, head-
aches, and dizziness.
3. Absorption Factor
Data not immediately available.
4. Existing Regulations
No data found that regulate the ingestion
of phenol.
4-3
-------
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
Data pertaining to the carcinogen- U.S. EPA, 1984
icity of inhaled phenol in humans (p. 8)
were not located in the available
literature.
b. Potency
None demonstrated for inhalation
route.
c. Effects
Data not immediately available.
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. Inhalation Threshold or MPIH
An MPIH of 1.4 mg/day was derived U.S. EPA, 1984
from the TLV of 19 mg/m3 (see (p. 11)
below) by adjusting from workday to
continual exposure and applying an
uncertainty factor of 10.
b. Effects
Heart rate irregularities, body U.S. EPA, 1980
temperature fluctuations, lung (p. C-23)
hyperemia, and possibly death.
3. Absorption Factor
Phenol vapor is efficiently absorbed U.S. EPA, 1980
from the lungs. Retention averages (p. C-ll)
80% at beginning of exposure but
decreases to an average retention of
70% after 8 hours of exposure.
4. Existing Regulations
American Conference of Governmental U.S. EPA, 1984
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH): (p. 9)
Threshold limit value (TLV) - 19 mg/m3
Short-term exposure limit (STEL) - 38 mg/m3
4-4
-------
National Institute for Occupational U.S. EPA, 1984
Safety and Health (NIOSH): (p. 9)
TWA-TLV for 10 hour work day, 40 hour
week of 20 mg/m-* with a 60 mg/m^
ceiling for a period of exposure not to
exceed 15 minutes.
III. PLANT EFFECTS
Data not immediately available.
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Tozicity
See Table 4-1.
B. Uptake
Rats fed 0, 800, 1200, 1600, 2000, and U.S. EPA, 1980
2400 mg/L phenol in their drinking water (pp- C-26, C-28)
did not accumulate significant amounts of
phenol in their tissues compared to control
animals. A daily oral dose of 2000 mg/L
(56 mg/rat/day) was approximately 30% of the
single oral dose required to kill a large
proportion of rats in a short time.
Another indication of the rapid metabolism
of phenol is the fact that the rats fed
2400 mg/L (65 mg/rat/day) ingested over
12 months the equivalent of approximately
120 LD5Q oral doses.
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1. Freshwater
a. Acute
Acute values for fish range from U.S. EPA, 1980
5020 Ug/L for juvenile rainbow (p. B-4)
trout to 67500 Ug/L for fathead
minnows.
b. Chronic
A fathead minnow early life stage U.S. EPA, 1980
test resulted in a chronic value (p. B-5)
of 2560 Ug/L with an acute-
chronic ratio of 14.
4-5
-------
2. Saltwater
Acute
LC5Q values were observed as low
as 5800 yg/L for grass shrimp.
Histopathological damage was
observed in the hard clam at con-
centrations as low as 100 Mg/L.
A saltwater fish reacted to concen-
trations as low as 2,000 Mg/L.
Chronic
Data not immediately available.
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B-5)
B. Uptake
Bioconcentration factors ranged from 1.2 to
2.3 in goldfish in 5 days. Factors this low
indicate that no residue problem should occur
from exposure to phenol.
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B-5)
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
Data not immediately available.
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT
Molecular weight: 94.11
Vapor pressure: 0.341 mm Hg at 25°C
Water solubility: 9.3xl04 mg/L at 25°C
Octanol/water partition coefficient: 28.8
Half-lives in air and water: 15 hours to 9 days
Half-life of phenol in soil: J* 2 days
Organic carbon partition coefficient:
16.2 mL/g (estimated)
Boiling point: 181.75
Density: 1.0722
U.S. EPA, 1984
(p. 1)
U.S. EPA, 1985
(p. 6-2)
Lyman, 1982
4-6
-------
TABLE 4-1. TOX1CITY OF PHENOL TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species
Cat
Dog
Rabbit
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Chemical
Form Fed
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Feed
Concentration
(Mg/g)
NRa
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NAb
NA
NA
NA
800-1,600
2,000-2,400
100-5,000
7,000
8,000
10,000
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
90
500
400-600
530
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Duration
of Study
NR
NR
NR
NR
12 months
12 months
3-5 generations
2 generations
2 generations
NR
Effects
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
No effect
Reduced weight gain
No effect
Reduced growth
lethal to young
Retarded growth
References
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
(P-
(P-
(P.
(P-
(P-
(P-
(p.
(P-
(p.
(p.
C-24)
C-24)
C-24)
C-26)
C-26)
C-26)
C-29)
C-29)
C-29)
C-29)
°NR = Not reported.
bNA = Not applicable.
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun. 1972. Handbook of Mathematical
Functions. Dover Publications, New York, NY.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984. Development of Methodologies for
Evaluating Permissible Contaminant Levels in Municipal Wastewater
. Sludges. Draft. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Donigian, A. S. 1985. -Personal Communication. Anderson-Nichols & Co.,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA. May.
Freeze, R.' A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gelhar, L. W., and G. J. Axness. 1981. Stochastic Analysis of
Macrodispersion in 3-Dimensionally Heterogeneous Aquifers. Report
No. H-8. Hydrologic Research Program, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, Soccorro, NM.
Gerritse, R. G., R. Vriesema, J. W. Dalenberg and H. P. DeRoos. 1982.
Effect of Sewage Sludge on Trace Element Mobility in Soils. J.
Environ. Qual. 2:359-363.
Griffin, R. A. 1984. Personal Communication to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ECAO - Cincinnati, OH. Illinois State
Geological Survey.
Lyman, W. J. 1982. Adsorption Coefficients for Soils and Sediments.
Chapter 4. In; Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
Naylor, L. M., and R. C. Loehr. 1982. Priority Pollutants in Municipal
Sewage Sludge. Biocycle, July/August: 18-22.
Pettyjohn, W. A., D. C. Kent, T. A. Prickett, H. E. LeGrand, and F. E.
Witz. 1982. Methods for the Prediction of Leachate Plume
Migration and Mixing. U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Sikora, L. J., W. D. Burge and J. E. Jones. 1982. Monitoring of a
Municipal Sludge Entrenchment Site. J. Environ. Qual. 2(2): 321-
325.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Environmental Assessment
of Subsurface Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Sludge:
Interim Report. EPA/530/SW-547. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
5-1
-------
U.S. Environmental - Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Phenol. EPA 440/5-80-066. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly-Owned Treatment Works. Final Report.
Volume I. EPA 440/1-82-303. . Effluent Guidelines Division,
Washington, DC. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. Rapid Assessment of
Potential Groundwater Contamination Under Emergency Response
Conditions. EPA 600/8-83-030.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983b. Process Design Manual for
Land Application of Municipal Sludge. EPA 625/1-83-016. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Health Effects Assessment
for Phenol. Revised Final Draft, ECAO-CIN-H007. Prepared for
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response by Environmental Criteria
and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Health Effects Assessment
Summary Document on Phenol. Contract #68-03-3237. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
5-2
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR PHENOL
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTEON-AND-MARKETING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
II. LANDPILLING
A. Procedure
Using Equation 1, several values of C/CO for the unsaturated
zone are calculated corresponding to increasing values of t
until equilibrium is reached. Assuming a 5-year pulse input
from the landfill, Equation 3 is employed to estimate the con-
centration vs. time data at the water table. The concentration
vs. time curve is then transformed into a square pulse having a
constant concentration equal to the peak concentration, Cu,
from the unsaturated zone, and a duration, to, chosen so that
the total areas under the curve and the pulse are equal, as
illustrated in Equation 3. This square pulse is then used as
the input to the linkage assessment, Equation 2, which esti-
mates initial dilution in the aquifer to give the initial con-
centration, Co, for the saturated zone assessment. (Conditions
for B, minimum thickness of unsaturated zone, have been set
such that dilution is actually negligible.) The saturated zone
assessment procedure is nearly identical to that for the unsat-
urated zone except for the definition of certain parameters and
choice of parameter values. The maximum concentration at the
well, Cmax, is used to calculate the index values given in
Equations A and 5.
B. Equation 1: Transport Assessment
C(y.t) =i [exp(Ai) erfc(A2) + exp^) erfc(B2)] = P(x,t>
Requires evaluations of four dimensionless input values and
subsequent evaluation of. the result. Exp(Aj) denotes the
exponential of Aj, e , where erfc(A2) denotes the
complimentary error function of A2 • Erfc(A2) produces values
between 0.0 and 2.0 (Abramowitz and Stegun, 1972).
A-l
-------
where:
A. = X_ [V* - (V*2 + AD* x
Al 2D*
X - t (V*2 + AD* x y*)?
2 (4D* x t)2
D. - X [V* + (V*2 + 4D* x \
i o i^-i-
2D*
X + t (V*2 + AD* x y*)?
82 (4D* x t)2
and where for the unsaturated zone:
C0 = SC x CF = Initial leachate concentration (yg/L)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
CF = 250 kg sludge solids/m3 leachate =
PS x 103
1 - PS
PS = Percent solids (by weight) of landfilled sludge =
20%
t = Time (years)
X = h = Depth to groundwater (m)
D* = a x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
V* = —2— (m/year)
V 0 x R
Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
0 = Volumetric water content (unitless)
R = 1 + drv x KJ = Retardation factor (unitless)
0
I?dry = Dry bulk density (g/mL)
Kj = fgc x ^oc (mL/g)
foc = Fraction of organic carbon (unitless)
Koc = Organic carbon partition coefficient (mL/g)
365 x y , ...i
y~ = — * (years) L
1
y = Degradation rate (day-i)
and where for the saturated zone:
Co = Initial concentration of pollutant in aquifer as
determined by Equation 2 (yg/L)
t = Time (years)
X = Afi, = Distance from well to landfill (m)
D* = a x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
A-2
-------
,v* = LJLJL (m/year)
0 x R
K = Hydraulic -conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
- i = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unitless)
(ft = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
R = 1 * dr7 -x Kd = Retardation factor = 1 (unitless)
0
since Kj = foc x Koc and foc is assumed to be zero
for the saturated zone.
C. Equation 2. Linkage Assessment
_ Q x W _
c c
0 u 365 [(K x i) * — ^~ r^r and B > 2
— K x i x 365 —
D. Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
C(XTt) = P(x,t) for 0 < t < t0
Co
Ll = p(x>t) _ p(Xft . t ) for
t
where:
t0 .(for unsaturated zone) = LT = Landfill leaching time
(years)
t0 (for saturated zone) = Pulse duration at the water
table (x = h) as determined by the following equation:
t0 = [ o/°° C dt] * Cu
C( Y t )
P(X»t) = —^— as determined by Equation 1
A-3
-------
E. Equation 4. Index of Grouhdvater Concentration Resulting
from Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula x
Index 1 .=
where:
Cmax = Maximutoi concentration of pollutant at well =
maximum of C(AŁ,t) calculated in Equation 1
(Wg/D
2. Sample Calculation
1.05 x 10~16 yg/L = 1.05 x 10~16 pg/L
F. Equation 5. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting
from Groundwater Contamination (Index 2)
1. Formula
(Ii x AC) + DI
Index2= _
whereJ
I^ = Index 1 = Index of groundwater concentration
resulting from landfilled sludge (ug/L)
AC = Average human consumption of drinking water
(L/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(Mg/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (jag/day)
2. Sample Calculation
0.29962610x10-19 = (0.10486913x10-15 p,/L x 2 L/day)
7000 ug/day
III. INCINERATION
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 198A), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
A-4
-------
TABLE A-l. INPUT DATA VARYING IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOR EACH CONDITION
Ui
Condition of Analysis
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (pg/g DW)
Unsaturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, P,jry (g/mL)
Volumetric water content, 6 (unilless)
Fraction of organic carbon, foc (unitless)
Site parameters
Leachate generation rate, Q Cm/year)
Depth to groundwater, h (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, O (m)
Saturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Aquifer porosity, 0 (unitless)
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,
K (m/day)
Site parameters
Hydraulic gradient, i (unitless)
Distance from well to landfill, AH (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
1
A. 884
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
2
82.060
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
3
4.884
1.925
0.133
0.0001
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
4 5
4.884 4.884
NAb 1.53
NA 0.193
NA 0.005
1.6 0.8
0 5
NA 0.5
0.44 0.389
0.86 4.04
0.001 0.001
100 100
10 10
6
4.884
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
O.S
0.44
0.86
0.02
50
5
7 8
82.060 N*
NA M
NA N
NA N
1.6 N
0 N
NA H
0.389 N
4.04 N
0.02 N
50 N
5 N
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Condition of Analysis
Results
Unsaturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Initial leachate concentration, Co (pg/L)
Peak concentration, Cu (pg/L)
Pulse duration, to (years)
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquifer thickness, B (m)
Initial concentration in saturated zone, Co
(Mg/L)
Saturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Maximum well concentration, Cmax ((ig/L)
Index of groundwater concentration resulting
from landfilled sludge, Index 1 (pg/L)
(Equation 4)
Index of human toxicity resulting
from groundwater contamination, Index 2
(unitless) (Equation 5)
1220 20500 1220
9.65xlO'13 1.62xlO~11 8.71xlO~10
5.00 5.00 5.02
126 126 126
9.65xlO"13 1.62xlO~n 8.71xlO'10
1220 1200
1220 9.65xlO~13 9
5.00 5.00
253 23.8
1220 9.65xlO~13 9
1220 20500
65xlO~13 20500
5.00 5.00
6.32 2.38
65xlO~13 20500
l.OSxlO"16 1.76xlO~15 9.52xlO"14 0.133 5.57xlO~16 4.20X10"15 475
l.OSxlO"16 1.76X10"15 9.52xlO-u 0.133 5.57x10-^ A.20xlQ-15 475
3.00xlO~20 5.03xlO'19 2.72xlO"17 3.79xlO~5 1.59xl019 1.20xlO~18 0.136
N
N
N
N
N
aN = Null condition, where no landfill exists; no value is used.
DNA = Not applicable for this condition.
------- |