EPA
November 2009
REVIEW OF STATE SOIL CLEANUP LEVELS FOR DIOXIN
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
REVIEW OF STATE SOIL CLEANUP LEVELS FOR DIOXIN
Prepared by
Margaret MacDonell, Andrew Davidson, Molly Finster, Marci Scofield
Environmental Science Division
DOE-Argonne National Laboratory
Argonne, IL 60439
In collaboration with
Kacee Deener
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
November 2009
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document is a review of state agency data and as such has not itself been peer reviewed.
EPA will consider any significant technical comments it receives. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
November 2009
-------
November 2009
Page i
-------
REVIEW OF STATE SOIL CLEANUP LEVELS FOR DIOXIN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTATION v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S-1
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope 1
1.2 Report Organization 1
2 APPROACH 2
2.1 Document/Literature Search 3
2.2 Evaluation Criteria 4
3 RESULTS 5
3.1 Soil Dioxin Levels by State 5
3.2 Toxicity Reference Values and Target Risks 26
3.3 Derivation Methodology 56
3.4 Evaluation Criteria 79
4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 79
4.1 State Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin 79
4.2 Factors Contributing to Similarities and Differences 82
4.3 Evaluation Context 83
5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 84
6 REFERENCES 84
APPENDIX A: Supporting Information for the Approach A-1
APPENDIX B: Detailed Data Tables B-1
TABLES
1 Scope of the Survey for Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels by State 3
2 Information Resources Pursued 4
3 Selected Tables and Figures of State Values for Dioxin in Soil 5
4 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin by State: Unrestricted/Residential Use .. 7
5 Additional State Concentrations Potentially Relevant to Soil Cleanup:
Unrestricted/Residential Use 17
November 2009 Page ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
TABLES (Cont'd.)
6 States without Formal Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin 25
7 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin by State: Commercial/Industrial
(Restricted) Use 27
8 Additional State Concentrations: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use 37
9 Supporting State Context: Subsurface Values 45
10 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup Levels 47
11 Supporting Context from Other Agencies 50
12 Target Risks for the State Cleanup Levels 53
13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology 58
14 Summary Comparison of State Derivations for Incidental Soil Ingestion 69
15 Main Factors Leading to Differences in Dioxin Cleanup Levels for the
Unrestricted/Residential Scenario 72
A. 1 Checklist to Support Field Review of Data Tables A-3
B.1 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 1 B-5
B.2 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 2 B-8
B.3 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 3 B-10
B.4 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 4 B-15
B.5 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 5 B-21
B.6 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 6 B-28
B.7 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 7 B-32
B.8 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 8 B-36
B.9 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 9 B-39
B.10 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 10 B-52
FIGURES
1 Phased Approach for Identifying Soil Dioxin Cleanup Levels 2
2a Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by State (arithmetic scale) 13
2b Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by State (logarithmic scale) 14
3 Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by Concentration 15
4 Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by Region 16
5 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by State 19
6 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Unrestricted/Residential Use,
by Concentration 20
November 2009
Page Hi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
FIGURES (Cont'd.)
7 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by Region ...
8 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Unrestricted/Residential Use
from Contaminated Site Applications, by State
9 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Unrestricted/Residential Use
from Contaminated Site Applications, by Concentration
10a Soil Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by State
(arithmetic scale)
10b Soil Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by State
(logarithmic scale)
11 Soil Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by Concentration
12 Soil Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by Region
13 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use,
by State
14 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use,
by Concentration
15 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use,
by Region
16 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Restricted Use from
Contaminated Site Applications, by State
17 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Restricted Use from
Contaminated Site Applications, by Concentration
18 Supporting State Context: Subsurface Values, by State
19 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup Levels
20 Distribution of States Listing Specific Risk Targets for Dioxin Cleanup Levels:
Unrestricted/Residential Use
21 Distribution of States Listing Specific Risk Targets for Dioxin Cleanup Levels:
Commercial/Industrial Use
22 Distribution of Soil Cleanup Levels by Concentration: Unrestricted and Restricted Uses
B.1 States in U.S. EPA Regions B
November 2009
Page
-------
NOTATION
(This list includes many of the acronyms and abbreviations used in the report. Other terms used in
equations are defined with those equations. Note that certain state agencies use the same acronyms for
departments or divisions, so to avoid duplication in this report, acronyms are not necessarily the standard
ageny acronyms.)
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management
ADHS Arizona Department of Health Services
AFB Air Force base
AK Alaska
AL Alabama
AMD amendment (to record of decision)
APEC Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission
AR Arkansas
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
ARBCA Alabama Risk-Based Corrective Action Guidance Manual
ARDEQ Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
AS American Samoa
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AT averaging time
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (DHHS)
AZ Arizona
AZDEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
BHRG baseline human health potential remediation goal
BCL basic comparison level (NV)
BRA baseline risk assessment
BW body weight
c cancer
CA California
CAG Carcinogen Assessment Group (EPA)
CalEPA California EPA
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
CDC Center for Disease Control and Prevention (DHHS)
CDHS California Department of Health Services
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as
amended
CEHTUF Center for Environmental and Human Toxicology at the University of Florida
CLARC cleanup levels and risk calculation (WA)
CO Colorado
CODPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment
cone concentration
CSEV Colorado soil evaluation value
CSF cancer slope factor
CT Connecticut
CTL cleanup target level (FL)
CWLP City Water, Light, and Power (Springfield, IL)
November 2009
Page v
-------
NOTATION (Cont'd.)
d
day(s)
DAF
dilution attenuation factor
DC
District of Columbia
DCC
direct contact criteria(on) (Ml)
DCV
direct contact value
DE
Delaware
DEC
Department of Environmental Conservation; also Department of Ecology (WA)
DEDNREC
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
DEM
Department of Environmental Management
DEP
Department of Environmental Protection
Dept
Department
DEQ
Department of Environmental Quality (AZ, AR, Ml, MS, MT, OK, OR)
DES
Department of Environmental Services
DHHS
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
DLC
dioxin-like compound(s)
DoA
U.S. Department of the Army
DoD
U.S. Department of Defense
DOE
U.S. Department of Energy
DoN
U.S. Department of the Navy
DOT
U.S. Department of Transportation
DTSC
Department of Toxic Substances Control (CalEPA)
EAL
environmental action level
EC
Ecology Center
eco
ecological
ECOS
Environmental Council of the States
ED
exposure duration
EF
exposure frequency
EFH
Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA NCEA)
ELCR
excess lifetime cancer risk
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. unless otherwise indicated)
ERP
Environmental Restoration Program
ESD
explanation of significant difference
ESL
environmental screening level (AS, GM, HI, NMI, TT)
ET
exposure time
EVS
Environmental Science Division (DOE/Argonne)
FDA
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FDEP
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FL
Florida
FS
feasibility study
GA
Georgia
GADNR
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
GCN
generic cleanup number (OH)
GEPA
Guam Environmental Protection Agency
GM
Guam
GW
groundwater
November 2009
Page vi
-------
NOTATION (Cont'd.)
HDOH
Hawaii Department of Health
HEAST
Health Effects Assessment Summary Table
HEER'
Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (Office) (HI)
HHSL
human health screening level (CalEPA)
HI
Hawaii
HSRA
Hazardous Site Response Act (GA)
HWS
Hazardous Waste Section (NC)
IA
Iowa
IADNR
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
IAG
interagency agreement
ID
Idaho
IDEM
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
IL
Illinois
ILCR
individual lifetime cancer risk
IN
Indiana
IR
intake rate
IRIS
Integrated Risk Information System (U.S. EPA NCEA database)
ISL
initial screening level (UT)
KDHE
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
kg
kilogram
KS
Kansas
KY
Kentucky
LA
Louisiana
LDEQ
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
LOAEL
lowest observed adverse effect level
LRP
Land Recycling Program (IA)
LUST
leaking underground storage tank
MA
Massachusetts
MADEP-
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
MADL
maximum allowable dose level
ME
Maine
MEDEP
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
MD
Maryland
MDHSS
Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services
MDNR
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
mg
milligram)(s)
mg/kg-d
milligram(s) per kilogram (body weight) per day
Ml
Michigan
MIDEQ
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
MLE
maximum likelihood estimate
MN
Minnesota
MNDOH
Minnesota Department of Health
MO
Missouri
MPCA
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
November 2009
Page vii
-------
NOTATION (Cont'd.)
MRBCA Missouri Risk-Based Corrective Action
MRL minimal risk level (ATSDR)
MS Mississippi
MSC medium-specific concentration (PA)
MSDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
MSSL medium-specific screening level (U.S. EPA Region 6)
MT Montana
MTCA Model Toxics Control Act
MTDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality
n noncancer
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command
NC North Carolina
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment (U.S. EPA)
ND North Dakota
NDEQ Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
NDEP Nevada Department of Environmental Protection
NE Nebraska
NH New Hampshire
NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
NIH National Institutes of Health
NJ New Jersey
NJDHSS New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services
NM New Mexico
NMED New Mexico Environment Department
NMI Northern Mariana Islands
NOAEL no observed adverse effect level
NSRL no significant risk level
NTP National Toxicology Program (DHHS)
NV Nevada
NY New York
NYDEC New York Department of Environmental Conservation
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (CalEPA)
OH Ohio
OK Oklahoma
OKDEQ Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
OR Oregon
ORDEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (EPA)
OU operable unit
p para
PA Pennsylvania
PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
PBT persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic
November 2009
Page viii
-------
NOTATION (Cont'd.)
PCB
polychlorinated biphenyl(s)
PCL
protective concentration level (TX)
PEC
probable effect concentration
PHAGM
Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual
PHG
public health goal
POTW
publicly owned treatment works
ppb
part(s) per billion
PPm
part(s) per million
PPRTV
provisional peer-reviewed toxicity value (U.S. EPA)
ppt
part(s) per trillion
PR
Puerto Rico
PRG
preliminary remediation goal (U.S. EPA OSWER, Region 9)
PWG
Pathology Working Group
RAGS
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
RAIS
Risk Assessment Information System (online ORNL database)
RBC .
risk-based concentration (AK, U.S. EPA Region 3, others)
RBSC
risk-based screening concentration
RBSL
risk-based screening level (Ml)
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended
RG
remediation goal (NE)
RGO
remedial goal objective
Rl
Rhode Island
RIDEM
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
RME
reasonable maximum exposure
ROD
record of decision
RODS
Record of Decision System (U.S. EPA database).
RSL
regional screening level (EPA)
SC
South Carolina
SCDHEC
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
SCTL
soil cleanup target level (FL)
SD
South Dakota
sed
sediment
SF
slope factor
SFd
dermal slope factor
SF;
inhalation slope factor
SF0
oral slope factor
SPHEM
Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual
SPS
soil performance standard
SRL
soil remediation level (AZ)
SRSNE
Solvents Recovery Service of New England
SRV
soil reference value (MN)
SSL
soil screening level (Ml, U.S. EPA, others)
ST
state
TAC
Toxic Air Contaminant Program (CA)
TAGM
Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum (NY)
TCDD
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
November 2009
Page ix
-------
NOTATION (Cont'd.)
TDH Texas Department of Health
TEC toxic equivalency concentration
TEF toxicity equivalency factor
TEQ toxic equivalent(s)
TMDL target method detection limit
TN Tennessee
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
TRG target remediation goal (MS)
TRRP Texas Risk Reduction Program
TRW Tittabawassee River Watch
TSG Toxic Steering Group
TT Trust Territories
TX Texas
TXCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TXRCC Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
UCL upper concentration limit
pg microgram(s)
|jg/kg-d microgram(s) per kilogram (body weight) per day
URS uniform risk-based remediation standard (DE)
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USAF U.S. Air Force
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UT Utah
UTDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality
VA Virginia
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program (NE)
VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
VI Virgin Islands
VRP Voluntary Remediation Program (NM, VA, WY)
VT Vermont
WA Washington
WADEC Washington State Department of Ecology
WHO World Health Organization
Wl Wisconsin
WIDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WV West Virginia
WVDEP West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
WY Wyoming
WYDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
y year(s)
November 2009
Page x
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5.1 OBJECTIVE
This report summarizes existing state cleanup levels for dioxin in soil, together with their
scientific bases where available. This compilation is part of the Science Plan for Activities
Related to Dioxins in the Environment, which was announced by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Administrator in May 2009. The objective is to inform an
updated interim preliminary remediation goal (PRG) for dioxin in soil to be developed by the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) by the end of 2009.
As context, the extant OSWER cleanup level for residential soil is 1 part per billion (ppb) or
1,000 parts per trillion (ppt), as dioxin toxic equivalents (TEQs) in surface soil. The TEQ reflects
the combined toxicity of the dioxin mixture, for which individual toxicities are weighted relative to
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) as the most potent form. This cleanup level was
derived using a reasonable maximum exposure.scenario that emphasizes a childhood pattern of
incidental soil ingestion, and a TCDD cancer slope factor based on a published 1984 scientific
evaluation of a rodent bioassay conducted in 1978. The parallel starting point for soil cleanup
levels under commercial and industrial land use scenarios is 5 to 20 ppb, or 5,000 to 20,000 ppt.
5.2 APPROACH
Agency websites and other online resources were searched for all 50 states to identify soil
cleanup levels for dioxin, as well as their scientific bases. The District of Columbia (DC), Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, and four Pacific Rim islands - American Samoa, Guam, Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territories - were also included in this review, bringing the total
to 57. The primary focus was levels for unrestricted/residential land use; values for
commercial/industrial (restricted) use were also compiled where readily available. Because a
number of states call for site-specific determinations of cleanup levels, context was also
pursued for recent cleanup decisions where generic state values were not found. The
combined data were tabulated and provided to technical contacts across the ten U.S. EPA
Regions to coordinate field review and feedback.
5.3 RESULTS
Nearly half the states and territories (26) have identified a cleanup level or guideline for dioxin in
soil. Most concentrations are reported as TCDD, although a small set are given as TEQ. The
latter includes the four highest values, as would be expected given that TCDD typically
comprises a relatively small fraction of dioxins in the environment.
The concentrations identified across the states and territories, as well as the scientific basis in
terms of the exposure calculation, target risks, and toxicity values used, are highlighted in the
following sections. Also summarized is context for four evaluation criteria considered for these
health-based values. (Note that to simplify this presentation, specific references are not cited in
the summary; citations are included in the body of the report and in the appendices.)
Some states list multiple dioxin concentrations that address different land use conditions and
assumptions, such as extent of exposure and target risk level. About 280 values were identified
in this review, so to simplify comparisons, the key figures and tables in this report emphasize
one representative value per state and land use category (unrestricted/residential and
commercial/industrial use). More detailed data are available in the second appendix.
November 2009
Page S-1
-------
S.3.1 Soil Cleanup Levels
The cleanup levels identified for unrestricted/residential use across 26 states and territories
range from about 4 to 1,000 ppt as shown in Figure S 1. Some values are not yet available
online, and parenthetical dates accompany internal or provisional concentrations provided by
states during the field review phase. Frequency distributions of cleanup levels for both
unrestricted/residential and restricted commercial/industrial land uses are shown in Figure S 2.
For unrestricted/residential use, more than 75 percent of the values (20) fall at or below 120 ppt,
and most of these (15) are less than 40 ppt. Nearly all these values are for TCDD (only the
Maine value is reported as TEQ). At the lowest end are seven entries documented during the
past ten years that are consistent with values commonly used for preliminary screening
evaluations: 3.9 to 4.5 ppt. These values indicate that nearly a third of the states with cleanup
levels have essentially adopted a concentration intended for screening purposes (typically
based on a target risk of 10 s with default residential assumptions).
In the next higher set are four values that are 100 times the "screening" levels. These
concentrations of 390 to 450 ppt are for dioxin TEQ, as identified by Hawaii and three Pacific
Rim islands (last documented from 2006 and 2008, respectively). As TEQ, these are expected
to be higher than levels reported for TCDD only because the typical contribution of that
compound to environmental dioxins is relatively small.
Topping the range is the level of 1,000 ppt identified by two states, Alabama and Texas (most
recently documented in 2007 and 2009, respectively). Both states indicate that this
concentration is for TCDD (although a separate Texas reference indicates TEQ). This value is
also the current OSWER cleanup level for residential land use as dioxin TEQ.
For restricted commercial/industrial land use, cleanup levels have been identified by 21 states
and territories. The five for which values were found for residential but not restricted uses are:
Alaska, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and Wyoming. As expected, concentrations for restricted use
are a bit higher than those for unrestricted use, based on less extensive exposures and in some
cases less restrictive target risks. These concentrations are also more broadly distributed.
Note some states refer to these scenarios in the reverse order or only as one or the other; in
this report, they are grouped as indicated for simplicity.
For nearly half the remaining states and territories (15), concentrations were found that are not
formal cleanup levels but could represent supporting information. Most of these were clarified as
screening values during field review; they have been included here as potential context for
cases where standard cleanup levels are unavailable.
Some states and territories (including California and the Trust Territories) have deferred
identifying generic cleanup levels, calling instead for risk-based determinations thatexplicitly
account for site-specific conditions. This approach has also been used by several states that
identify screening values. For example, while Arkansas lists concentrations of 4.5 and 18 ppt as
screening levels, and Massachusetts lists values of 20, 50, and 300 ppt from essentially a
screening approach, both refer to the need for site-specific determinations of cleanup levels. No
cleanup levels were found for the remaining 16 states and territories.
November 2009
Page S-2
-------
1,100
1,000
900
j|800
n
P°
1600
n
g500
1,000
1,000
400
300
200
100
0
38
n
450
450
450
_ao_
4.5 4 7
390
45
90
(60) 60
^ fi n
4.5 10
20
4.26 3.9 9
120
35.8
n
3.9
11
4.5
^ r* ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
FIGURE S-1 Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by State
(A dark border indicates the basis is TEQ rather than TCDD; a dashed border and lighter shading indicates a draft
value; parenthetical dates reflect field inputs for values not yet available online.)
November 2009
Page S-3
-------
Unrestricted (Residential)
Restricted (Commercial/Industrial)
9
120
NH
PA
i—i
7
90
FL
¦
Ml
,—i
80
GA
4.5
60
AZ, MD, WY
;
KS (IN)
;
j
45
I
IN
_
i—,
4.26
38
MS
AK
4
35.8
DE
OH
i—
1
20
3.9
MN
NE, OR
19
'
IA
u
r
450
AS, GM,
fsHVH
390
HI
1,000
AL, TX
40
DE
38.2
MS
35
MN
31
ME
30
FL
18
MD
16
OR
160
AZ, NE
100
KS
530
PA
360
IA
300
NH
180
IN
5,000
AL. TX
1,800
AS, GM,
NM
1,600
HI
1,500
WA
&
N
£
.-9
&
&
V
Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)
FIGURE S-2 Distribution of Soil Cleanup Levels by Concentration: Unrestricted and Restricted Uses
(A dark border indicates the basis is TEQ rather than TCDD; parenthetical italics indicate a draft value)
November 2009
Page S-4
-------
S.3.2 Exposure Calculation
The exposure calculation is central to the determination of health-based cleanup levels. This
survey found that states follow the basic EPA approach for deriving these soil concentrations,
commonly tapping the equation from the 1996 soil screening guidance (for earlier values) and
the 1989 risk assessment guidance for Superfund (for values since that time); the standard
equation is also reflected in documentation for the recently harmonized Regional screening
levels (RSLs). In most cases, dioxin is one of many chemicals for which states have derived
cleanup levels, so the agencies have identified generic exposure calculations for broad
application. Although individual terms can vary, the basic structure and concepts are similar
across the equations used. For dioxin, incidental ingestion is the dominant exposure route for
unrestricted/residential use. Nevertheless, the equations for other routes such as dermal
absorption and inhalation (which also include modeling components unique to volatile
compounds) are maintained as part of the general calculation. For some nonresidential
scenarios, both of these additional exposure routes contribute more significantly to the cleanup
level derived for dioxin, such as for the Pacific Rim trench worker scenario.
Regarding the specific parameter values used in the calculations, most states apply common
EPA defaults, so the exposure factors are generally similar. However some differences exist
that reflect state-specific data. For example, the representative value for exposure duration in
the Minnesota calculation is slightly less than the EPA default value. Detailed tabulation of the
equations and parameter values identified by the states and territories to calculate their
respective cleanup levels are provided in the body of the report and the second appendix.
Those extensive compilations indicate that the different exposure assumptions generally result
in overall differences within a factor of ten; for example, the values used for exposure frequency
differ by about 2.4-fold, and those used for soil ingestion differ by nearly 3-fold.
5.3.3 Target Risks
Almost half the 24 states and territories (11) that identify a target risk used to derive the cleanup
concentration for unrestricted use apply the lower-end value of 10'6; eight states use a target of
10"5, and one (Iowa) applies a value between these two (5 x 10"6). The four Pacific islands
target the upper level of 10"4. Similar orders-of-magnitude differences were found for target
risks used to establish cleanup levels for commercial/industrial use. The span of these target
risks, summarized in Table S-1 and illustrated in Figures S-3 and S-4, accounts for the largest
differences between state cleanup levels.
5.3.4 Toxicity Values
More information is summarized for this topic than for the others because more toxicological
data have recently become available and evaluations are ongoing by EPA and other agencies.
Nearly all the cleanup levels are based on cancer risk. For its nonresidential scenarios, Iowa
has identified cleanup concentrations based on the noncancer endpoint. The reference dose
applied is 10"9 mg/kg-d (which is the ATSDR minimal risk level determined in 1998). For Texas,
the noncancer endpoint is identified as the basis for both the residential and
commercial/industrial cleanup levels, but no information is provided regarding the actual toxicity
value. Otherwiise, cancer is the driving endpoint, and incidental ingestion is the primary
exposure route. Therefore, the oral slope factor is the toxicity value of interest. Four cancer
slope factors have been used across states and territories to derive dioxin cleanup levels, as
summarized in Table S-2 and Figure S-5.
November 2009
Page S-5
-------
TABLE S-1 Target Risks for the State Cleanup Levels
State per
Risk Level
Soil Concentration per Land Use Scenario (ppt)
Unrestricted/Residential | Commercial/Industrial
Terminology for Dioxin Cleanup Level
(as TCDD or Dioxin TEQ)
10'6 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
NE
3.9
(see entry under 10"5)
Remediation goal for TCDD
OR
3.9
16
Acceptable risk level for TCDD
DE
4
40
Uniform risk-based remediation standard
for TCDD
MS
4.26
38.2
Target remediation goal for TCDD
AZ
4.5
(see notes below)
Soil remediation level for TCDD
MD
4.5
18
Cleanup level for TCDD
WY
4.5
-
Cleanup level for TCDD
FL
7
30
Soil cleanup target level for TCDD
NH
9
300
Risk-based soil standard for TCDD
ME
10
31
Generic soil cleanup level for dioxin TEQ
WA
11
(see entry under 10'5)
Cleanup level for TCDD
5*10'6 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
IA
19
(see notes below)
Cleanup level for TCDD
10'5 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
MN
20
35
Soil reference value for TCDD
OH
35.8
-
Generic cleanup number for TCDD
AK
38
-
Risk-based concentration for TCDD
IN
45 (60)
180
Soil default closure level for TCDD
KS
60
100
Risk-based standard for TCDD
GA
80
-
Notifiable concentration for TCDD
Ml
90
-
Direct contact criterion; risk-based
screening level for TCDD
PA
120
530
Medium-specific concentration for TCDD
NE
-
160
Remediation goal for TCDD
WA
(see entry under 10"6)
1,500
Cleanup level for TCDD
IQf4 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
HI
390
1,600
Action level for dioxin TEQ
AS
450
1,800
Action level for dioxin TEQ
GM
450
1,800
Action level for dioxin TEQ
NMI
450
1,800
Action level for dioxin TEQ
Notes: TCDD = tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; TEQ = toxicity equivalent(s). Values are for states that identified target
risks. AL adopted residential and commercial soil cleanup levels from the 1998 OSWER directive. TX adopted similar
values but does not explicity state they are from the OSWER directive. Although the AZ nonresidential soil
remediation level of 160 ppt is not accompanied by an explicit target risk level, general language in the state regulation
indicates the cumulative excess lifetime cancer risk should not exceed 10"4. The IA nonresidential cleanup level for
dioxin is based on the noncancer endpoint. The IN draft provisional value for unrestricted use is in parentheses.
November 2009
Page S-6
-------
500
10
-6
5x10
-6
10
-5
400
t
o 300
Q
O
o
O
o
o
e
CO
200
100
3.9 3.9 4 4.26 4.5 4.5 4.5 7 9
1—'. <—' ¦—¦ ¦—i ¦—i ¦—¦. ¦—¦ i~i . 11
10
19
n
120
45 80
(60) GO
-80-
35.8 38
20
H
10"
450 450 450
NE OR DE MS A2 MD WY FL WH ME
I T
IA MM OH AK IN KS GA Ml PA
HI AS GM NMI
FIGURE S-3 Distribution of States Listing Specific Risk Targets for Dioxin Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use
(A dark border indicates the basis is TEQ rather than TCDD; a dashed border and lighter shading indicate a draft value.)
November 2009
Page S-7
-------
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
~3*
Q.
.Q.
5 1,200
CO
±S
c
S 1,000
C
o
o
c
*x
o
b
10
-6
10
-5
10"
1,800 1,800 1,800
800
o
w 600
400
200
1,500
"530"
300
16
18
30
i—i
31
» i
38.2
1—1
40
n
OR
MD
FL
ME
MS
DE
160 160 180
100
35
1,600
NH
MN KS AZ NE
IN
PA WA
HI
AS GM NMI
FIGURE S-4 Distribution of States Listing Specific Risk Targets for Dioxin Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial Use
(A dark border indicates the basis is TEQ rather than TCDD; a dashed border indicates a draft value.)
November 2009
Page S-8
-------
TABLE S-2 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup Levels3
Cancer
Toxicity Value
(mg/kg-d)'1
Number
of States
Specific
States
Scientific Basis
Nature of Value
and Peer Review
150,000
15
AK,AL,
DE, FL,
HI, IA,
IN, KS,
MS, NE,
NH, OH,
OR, PA,
WA
The source of this value is commonly given as EPA HEAST from 1997, which
lists several citations including the Health Assessment Document for
Polychorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin. (EPA 1985). This slope factor is based on
the female rat bioassay by Kociba et al. from 1978. The two-year dietary study
of TCDD in female Sprague-Dawley rats indicated the highest dose
(0.1 pg/kg-d, or estimated dietary amount 2,200 ppt) produced multiple
toxicological effects, with lesser effects reported at 0.01 pg/kg-d (210 ppt).
(This was considered to support a previous study indicating chronic ingestion
of 5,000 ppt caused many toxicological effects.) No adverse effects were
reported at 0.001 pg/kg-d (22 ppt), and no carcinogenic effects reported at
0.01 or 0.001 pg (210 or 22 ppt).
This older toxicity value reflects earlier methodology for classifying liver
tumors, which was updated by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in
1986. Many states cite the (outdated, indirect) EPA HEAST as the source.
(Note this earlier EPA value from HEAST was also listed in the previous
Region 9 PRG table - which preceded the 2008 harmonization of regional
screening levels or RSLs.)
HEAST identified this as a
provisional value, and qualified it
as being under further evaluation.
Specific peer review information
was not found; however, the 1985
EPA Health Assessment
document (listed as one of the
sources) underwent external peer
review. (It is not clear that the
HEAST value was based solely
on this document, however, since
that lists a cancer slope factor of
156,000 per mg/kg-d.) The
HEAST tables are now outdated.
(From the HEAST introduction:
"The HEAST is a comprehensive
listing consisting almost entirely of
provisional risk assessment
information .... Although these
entries in the HEAST have
undergone review and have the
concurrence of individual Agency
Program Offices, and each is
supported by an Agency
reference, they have not had
enough review to be recognized
as high quality, Agency-wide
consensus information." The
HEAST document also states that
when used, "the provisional
nature of the value should be
noted.").
November 2009
Page S-9
-------
TABLE S-2 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup Levels3
Cancer
Toxicity Value
(mg/kg-d)1
Number
of States
Specific
States
Scientific Basis
Nature of Value
and Peer Review
75,000
1
Ml
Based on a reevalution of tumor data from the 1978 rat study by Kociba et al.
(see above), using the 1986 NTP update of the liver tumor classification
scheme. This reevaluation indicated lower tumor incidence rates, which
resulted in a slope factor of 52,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 based on liver tumors alone,
and a slope factor of 75,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 based on total significant tumors -
which updated the factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 that had been based on the
older methodology.
Seven independent pathologists
reassessed the tumor data from
the Kociba study and subsequent
analyses by Squire, a pathologist
consultant to the EPA Carcinogen
Assessment Group.
1,400,000
1
MN
MN adopted this draft value, the upper bound slope factor based on animal
data that was included in the EPA (2003) draft reassessment, which was
derived from the Kociba et al. (1978) bioassay described above. (This value is
40 percent higher than the recommended draft upper bound slope factor from
the reassessment, which was based on epidemiological data.) The MNDOH
documentation notes: driving pathway-oral; endpoints-immune, repro, cancer;
cancer target organ-liver, class-human carcinogen. Per the MNDOH overview,
concerns about the quality of exposure estimates in human epidemiological
studies preclude quantitative use of these data in developing a slope factor,
but results from modeling the human studies are consistent with the cancer
slope derived by modeling data from animal studies. MNDOH also notes this
slope factor was derived from the same study as the previous value of
156,000 (mg/kg-d)"1, and that its development utilized current methods of
analysis, including use of body burden as the dose metric for animal-to-human
dose equivalence calculations (i.e., adjustments to account for the differences
in half-life of dioxins in the bodies of laboratory animals and humans), and a
re-evaluation of liver tumors in the Kociba study using the latest pathology
criteria.
The EPA draft reassessment
underwent extensive internal and
external agency peer review, and
subsequent peer review by an
independent NAS committee from
2004 to 2006. In noting this draft
basis, MNDOH indicated it will
update its guidance and
recommendations if appropriate,
but at this time continues to
recommend using its current
guidance for assessing potential
carcinogenic health risks (which
includes not recommending early-
life adjustment for cancer
potency).
M,
to derive a
supporting
lower
bound for
a cleanup
range)
(AS, GM,
HI, NMI)
These four entries are shown in parenthetical italics because this value only
underlies supporting soil concentrations, not the basic cleanup levels for these
Pacific islands. That is, this draft toxicity value was used to generate a lower
bound as a companion to the standard cleanup levels based on
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 for HI, and on 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 for the other three
islands. This toxicity value supports the lower end of the cleanup range, while
the main cleanup level above which remedial action is to be considered is
based on the two other slope factors applied by nearly all other states:
130,000 and 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1. '
November 2009
Page S-10
-------
TABLE S-2 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup Levels3
Cancer
Toxicity Value
(mg/kg-d)'1
Number
of States
Specific
States
Scientific Basis
Nature of Value
and Peer Review
130,000
7
AS, AZ,
GM, MD,
ME, NMI,
WY
This slope factor is listed in the current EPA Regional screening level table for
residential soil, with the source given as CalEPA; its derivation is documented
by California EPA (CalEPA). (As a note, the CalEPA soil screening level for
2,3,7,8-TCDD is 4.6 ppt.) The asterisk * in the RSL table for the cancer basis
indicates that a screening level based on the noncancer endpoint is <1% of
that based on the cancer endpoint (indicated as "[n SL < 100X c SL]"). This
toxicity value is based on the NTP rat gavage studies from 1982. Summarizing
from the CalEPA derivation document: a linearized multistage model was used
with the NTP male mouse hepatocellular adenoma/carcinoma tumor data for
TCDD, providing point estimates of extra risk for both maximum likelihood
estimate (MLE) and linearized 95% upper confidence value (UCL); the UCL
was calculated by maximizing the linear term, or forcing a best fit (method
consistent both with expected iow-dose linearity and linear nonthreshold
theory). The slope of 95% UCL (q1 *) was taken as the plausible upper bound
cancer potency of TCDD at low doses. Rodent exposure data were converted
to equivalent human exposures with scaling factors. Assumptions include: oral
and inhalation routes are equivalent, air concentration is assumed to be daily
oral dose, route of exposure does not affect absorption, and no difference
exists in metabolism/ pharmacokinetics between animals and humans. Total
weekly dose levels were averaged for a daily dose level; this assumes daily
dosing in the NTP studies would give the same results as the actual twice
weekly dosing schedule (as described, the TCDD half-life is relatively long so
both schedules should give similar tissue concentrations). A significant
increase in hepatocellular hyperplastic nodules was observed in female rats
exposed to 0.1 or 0.01 pg/kg-d, while the next lower dose (0.001 |jg/kg-d)
showed no effect. (Note CalEPA is currently evaluating more recent toxicity
data, notably the 2004 NTP study. Implications for an updated oral toxicity
value are anticipated to be available later in 2009 or early 2010, following
completion of the external review process.)
This value was developed by the
California Department of Health
Services in 1986, as documented
in the derivation report developed
for the California Toxic Air
Contaminant program. It
underwent external peer review
by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) scientific review
panel and was endorsed in 2002
when it was summarized and
included in the 2002 CalEPA Hot
Spots document.
External review by the scientific
panel (primarily from academia)
was in accordance with a process
that has been in place since
1983, per the original state air
toxics legislation from the early
1980s. As described in the
CalEPA overview of this value,
comprehensive reviews of human
studies available when the
evaluation was written for the
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC)
program are found in 1980s
documents from the U.S. EPA
and Veterans Administration.
(+1)
(IN)
This entry is in parenthetical italics because 130,000 (mg/kg-d)'1 underlies the
internal draft cleanup level being considered by Indiana (60 ppt), based on field
input during the review phase of this data compilation effort. The slope factor
of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1 underlies the current provisional level of 45 ppt..
a See the Notation section and report body for acronyms; see the body and references for the documentation indicated in this summary table.
November 2009 Page S-11
-------
14
12
10
in
o
4J
re
(O
<*-
o
o
-Q
£
3
MN
r-As;
(GMJ
(HI)
(NMI)
75.000
MIDEQ (1998)/TSG (1990):
based on Kociba et ai. (1978)
and updated (1985) NTP
tumor classification method
130.000
EPARSL (2009V
CalEPA (2002 !2003j):
based on NTP (1982) and more
recent methodology
150,000
EPAHEAST (1997):
based on Kociba et al. (1978)
and earlier (pre-1986) NTP tumor
classification method
-1
1.400,000
MNDOH (2003)"
based on Kociba et al (1978).
from upper bound animal bioassay
draft value in EPA (2003a)
Cancer Toxicity Value (mg/kg-d)
FIGURE S-5 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup Levels
(Italics indicate the value is used for a draft or supporting cleanup level; see report body for acronyms and references.)
November 2009
Page S-12
-------
Four different cancer slope factors were identified across the states and territories (hereafter
generally referred to as states) that identified a toxicity value with their cleanup levels. These
slope factors are: 75,000; 130,000; 150,000; and 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"1. This set of values was
derived from two rodent bioassays conducted more than 25 years ago, combined with modeling
conducted by U.S. EPA work groups, California EPA (CalEPA), and other scientific groups to
estimate the incremental lifetime risk of cancer incidence for humans. The sources cited range
from old EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) to former and current
U.S. EPA Regional screening level tables, the 2003 draft EPA dioxin reassessment, and
CalEPA documents.
All but two of the 24 states that provide a slope factor used either 130,000 or
150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1 to establish dioxin cleanup levels for unrestricted use. These similar toxicity
values are based on two different bioassays: a 1978 study by Kociba and colleagues, and a
1982 National Toxicology Program (NTP) study. The original toxicity studies were
independently peer reviewed as part of their publication process, as were the evaluations
conducted to derive the slope factors.
The slope factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1 is most popular, having been used by more than
60 percent (15) of the states. This value is based on the two-year dietary study of Sprague-
Dawley rats by Kociba and colleagues, which showed a higher incidence of hepatocellular
carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of lungs, hard palate, nasal turbinates, and tongue at
the highest dose, yet a decreased incidence of other tumors. As a note, this slope factor has
also been applied by other states to establish supporting concentrations for dioxin in soil, such
as for the Nevada basic comparison (screening) levels.
The two states that used different slope factors, reflecting slightly more recent toxicological
evaluations, are Michigan and Minnesota. In 1986, the NTP updated its tumor classification
scheme, and scientists (including Kociba and his colleague Squire, as well as EPA work groups)
used that methodology to reassess the incidence of female rat liver tumors and other tumors
from the Kociba et al. data. This reassessment identified a lower tumor incidence, which
produced a lower toxicity value. A slope factor of 52,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 was determined based on
liver tumors alone, and a slope factor of 75,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 was determined based on total
significant tumors. The latter (which was one-half the previous slope factor) was used by
Michigan to establish its soil cleanup level.
In 2003, the Minnesota Department of Health (MNDOH) selected the draft slope factor of
1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)'1 from various values discussed in the 2003 draft EPA dioxin
reassessment; this value was the upper bound based on an animal bioassay and was derived
from the 1978 data in Kociba et al. (Note that the reassessment recommended a lower value,
which was based on human epidemiological data.) At roughly 10 times the two most commonly
applied toxicity values (and about 20 times higher than the Michigan value), this slope factor
was also used in a supporting context by the Pacific islands American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii,
and the Northern Mariana Islands. That is, it was used to estimate a lower-end concentration to
create an operational cleanup range, as a companion to the standard cleanup levels above
which remedial action is to be considered. A toxicity value of either 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 (for
Hawaii) or 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 (for the other islands) was used to derive the standard cleanup
levels, which are shown in the main figures and tables of this report.
The slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)'1 was used by about one-third of the states that identified
a toxicity value. This slope factor is derived from a 1982 chronic NTP study of Osborne-Mendel
rats dosed by gavage 3 times/week, and B6C3F1 mice gavaged 2 days/week. Summarizing the
November 2009
Page S-13
-------
scientific context from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
toxicogical profile for chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins: a dose of about 0.007 jjg/kg-d significantly
increased the incidence of thyroid follicular cell adenoma; a dose 10 times higher increased the
incidence of neoplastic nodules in the liver and hepatocellular carcinoma in females. At 0.1 and
0.01 (jg/kg-d, females exhibited a significant increase in hepatocellular hyperplastic nodules,
while those at the next lower dose (0.001 pg/kg-d) did not. Total weekly doses were averaged
to estimate a daily dose level, which assumes daily dosing would give the same results.
(Because the TCDD half-life is relatively long, both schedules were expected to give similar
tissue concentrations.) The rodent data were converted to equivalent human exposures using
basic scaling factors; assumptions included: oral and inhalation routes are equivalent, the air
concentration is assumed to be the daily oral dose, the route of exposure does not affect
absorption, and TCDD metabolism/pharmacokinetics do not differ between animals and
humans. CalEPA has documented the application of the linearized multistage model to these
rodent hepatocellular adenoma/carcinoma tumor data to derive the cancer slope factor.
The slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)'1 underlies the basic soil cleanup levels established by
Arizona and three Pacific islands (American Samoa, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands), as
indicated above. This value is also reflected in the current EPA Regional screening level (RSL),
which has been adopted by Wyoming and Maryland. In addition, it underlies the draft cleanup
level recently identified by Maine and the internal draft provisional value developed by Indiana -
bringing the total number using this slope factor to eight when current draft values are included.
5.3.4 Key Differences
Table S-3 illustrates differences in exposure values, target risks, and slope factors across states
for the ingestion pathway, which is the dominant exposure route for determining soil cleanup
levels for unrestricted/residential use. While the averaging time is generally the same (although
Washington uses a slightly higher value), the exposure frequency can differ by about 2.4-fold,
the soil ingestion factor by nearly 3-fold, the slope factor by about 20-fold, and the target risk by
100-fold. Another factor is the relative contribution of exposure routes, notably for restricted
scenarios. Further variation is caused by different bases, as TCDD or dioxin TEQ, and as
adopted screening values. These differences combine for a wide range of state cleanup levels.
5.3.5 Evaluation Criteria
The information available for these values was considered in the context of four evaluation
criteria that are commonly used to assess toxicity-based values: (1) nature of peer review,
(2) transparency-public availability, (3) scientific basis, and (4) incorporation of most recent
science. In many cases, only limited information was found to address these criteria during the
online searches, and little more was obtained from field review inputs. This was particularly an
issue for the nature of peer review and transparency, but in several cases it also extended to
documentation of the scientific basis, notably for derivation of the underlying toxicity value.
The toxicity values from CalEPA address the evaluation criteria elements relatively well. These
values are extensively peer reviewed in accordance with a long-standing external review
process. For dioxin, the current CalEPA slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 - which is used by
about one-third of those states that identify a toxicity value - is well documented in terms of
scientific basis, methodology, and peer review. This value was derived from a slightly more
recent bioassay (1982 NTP study) than the others (which are based on 1978 bioassay data
from Kociba and colleagues), using the linearized multi-stage model, and its derivation and
review process are publicly available online.
November 2009
Page S-14
-------
TABLE S-3 Summary Comparison of State Derivations for Incidental Soil Ingestion (primary contributor)
Generic equation for residential/unrestricted scenario, (incidental ingestion: Crasjng = TR*AT / SFoxEFxiFSad^lO^kg/mg
State
Cone
(ppt)
Oral Cancer Slope Factor.
SF0 (mg/kg-d)'1
Target Cancer Risk,
TR
Averaging Time (d)
Exposure Frequency,
EF (d/y)
Soil Ingestion Factor, IFSadj
or (IR*ED)/BW (mg-y/kq-d)
NE
3.9
150,000
10"6
25,550
350
114
OR
3.9
150,000
10'6
25,550
350
114
DE
4
150,000
10"6
25,550
350
114
MS
4.26
150,000
10"6
25,550
350
114
AZ
4.5
130,000
10"6
25,550
350
114
MD
4.5
130,000
10"6
25,550
350
114
WY
4.5
130,000
10-6
25,550
350
114
FL
7
150,000
10"6
25,550
350
69
NH
9
150,000
10"6
25,550
160
105
ME
10
130,000
10"6
25,550
150
120
WA
11
150,000
10-6
27,375
365
75
IA
19
150,000
5x10-®
25,550
350
114
MN
20
1,400,000
10"5
25,550
350
45
OH
35.8
150,000
10-5
25,550
350
114
AK
38
150,000
10"5
25,550
330
114
IN
45
150,000
10"5
25,550
250
114
KS
60
150,000
10"5
25,550
350
42
GA
80
(not specified)
10"5
25,550
350
48
Ml
90
75,000
10'5
25,550
350
114
PA
120
150,000
10-5
25,550
250
57
HI
390
150,000
10"4
25,550
350
114
AS
450
130,000
10*4
25,550
350
114
GM
450
130,000
10^
25,550
350
114
NMI
450
130,000
10"4
25,550
350
114
AL
1,000
150,000
(not specified)
(not specified)
(not specified)
(not specified)
TX
1,000
(not specified)
(not specified)
(not specified)
(not specified)
(not specified)
a Shading highlights variations within related entries. Note the internal draft proposed value of 60 ppt for Indiana uses a SF value of 130,000.
November 2009 Page S-15
-------
In contrast, documentation for the slope factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 used by most states is
limited. It is based on an outdated methodology, and the general citation is an outdated EPA
HEAST source. That HEAST cancer slope factor was indicated as being a provisional value
and was qualified as being under further evaluation. The HEAST tables were described in the
1997 EPA document as containing "provisional risk assessment information" that "have not had
enough review to be recognized as high quality, Agency-wide consensus information."
Specific peer review information for this earlier slope factor has not been found; however, the
1985 EPA Health Assessment Document (which is listed as one of the sources for the HEAST
value) underwent external peer review. Note it is not clear that the HEAST value was based
solely on this document, since the EPA (1985) lists a cancer slope factor of 156,000 (mg/kg-d)"1,
while the HEAST value is 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1. Thus, this value is considered relatively weak in
terms of the evaluation criteria.
The third slope factor, the value of 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)'1 used by Minnesota, is taken from
information included in the draft EPA dioxin reassessment (which remains under review). The
lack of a final peer-reviewed publication basis for this value limits its broader strength.
The fourth slope factor, the value of 75,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 used by Michigan, is a final published
value based on an updated and peer-reviewed evaluation of the Kociba data using the updated
NTP tumor classification. Documentation of this derivation, independent peer review, and public
availability of supporting information were not found to be as extensive as for the CalEPA value
More recent scientific data that have become available are currently being evaluated, including
by U.S. EPA and CalEPA. Information anticipated from these evaluations in late 2009 or early
2010 is expected to offer further insights for an updated interim soil cleanup level for dioxin.
S.4 SUMMARY
Information on soil dioxin cleanup levels was pursued for all 50 states, as well as DC, Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, and four Pacific islands. Nearly half have established cleanup levels,
and another quarter have identified screening levels. A number of states have not identified
generic concentrations, calling instead for site-specific determinations of cleanup levels to
account for relevant conditions. Additional context for these levels can be found from a review
of recent records of decision for cleanup sites, which are only relevant to those site-specific
applications..
The general cleanup levels established by states for unrestricted use span more than three
orders of magnitude because of their different bases - including TCDD versus TEQ (most of the
higher values are for the latter), cancer slope factors, target risks, and exposure assumptions
used. Most state cleanup levels are based on an earlier slope factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1,
which was qualified as a provisional value under review. While the levels for a few states reflect
the current OSWER directive of 1,000 ppt (as do a considerable number of site-specific
determinations), most levels established by the state agencies for unrestricted use fall at or
below 120 ppt. Lower concentrations (around 4 ppt) were identified by a number of states that
essentially adopted values developed for screening purposes (rather than cleanup decisions),
as reflected in the recently harmonized U.S. EPA Regional screening level table and related
data sources. The scientific basis, external peer review, and transparency of these values do
not appear to be well documented for such an application, i.e., for other than the screening
purpose for which they were designed.
November 2009
Page S-16
-------
1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose and scope of this report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) is identified in Section 1.1, and the
report organization is given in Section 1.2.
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this report is to provide information on soil cleanup levels for dioxin across the
United States. In late May 2009, the U.S. EPA Administrator released the Science Plan for
Activities Related to Dioxins in the Environment (U.S. EPA, 2009), which includes the following
commitments:
"EPA will evaluate information about the basis for dioxin soil clean-up levels.
• NCEA will review information about the basis for state dioxin soil clean-up
levels.
• NCEA will prepare a report for OSWER that includes a survey and evaluation
of the clean-up levels in the states.
• The report will characterize the science that these values are based on, as
well as the degree of peer review, if any that was done.
• This report will be completed before December 31, 2009, and provided to
OSWER.
• OSWER will announce an updated interim dioxin soil clean-up level to the
public by December 31, 2009."
The extant directive from the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) for
dioxin in soil identifies a cleanup level of 1,000 parts per trillion (ppt) for unrestricted land use
(U.S. EPA, 1998). In the time since this directive was released, several states have developed
their own values to guide the cleanup of contaminated sites, which are lower than the OSWER
value. Many in the broader community are interested in updated U.S. EPA guidance to support
cleanup activities that are under way and being planned. The Agency is responding to this need
through the commitments outlined above.
The scope of this evaluation focuses on 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) or total
dioxins as toxic equivalents (TEQ). It does not include dioxin-like compounds, such as
polychlorinated biphenyls. Further details on the scope are given in Chapter 2.
1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is organized as follows:
• Chapter 2 outlines the approach for identifying soil cleanup levels across states.
• Chapter 3 presents the results, including the scientific basis where, available.
• Chapter 4 provides a brief discussion of the results.
• Chapter 5 identifies key references cited in the report.
• Appendices present supporting information on the approach (Appendix A) and detailed
data for individual states, organized by U.S. EPA Region (Appendix B), with references.
November 2009
Page 1
-------
2 APPROACH
The identification of state soil cleanup levels for dioxin involved three main phases:
• Survey existing information sources including the scientific literature to identify
state cleanup levels for dioxin-contaminated soil, and supporting documentation,
including for the toxicity value applied.
• Compile the state levels and their scientific bases, and provide to applied
experts across states and U.S. EPA Regions for review and input; include in this
compilation information for several criteria used to evaluate health-based levels.
• Integrate the information into a summary technical report.
These phases are illustrated in Figure 1. Information for Phases 1 and II is highlighted in
Sections 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. Supporting details for the approach are provided in
Appendix A.
Stale agency websites,
Regional and other
organizational websites,
peer-reviewed
scientific literature,
EPA Record of Decision
System (RODS), and
other integrated data sets
Compile summary report:
integrate data per field input
Field review and feedback
for clarifications and additions
for publicly available data on
soil cleanup levels for dioxin
Search online sources
Tabulate and provide to field for input
with checklist and state-specific
questions to support feedback
Pursue underlying documents
for scientific basis and other
evaluation criteria:
include derivation method for
cleanup level and toxicity value
FIGURE 1 Phased Approach for Identifying Soil Dioxin Cleanup Levels
Note that "state" is used as a broad term to include entities such as U.S. territories for which
information on soil cleanup levels for dioxin was also pursued. That is, the scope extended
beyond the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands to American Samoa, Guam,
Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territories (the latter four are in EPA Region 9).
November 2009
Page 2
-------
2.1 DOCUMENT/LITERATURE SEARCH
The literature survey to identify state soil cleanup levels for dioxin focused on the scope
summarized in Table 1. The information resources pursued are highlighted in Table 2.
TABLE 1 Scope of the Survey for Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels by State
Component
Focus
Note
Benchmark type
Cleanup level, not screening value
While many states identify screening
values, this effort focuses on soil
cleanup levels.
Contaminant
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD) or toxic equivalents (TEQ),
total dioxins
Dioxin-like compounds (DLCs) such as
polychlorinated biphenyls are not
included.
Environmental medium
Soil
When soil data are limited for a given
state, other data are collected for
potential insight (e.g., values for related
use such as amendments for surface
soil).
Scenario (land use)
Primary focus:
Unrestricted, residential use
Also considered:
Commercial/industrial use
Where a data source includes other
scenarios (e.g., combined ecological-
health protection) industrial use), those
are also collected for related insight.
Receptor
Primary focus:
Most exposed human
(e.g., resident/child)
Also considered:
Other human receptors for other
scenarios
A key interest is on the receptor
assumed to be most exposed, to
represent a level considered protective
for others.
Exposure route
Primary focus:
Direct contact, oral (incidental
ingestion)
Also considered:
Other routes (e.g., inhalation, dermal)
that contribute but to a lesser extent to
unrestricted/residential and other land
use scenarios
The dominant exposure route for
unrestricted use (residential) is oral/
incidental ingestion. The equations
and parameter values highlighted in
the data tables focus on this route to
simplify presentation and field review.
Toxicity value
Slope factor or similar term (cancer)
Reference dose or similar term
(noncancer)
Oral toxicity values are the main focus.
Where not found online, field input was
requested for the scientific study and
derivation methodology underlying the
toxicity value used.
November 2009
Page 3
-------
TABLE 2 Information Resources Pursued
Information Resource
Search Note
Primary
State websites
Multiple divisions and departments
Supporting
U.S. EPA Region websites
Links to information for specific cleanup sites (including voluntary
cleanups), as well as regional values that have been adopted by
various states and cleanup sites
Other agency websites
Includes the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) website, which contains soil dioxin values (and supporting
context) that have been adopted by various states and cleanup sites
Scientific literature
Peer-reviewed journal articles that include information on state cleanup
levels and supporting context, where available
OSWER RODS database
(Record of Decision System)
Database of decision documents and links to related technical reports
that identify dioxin cleanup levels established for contaminated sites on
the National Priorities List. (These checks were conducted to help
address gaps where state policy or guideline values were not found
online, and as general supporting insight.)
Other organizational websites
Summaries or extracts of soil dioxin cleanup levels from various groups
Other online sources
Data via open google searches using selected key words and
combinations (including [state], dioxin, TCDD, TEQ, soil, cleanup,
remediation, site, concentration, level, limit, guideline, guidance, risk,
RBC, CERCLA, RCRA, voluntary, brownfield, record of decision, five-
year review, toxicity value, reference dose, slope factor, potency)
2.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA
Four criteria were considered to evaluate the state soil cleanup levels for dioxin:
• Nature of peer review
• Transparency-public availability
• Scientific basis
• Incorporation of most recent science
These criteria are indicated in OSWER Directive 9285.7-53, Human Health Toxicity Values in
Superfund Risk Assessments (U.S. EPA, 2003b), for toxicity values in Tier 3. That tier is tapped
when no values are available from Tier 1 (U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System, IRIS)
or Tier 2 (U.S. EPA provisional peer reviewed toxicity values, PPRTVs).
Similar criteria have been applied across other programs, including as reflected in a joint work
group of the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD),
which included technical input from OSWER (ECOS, 2007).
November 2009
Page 4
-------
3 RESULTS
Results of the data collection and evaluation effort are organized as follows. Soil concentrations
identified across states are summarized in Section 3.1, and the toxicity reference values
underlying these concentrations are presented in Section 3.2. The derivation methodologies
used to establish the state cleanup levels and associated toxicity values are described in
Section 3.3, and the evaluation criteria are discussed in Section 3.4.
3.1 SOIL DIOXIN LEVELS BY STATE
State data relevant to dioxin cleanup levels in soil are grouped in figures and tables based on
land use. The first group addresses unrestricted/residential use, and the second addresses
restricted use, notably for commercial and industrial settings. Key tables and figures for each
group are listed in Table 3 and described in the sections that follow.
TABLE 3 Selected Tables and Figures of State Values for Dioxin in Soil3
Tables and Figures
per Land Use Category
Data Ordered by:
Scale
State
(alphabetical)
Concentration
(decreasing)
EPA
Region
Basic
Log
Unrestricted/Residential
Table 4: State cleanup levels
V
I
i
Figure 2a: Representative level per state
y
y
Figure 2b: As for 2a but log scale
y '
i '
y
Figure 3: As for 2b, by concentration
y
Figure 4: As for 2b, by Region
y
y
Table 5: Additional values, by state
Table 6: States with no soil cleanup level
y i
Figure 5: As for 2b, plus screening values
y
y
Figure 6: As for 5, by concentration
y
y
Figure 7: As for 5, by Region
y
y
Figure 8: Site-specific levels, by state
~ l
y
Figure 9: As for 8, by concentration
i y '
y
Restricted Commercial/Industrial
Table 7: State cleanup levels
V
1
Figure 10a: Representative level per state
y I :
y
Figure 10b: As for 10a but log scale
y
y
Figure 11: As for 10b, by concentration
y •
y
Figure 12: As for 10b, by Region
y
y
Table 8: Additional values, by state
y
1
i
Figure 13: As for 10b, plus screening values
y
y
Figure 14: As for 10b, by concentration
~
y
Figure 15: As for 10b, by Region
\ I '
y
Figure 16: Site-specific levels, by state
' I 1
y
Figure 17: As for 16, by concentration
~
y
8 Additional supporting tables and figures, including for toxicity values, follow this set.
November 2009
Page 5
-------
3.1.1 Unrestricted/Residential Use
Soil Cleanup Levels
. About half the states have established a standard cleanup level or guideline for dioxin in
soil, with some identifying multiple concentrations. Variations reflect differences in input
assumptions such as extent of child exposures, target risk level, and type of carcinogen.
To simplify comparisons, Figure 2a and Table 4 emphasize one cleanup level per state.
(Other values identified for individual states are presented in supporting tables and
figures.) These concentrations are shown by state in alphabetical order on a standard
arithmetic scale. Note for Indiana, the current provisional value (45 ppt) is shown
together with the draft proposed value (60 ppt) identified by the state during field review.
Similarly, no published level was found for Maine, but the value identified by the state
during field review is shown in the figure. Darkborders indicate values reported as TEQ..
. The range of cleanup levels across states is considerable. While the TEQ (rather than
TCDD) basis is a key reason for several values at the higher end, several at the lower
end reflect the fact that some states have adopted values identified solely for screening
purposes (relatively low concentrations) to serve as cleanup levels. The wide range of
concentrations produced makes it difficult to distinguish the smaller values when shown
on an arithmetic scale. To facilitate readability and comparisons across all levels,
Figure 2b presents the same information as Figure 2a but on a logarithmic scale.
Figure 3 presents these same cleanup concentrations shown in Figure 2 but in
decreasing order rather than by state, for potential insights into concentration groupings.
. Figure 4 presents the same cleanup levels as Figures 2 and 3 but organized by EPA
Region, for potential insights into regional patterns (similarities and differences), if any.
Supporting Context: Screening Values and Illustrative Site-Specific Cleanup Levels
The survey of existing state limits for dioxin in soil uncovered a variety of data that
extend beyond the cleanup levels shown in Figures 2 through 4. Table 5 identifies these
additional values (see lower portion), and Figure 5 presents the fuller set of
concentrations, which includes screening values for dioxin in soil for these scenarios.
Given that certain states have adopted screening values as cleanup levels, these data
are considered useful as supporting context. This complement of concentration data is
presented together with the cleanup levels, alphabetized by state, to offer potential
insights into similarities and differences within and across these sets.
Figure 6 presents the same data as Figure 5 but in decreasing numerical order rather
than by state, to offer potential insights into concentration groupings.
Figure 7 presents the same data as Figure 5, organized by EPA Region.
. Many states have not established a standard concentration for dioxin (see Table 6),
invoking instead a site-specific determination of soil cleanup levels. In light of this basis
for various states, Figure 8 presents illustrative cleanup levels identified in documents
prepared for contaminated sites, organized by state, for practical application insights.
. Figure 9 presents the same site-specific values as Figure 8, organized by concentration.
November 2009
Page 6
-------
TABLE 4 Representative Soil Cleanup Level for Dioxin by State: Unrestricted/Residential Use3
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
Toxicity
Value
(mg/kg-d)'1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scient
Exposure
fie Basis
Toxicity j Risk
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
AK
38
Jun-08
150,000
Risk-based
concentration for
TCDD, residential
use, direct contact.
General equation for I Slope factor
direct contact, | source is given as
incidental ingestion jHEAST.
and dermal exposure j
considered. j
10'5
Equations are given
in ADEC
documents,
available online.
Represents the most
conservative of the three
RBCs developed for three
different annual exposure
frequencies.
AL
1,000
Jun-07
150,000
Preliminary
screening or cleanup
value for TCDD,
residential use, direct
contact.
(Adopted value from
OSWER directive.)
Slope factor ;
source is given as !
HEAST. Note the j
derivation basis of '¦
this OSWER
cleanup level is i
the evaluation by
Kimbrough et al. i
(1984) of study j
data from Kociba \
etal. (1978). j
Cleanup value and
toxicological
context are
available online.
Cited in ADEM (2008) as a
value that can be used for
"screening or cleanup"
purposes.
AS
450
Oct-08
130,000
Tier 2 action level for
TCDD TEQ,
residential use, direct
contact. (Tier 1 is a
screening level; see
right-most column for
Tier 2 context.)
General equation for
direct contact;
considers ingestion,
inhalation, and dermal
routes of exposure.
Slope factor
reflects the value
listed in the 2008
EPA RSL table.
10"4
Information is
available online.
Action level adopted from
Guam EPA represents the
value above which
residential use is not
recommended absent
remedial action to reduce
potential exposure.
AZ
4.5
May-07
130,000
Soil remediation level
for TCDD, residential
use, direct contact.
General equation for Slope factor is j 10"6
direct contact; from CalEPA, as I
considers ingestion, reflected in the j
inhalation, and dermal EPA RSL table. j
routes of exposure. j
i- }
I i
i i
! ;
Adopted equations
and toxicity
information from
Regional EPA
RSLs, for which
documents were
available online.
Current AZDEQ residential
SRL to be used if current or
intended future use of a
contaminated site is a child
care facility or school where
children <18 are reasonably
expected to be in frequent,
repeated contact with soil.
November 2009
Page 7
-------
TABLE 4 Representative Soil Cleanup Level for Dioxin by State: Unrestricted/Residential Use3
State
Soil
Cone
(Ppt)
Date
Toxicity
Value
(mg/kg-d)'1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scient
Exposure
fic Basis
Toxicity J Risk
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
DE
4
Dec-99
150,000
Uniform risk-based
remediation standard
for TCDD,
unrestricted use,
protection of human
health.
General equation for
direct contact;
incidental ingestion is
primary contributor.
Slope factor I 10'6
source is given as i
HEAST.
i
i
I
Calculations and
risk-based tables
are available online.
Current residential URS
FL
7
Feb-05
150,000
Soil cleanup target
level for TCDD,
residential use, direct
contact.
General equation for Slope factor : 10"6
direct contact; source is given as !
considers incidental :HEAST. 1
ingestion, inhalation, 1 |
and dermal exposure |
routes. ' '¦
Derivation basis
and equations are
available online.
(Default and
chemical-specific
parameter values
are in the FDEP
2005 technical
report.)
Current residential SCTL.
GA
80
1992
Not found
Notifiable concentra-
tion for TCDD,
unrestricted use
scenario. (This is a
default starting point
for the cleanup level
that is determined on
a site-specific basis,
which in some cases
may be this same
concentration.)
General equation for \Not found. j 10'5
direct contact; j i
considers ingestion | j
and inhalation i j
exposure pathways j ¦
. i
i >
: i
Soil values
available online, but
specific derivation
basis is unclear;
toxicity value and
some chemical-
specific parameter
values are not
provided.
Value identified from the
GADNR website.
GM
450
Oct-08
130,000
Tier 2 action level for
TCDD TEQ,
residential use, direct
contact.
General equation for Slope factors and 10^
direct contact; toxicological
considers incidental information are
ingestion, inhalation, from CalEPA, as
and dermal exposure reflected in 2008
routes. EPA RSL table.
Information is
available online.
Representsthe value above
which residential use is not
recommended in the
absence of remedial actions
to reduce potential
exposure.
November 2009
Page 8
-------
TABLE 4 Representative Soil Cleanup Level for Dioxin by State: Unrestricted/Residential Use3
State
Soil
Cone
(ppt)
Date
Toxicity
Value
(mg/kg-d)'1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scient
Exposure
fic Basis
Toxicity
Risk
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
HI
390
Mar-06
150,000
Tier 2 action level for
TCDDTEQ,
residential use, direct
contact.
General equation for
direct contact;
considers incidental
ingestion, inhalation,
and dermal exposure
routes.
Slope factor
source is given as
HEAST.
10-4
Information is
available online.
Represents the value above
which residential use is not
recommended in the
absence of remedial actions
to reduce potential
exposure.
IA
19
Jul-09
150,000
Cleanup level for
residential land use.
Exposure equation jSlope factor j 5
takes into account I source is given as j *10"6
ingestion and dermal IHEAST. |
contact. ! i
] ;
I i
i i
Formula used for
risk calculations is
available online.
Field review feedback
identified this value as part
of the statewide soil
standards in the voluntary
cleanup program, the Iowa
Land Recycling Program.
IN
45
2006
150,000
TCDD, residential
soil default closure
level, direct contact.
Exposure equation
considers ingestion,
inhalation, and dermal
exposure routes.
Slope factor
source is given as
HEAST.
10"5
Current technical
guide is available
online.
Internal draft value,
pending possible
changes in
algorithms or
toxicological data.
Represents the current
provisional value, available
online..
(60)
Jun-09
130,000
Internal draft value
for TCDD, residential
soil default closure
level, direct contact.
Exposure equation
considers ingestion,
inhalation, and dermal
exposure routes.
Slope factor
source is given as
CalEPA.
10"5
The soil concentration of
60 ppt was identified in field
feedback as a draft internal
value under consideration.
KS
60
Jun-07
150,000
Tier 2 risk-based
standard for TCDD,
residential scenario.
"Chemical-specific
and media-specific
risk-based cleanup
goals ..." (seeTier2
context in right-most
column).
Exposure equation
considers ingestion,
inhalation, and dermal
exposure routes.
Slope factor
source is given as
HEAST.
10"5
Cleanup levels and
equations with soil
exposure factors
are available online.
Tier 2: Single contaminant
and medium, standard and
conservative default
exposure assumptions;
does not include soil to air
transfer, cumulative risk
from multiple contaminants
or media, and risk to
ecological receptors
November 2009
Page 9
-------
TABLE 4 Representative Soil Cleanup Level for Dioxin by State: Unrestricted/Residential Use3
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
Toxicity
Value
(mg/kg-dj1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scientific Basis
Exposure j Toxicity j Risk
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
MD
4.5
Jul-09
130,000
Cleanup level for
TCDD, residential
scenario.
Exposure equation j Slope factor , 10'6
considers ingestion, ;source is given as j
inhalation, and dermal ^CalEPA.
exposure routes. |
EPA RSL equations
are available online.
Field review feedback
indicated the EPA
residential RSL is the soil
cleanup level for MD.
ME
10
Jul-09
130,000
Draft generic soil
cleanup level for
dioxin TEQ,
residential scenario.
Value considers Slope factor 10"6
incidental ingestion, source is given as
dermal contact, and CalEPA.
inhalation of fugitive ;
dust.
Equations and a
summary of
calculations are
available online.
(Not known if this is
pending final
publication.)
Concentration found via
weblinks provided in field
review feedback. This value
of 10 ppt for residential use
is considered representative
(with its more conservative
target ILCR, 10~6), as it is
"applicable at sites with
more than one contaminant
of concern."
Ml
90
Aug-98
75,000
Direct contact
criterion (DCC) and
risk-based screening
level (RBSL) for
TCDD.
Exposure equation iSlope factor based! 10"5
considers ingestion Ion reanalysis of j
and dermal routes of iKociba et al. j
exposure. (1978) data using |
I updated (1986) j
|NTP methodology, i
DCC derivation
methodology is
available online.
MN
20
Dec-08
1,400,000
Soil reference value,
residential scenario,
direct contact.
General equation Draft upper-bound ; 10 s
considers incidental slope factor from
ingestion, dermal EPA (2003), which
contact, and was derived from
inhalation. Kociba et al.
(1978) data.
Methodology and
updates to
parameter values
are available online.
Current residential SRV
November 2009
Page 10
-------
TABLE 4 Representative Soil Cleanup Level for Dioxin by State: Unrestricted/Residential Usea
State
Soil
Cone
(ppt)
Date
Toxicity
Value
(mg/kg-d)'1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scientific Basis
Exposure I Toxicity | Risk
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
MS
4.26
Feb-02
150,000
Tier 1, target
remediation goal for
TCDD, unrestricted
land use scenario.
(See right-most
column for Tier 1
context.)
General equation from j Slope factor
EPA (1996) Soil isource is given as
Screening Guidance; ! HEAST (undated;
incidental ingestion is ifield review
the primary ifeedback cited
contributor. } pg. 3-33).
!
i
10-®
Equations from
EPA are available
online; the HEAST
information is not.
Field review feedback
indicates target risk is
default;"Tier 1 TRGs may
either be used as "default"
remediation goals or as
screening values that will
initiate a Tier 2 Evaluation or
Tier 3 Evaluation."
NE
3.9
Oct-08
150,000
Remediation goal
established under
the NDEQ Voluntary
Cleanup Program
guidance for TCDD,
based on direct
contact.
General equation; iSlope factor
considers ingestion, -source given as
inhalation, and dermal ;HEAST.
exposure routes.
!
i
i
I
10"6
Cleanup levels and
remediation goals
are available online.
Field review feedback
indicated the VCP RGs °are
both screening levels for
investigation and site
characterization purposes
and preliminary cleanup
goals for the remedial action
phase."
NH
9
May-07
150,000
Risk-based S-1 soil
category for sensitive
uses of property and
accessible soils.
(See right-most
column for context..)
General equation for
direct contact;
considers ingestion
and dermal exposure
routes.
Slope factor cites
RAIS (ORNL,
2005/2006);
appears to reflect
HEAST.
10"6
Risk
characterization
and derivations are
available online.
Relatively conservative, S-1
means potential receptors of
all ages, may be exposed via
normal everyday activities
(160 d/y, 30 y).
NMI
450
Oct-08
130,000
Tier 2 action level for
TCDD TEQ,
residential use, direct
contact. (Tier 1 is a
screening level; see
right-most column for
Tier 2 context.)
General equation for j Slope factor MO"4
direct contact; : reflects the value j
considers ingestion, listed in the 2008
inhalation, and dermal - EPA RSL table. .
routes of exposure. ;
l ;
Information is
available online.
Action level adopted from
Guam EPA represents the
value above which
residential use is not
recommended absent
remedial action to reduce
potential exposure.
OH
35.8
Mar-08
150,000
Generic cleanup
numbers for TCDD,
direct contact with
soil.
General equation;
considers ingestion,
inhalation, and dermal
exposure routes.
Slope factor
source is given as
HEAST.
10 s
Derivation
methodology is
available online.
November 2009
Page 11
-------
TABLE 4 Representative Soil Cleanup Level for Dioxin by State: Unrestricted/Residential Use3
State
Soil
Cone
(PPO
Date
Toxicity
Value
(mg/kg-d)'1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scientific Basis
Exposure j Toxicity j Risk
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
OR
3.9
May-05
150,000
Acceptable risk level
forTCDD, residential
scenario, direct
contact.
General equation ;Slope factor j 10"6
adopted from Isource indicated j
Region 9 PRGs; las HEAST. j
considers ingestion, ; i
inhalation, and dermal ' j
routes of exposure i |
Values and
derivation
methodology are
available online.
Acceptable risk level is
defined as "the level of risk
above which some action
must be taken to reduce
exposure to contaminants of
concern." Reflects EPA
Region 9 PRGs.
PA
120
Nov-01
150,000
Medium-specific
concentration (MSC)
for TCDD, residential
scenario, direct
contact.
General equation; Slope factor ! 10"5
considers ingestion source is given as i
route. HEAST. I
i ;
PADEP documents
are available online.
Current residential MSC.
TX
1,000
Mar-09
Not found;
see note at
right for the
toxicity
basis.
Protective
concentration level
forTCDD, residential
scenario.
Exposure equation \Reflects OSWER
accounts for ingestion, [value, for which
inhalation, dermal Jthe derivation
contact, and jbasis is the
vegetable j evaluation by
consumption. iKimbrough et al.
j(1984) of study
idata from Kociba
jet al. (1978).
Soil concentration
is available online,
but TX does not
describe derivation
basis. Toxicity
values and some
chemical-specific
parameter values
are not provided.
"The TRRP Tier 1 protective
concentration levels (PCLs)
are the default cleanup
standards in the TX Risk
Reduction Program."
WA
11
Jun-09
150,000
Cleanup level for
TCDD, unrestricted
scenario, direct
contact.
General equation; Slope factor 10"6
considers ingestion source indicated
exposure route. as HEAST.
Equations, cleanup
levels, and risk
calculations are
available online.
WY
4.5
Jul-09
130,000
Cleanup level for
TCDD.
Exposure equation
takes into account
exposure from
ingestion, inhalation,
and dermal contact.
Slope factor
source is given as
CalEPA.
10"6
EPA RSL equations
are available online.
Field review feedback
indicated WY uses 4.5 ppt
as its residential soil
cleanup level.
Italics indicate information from the field review phase. See Notation section and report text for acronym definitions.
November 2009
Page 12
-------
1,000
1,000
450
450
450
390
36
n
4.5 . 4
-SO-
P
19
n
45
(GO) 60~
M
120
90
4.5 10
20
4.26 3.9 9
~ I
35.8
n
3.9
11
4.5
r3 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ cf cf
-------
10,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
I
n
c 100
8
p
X
p
p
8 10 f
38
450
450
390
450
-ee-
4.5
90
45
60
(60) uu
19
10
4.5
n
20
4.26
3.9
120
35.8
3.9
11
4.5
i i M i i i » ¦ i
i i i - i -¦ i ¦¦" i "i
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ <*¦ ^ ^
FIGURE 2b Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by State
(Logarithmic scale; a dark border indicates the basis is TEQ rather than TCDD; a dashed border and lighter shading
indicates a draft value; parenthetical dates reflect field inputs for values not yet found online.)
November 2009 Page 14
-------
10,000
1,000
1,000 1,000
n
e
£ 100
§ 10 --
450 450 450
T ' "T I I
390
120
90
-8©-
JfS
60 (§0)
1 f ~|
1 38 35 8
20
19
11
0 9
4.5 4.5 4.5 4.26
4 3.9 3.9
. » i i ,i i¦¦i i ¦ i ¦ ¦ i ¦ ¦ i
I I 1 V 1 I
^ ^ O* # ** ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ & # 3~.
FIGURE 3 Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by Concentration
(A dark border indicates the basis is TEQ rather than TCDD; a dashed border and lighter shading indicates a draft value;
parenthetical dates reflect field inputs for values not yet found online.)
November 2009
Page 15
-------
10,000
f
n
?
f
n
s
n
8
n
X
p
1,000
100
10
1
10
1,000
120
4.5 i
I !
-1 T
1,000 i
-*r
90
(60) n
rj i
n i
20
35.8
n
u
19
n!
60
fl
450 450 3go 450
I l I ! I I H I ! !
4.26 I I ! | I , q i 4.5 j 4.5 .1.39!
n I i \ } | n j n I H In!
I ! j M I i r ! i i j f |
i ! !l I- MM; II I ;] ! i Ml
I I ' I I 1 I I ' I I I 1 I I I I I1 'l la a I 1 1 I 1 a I I I I I
& ^ ^ ^ M6y? j?
> ^ ^0° ^ o° cP" ^ o
10
38
11
c?VNV ^VVV /Vv>* ** v/ oV>V-o°
O^0^' ^ J? ^\r^v
-------
TABLE 5 Additional State Concentrations Potentially Relevant to Soil Cleanup:
Unrestricted/Residential Use3
State
Cone
(PPt)
Context
AR
4.5
18
No cleanup level was found for dioxin, but ARDEQ used U.S. EPA Region 6 medium-
specific screening levels (MSSLs) as a point of departure. (These values were recently
harmonized as EPA RSLs.) Also, "Arkansas has not implemented a single set of soil
cleanup levels for general usage. Instead, the State uses standards set in Regulation
No. 23 ..., usually arriving at a site-specific standard for each clean-up." (For further
information including the citation, see the AR entry in Table B.6 of the appendix.)
CA
4.6
" 19 "
No cleanup levels were identified for dioxin, but CA has developed human health
screening levels (HHSLs) forTCDD.
KY
4.5
18
KY regulations indicate that the state uses Region 9 PRGs for screening purposes.
(These values were recently harmonized as EPA RSLs.)
MA
20
50
300
MA has developed Method 1 soil standards for three different exposure scenarios. Field
review feedback indicated that Method 1 standards are "essentially a screening
approach. If dioxin concentrations exceed this level a risk assessment can be used to
evaluate the site and derive cleanup levels." (For further information including the
citation, see the MA entry in Table B.1 of the appendix.)
MT
4.5
18
State-specific risk-based screening levels (RBSLs) are listed on the MTDEQ website;
none were found for dioxin or dioxin congeners. Instead, the MTDEQ flow chart directs
users to screen soil dioxin concentrations based on the subsequent EPA RSLs.
NC
4.5
18
NC identifies PRGs for dioxin, which were adopted from the recently harmonized EPA
RSLs.
NV
3.9
17.7
38.1
NDEP has developed basic comparison levels for dioxin in soil for residential,
commercial/industrial worker, and indoor worker (without dermal contact) scenarios.
BCLs essentially represent a screening approach.
NY
600
60,000
NYDEC.has developed an allowable soil concentration and a soil cleanup objective
(SCO) for TCDD, both of which are to be protective of groundwater quality. The
allowable concentration assumes contaminated soil is in direct contact with the water
table; the SCO value assumes contaminated soil is in the unsaturated zone above the
water table and is subject to attenuating processes during transport to groundwater.
Neither was used to develop a "recommended" cleanup objective for the State of NY.
OK
3.9
18
38
OK indicates that EPA Region 6 MSSLs were used for screening purposes,
representing residential, industrial outdoor worker, and industrial indoor worker
scenarios. (The MSSLs were recently harmonized as EPA RSLs.)
SC
4.5
18
SCDHEC fact sheet indicates that EPA Region 9 PRGs were used for screening
purposes. (The PRGs were recently harmonized as EPA RSLs.)
TN
50
Soil screening level for dioxins based on 10'6 lifetime cancer risk over a 70-year life
(reflects the recent ATSDR [2008a] guideline).
VA
4.5
18
VADEQ indicates that 2008 EPA RSLs are used for screening purposes.
VT
4.5
18
VTDEC indicates that 2008 EPA RSLs are used for screening purposes.
Wl
1.2
0.5
WIDNR identifies risk-based standards for human and wildlife protection, as total dioxin
equivalent; values of 0.5 and 1.2 ppt are identified for agricultural land with and without
grazing, respectively.
WV
4.1
370 '
WVDEP identifies these values for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, for the residential and industrial
scenario, respectively, which reflect EPA Region 3 risk-based concentrations from
July 1996. (The RBCs were recently harmonized as EPA RSLs.)
a Italics indicate information from the field review phase. See Notation and text for acronym definitions.
November 2009
Page 17
-------
(Page intentionally left blank.)
November 2009 Page 18
-------
100,000
10,000
1.000
1.00" 1.AO0
1,606 l.flrtfl
100
o
o
e
to
10
' <-*3.1
¦a
la
ia
ia
ir
¦a
l| "5.9
•a
«•' 3.1
..fT.1^.\ .'C vy fV. :*". :T ;¦" ,1.r'^ -s' *^vr >•' ¦< »*V^*V o' *«" ^ i fV-' -r>- r x ^ ;r v * * ^ *•*? •/* •,'^s'^ /%'O.Ok'V*''^ ><\r
FIGURE 5 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by State
(Cleanup levels are solid bars, dark borders indicate the basis is TEQ not TCDD. dashed borders are for draft or supporting values; screening values are unshaded.)
November 2009
Page 19
-------
1LC.Q0Q
•p* 0 O V1 ^ ¦<* *i' O V *" V" »l /?¦ %% ^ iv j»* ^ »v %* ^ *1* o %* ^ »* V ^ 0* V i* i
sp+r ^>V>'^ SS ^'/.vV S*S.fS SS
^•'^t' »N ,1" s>^'*<"' »,..'^"<«*nS.js" >s f* ¦ _,>¦¦ •* i* ¦ ^>>'<,"'^ '' «.>*
Jl
» » »' o »• »¦ ~' kv »¦ < v »¦ rc »> v v « v i' * *'_*¦ v »' » % »¦ » o v* « i « y »• »•»•¦%• »• ¦>¦ » jo » » &
•r *** -/wv ?•* »•'>' * W "V «<%'.. sss*ss,?
FIGURE 6 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by Concentration
(Cleanup levels are solid bars, dark borders indicate the basis is TEQ not TCDD, dashed borders are for draft or supporting values; screening values are unshaded.)
November 2009
Page 20
-------
10
100,000
10,000
3.004
1,000
1.000 I.Ofl®
100
(0
«s
2 10
. AS d.C
4.2* ,• ,> / r* f' O ^ p> /*> y »> »' ^ ^ ~VNj|> ;¦ j >"» »\ »\-j ^ [O A*' ,» •> ¦> ¦> >* >* o ¦."> jft »' ^ »> ^ ^ »> »> ¦> .v / * ¦ .% j» o •> ¦> V »% »> o /i ,"i ^ »4 o «,"> ^ .-i ••• •. .% .> _> ^ _>
,'V^te1 «.&/ «£•>;>•• /vw Vv>Ys-s/sss
FIGURE 7 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by Region
(EPA Regions are numbered across the top; cleanup levels are solid bars; a dark border indicates the basis is TEQ; a dashed border indicates a draft or supporting value; screening values are unshaded.)
November 2009
Page 21
-------
100.000
10.000
1.000
1000 1.000
i.xam noo
)0Q
u
£
5
I
10
200 200
4.5 «
«.»*•* 3-$
FIGURE 8 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Unrestricted/Residential Use from Contaminated Site Applications, by State
(Cleanup levels are solid bars, screening values are unshaded.)
November 2009
Page 22
-------
10,000
1,000 ---
0
1 100
©
u
X
o
S 10 4f
o
1
1,111 1,111 <,111 1,111
» 11 CI CI
si si ii si
I «.l l.t 4.S 4.1 I.I 4.1 4.1 4.S 4.S 4.J 4.J 4.5 4.S (.1
«.«M 1.1 4 4 1.) I.II.I 1.1 1.1 i s I.I ].}
*V » ** *' v »¦> >:V^" 5° <<" v->- W-' ^ :,-A ¦ +;¦* ¦
FIGURE 9 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Unrestricted/Residential Use from Contaminated Site Applications, by Concentration (Cleanup levels are solid bars, screening values are unshaded.)
November 2009
Page 23
-------
(Page intentionally left blank.)
November 2009 Page 24
-------
TABLE 6 States without Formal Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin
State
Context
CO
CODPHE has developed and tabulated CO soil evaluation values (CSEVs), but no value for
dioxin or TCDD was found in the table. Field feedback during the review phase indicated CO uses
the equations and toxicity value from the EPA Regional screening level tables to develop
preliminary remediation goals for dioxin in soil.
CT
No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup or screening levels were found.
DC
No dioxin cleanup or screening level was identified for DC. Field review feedback indicated "DC
does not have a dioxin level for site cleanups for the RCRA Corrective Action Program, since DC
does not have this authority. The Voluntary Cleanup Program relies on the EPA RBCs Table for
screening criteria for all chemicals but may be developing their own cleanup standards for the
Voluntary Cleanup Program which may be used by other environmental programs in the District."
ID
No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup or screening levels were identified for ID. Field review
feedback indicated that Region 10 states (which include ID) are °using (with some chemical- or
exposure-specific exceptions) the Regional Screening Level tables that Superfund is sponsoring."
IL
No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup (or screening) value was found.
LA
No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup (or screening) value was found.
MO
No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup (or screening) value was found.
ND
No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup (or screening) value was found. Field review feedback
indicated ND uses the equations and toxicity value from the EPA Regional screening level tables
to develop preliminary remediation goals for dioxin in soils.
NJ
No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup (or screening) value was found. Field review feedback
indicated NJ follows the 1998 OSWER directive in coordinating with responsible parties and uses
the 2008 ATSDR value of 50 ppt as a screening level to consider the need for further evaluation
of sites. Final cleanup levels are site-specific.
NM
No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup (or screening) value was found.
PR
No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup (or screening) value was found.
Rl
No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup (or screening) levels were found.
SD
No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup (or screening) value was found. Field review feedback
indicated SD uses the equations and toxicity value from the EPA Regional screening level tables
to develop preliminary remediation goals for dioxin in soil.
TT
No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup (or screening) value was found (field review feedback).
UT
No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup (or screening) value was found. Field review feedback
indicated UT uses the equations and toxicity value from the EPA Regional screening level tables
to develop preliminary remediation goals for dioxin in soil.
VI
No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup (or screening) value was found.
0 Italics indicate information from the field review phase; see tables in Appendix B for further details.'
See Notation and text for acronym definitions.
November 2009
Page 25
-------
3.1.2 Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use
Soil Cleanup Levels
The figures and tables presented below parallel those given for unrestricted use in
Section 3.1.1. This information is presented to support consideration of a potential interim
guideline for commercial/industrial scenarios.
Cleanup levels identified by states for commercial/industrial (restricted) use are identified
in Table 7, focusing on one representative value per state where multiple levels were
identified. Figure 10a presents these soil cleanup levels on the standard arithmetic
scale, alphabetized by state.
. Figure 10b illustrates the same data as Figure 10a, on a logarithmic scale to facilitate
readability and comparisons.
Figure 11 shows the same data as Figure 10b, organized by concentration in decreasing
order, for possible insight into concentration groupings.
Figure 12 gives the same information as Figure 11 but organized by EPA Region, for
potential insights regarding similarities and differences, if any, across regions.
Supporting Context: Screening Values and Illustrative Site-Specific Cleanup Levels
. Additional state levels identified for commercial/industrial use are identified in Table 8.
Figure 13 includes these values as the counterpart to Figure 5 (which addresses
unrestricted land use), extending beyond state cleanup levels for dioxin in soil to also
present screening values for these restricted land uses. As in Figure 9b, the data are
alphabetized by state and shown on a logarithmic scale
Figure 14 shows the same information as Figure 12, organized by concentration in
decreasing order, for potential insights into concentration groupings.
Figure 15 shows this same information as in Figures 12 and 14 but organized by EPA
Region, to facilitate comparisons within and across regions.
. Figure 16 illustrates cleanup levels identified in documents prepared for contaminated
sites, organized by state.
Figure 17 presents the same information as Figure 16, ordered by concentration.
3.2 TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES AND TARGET RISKS
. Table 9 identifies toxicity values used to determine the state cleanup levels, and
Figure 18 presents the frequency distribution for these values.
• The target risk levels underlying state cleanup levels for dioxin in soil are identified in
Table 10 (states are alphabetized within each risk level). Figure 19 presents the
frequency distribution for these risk targets, for both unrestricted/residential and
restricted commercial/industrial land use scenarios.
November 2009
Page 26
-------
TABLE 7 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin per State: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use
State
Soil
Cone
(ppt)
Date
Toxicity
Value
(mg/kg-d)'1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scientific Basis
Exposure ' Toxicity Risk
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
AL
5,000
Jun-07
150,000
Preliminary screening or
cleanup value for TCDD,
commercial scenario,
direct contact.
Slope factor
source is given
as HEAST. Note
the derivation
basis of this
OSWER cleanup
level is the
evaluation by
Kimbrough et al.
(1984) of study
data from Kociba
et al. (1978).
Cleanup value and
toxicological context
are available online.
Cited as a value that can
be used for "screening or
cleanup" purposes in
ADEM (2008) document.
AS
1,800
Oct-08
130,000
Tier 2 action level for
nonresidential scenario
(upper end) for dioxin
TEQ. Remedial action
guide varies for dioxin
concentrations between
170 and1,800 ppt.
General equation
for direct contact;
considers
ingestion,
inhalation, and
dermal routes of
exposure.
Slope factor
reflects the value
listed in the 2008
EPA Regional
screening level
(RSL) table.
10"4
The information
summarized here is
available online.
Action level adopted from
Guam EPA represents
the value above which
nonresidential use is not
recommended absent
remedial action to reduce
potential exposure.
AZ
160
May-07
Not found
Soil remediation level for
TCDD, nonresidential
scenario.
General equation; \Not found
considers
ingestion,
inhalation, and j !
dermal routes of j
exposure. Adopted '
from Region 9 \ !
PRGs .
Remediation levels
and the guidance
document are
available online.
Current SRL for
nonresidential use.
DE
40
Dec-99
150,000
Uniform risk-based
remediation standard for
TCDD, restricted use
with protection of human
health.
General equation | Slope factor from
for direct contact; j HEAST.
incidental ingestion I
is primary j
contributor. |
10"6
Calculations and
risk-based tables
are available online.
Current restricted use
URS.
November 2009
Page 27
-------
TABLE 7 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin per State: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
Toxicity
Value
(mg/kg-df1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scientific Basis
Exposure Toxicity Risk
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
FL
30
Apr-05
150,000
Soil cleanup target level
for TCDD,
commercial/industrial
use based on direct
contact
General equation Slope factor from 10"6
for direct contact; HEAST.
considers incidental
ingestion,
inhalation, and
dermal exposure
routes.
Derivation basis and
equations are
available online.
(Default and
chemical-specific
parameter values
are given in the
FDEP2005
technical report.)
Current
commercial/industrial
SCTL.
GM
1,800
Oct-08
130,000
Tier 2 action level for
nonresidential scenario
(upper end) for dioxin
TEQ. Remedial action
guide varies for dioxin
concentrations between
170 andl ,800 ppt.
General equation iSlope factor
for direct contact; \ reflects the value
considers ilisted in the 2008
ingestion, I EPA RSL table,
inhalation, and j
dermal routes of I
exposure. j
10-4
The information
summarized here is
available online.
This action level
represents the value
above which
nonresidential use is not
recommended absent
remedial action to reduce
potential exposure.
HI
1,600
Mar-06
150,000
Tier 2 action level for
nonresidential scenario
(upper end of range) for
dioxin TEQ. Remedial
actions vary when soil
dioxin concentration is
between 170-1,600 ppt.
General equation Slope factor from: 10"4
for direct contact; HEAST.
considers incidental
ingestion,
inhalation, and
dermal exposure
routes.
The information
summarized here is
available online.
This action level
represents the value
above which
nonresidential use is not
recommended absent
remedial action to reduce
potential exposure.
IA
360
Jul-09
RfD: 1x10"9
mg/kg-d
Cleanup level for
nonresidential land use if
dioxin is the only
chemical of concern,
based on noncancer
endpoint.
Specific source
not specified;
indicated as an
earlier EPA
value.
The formula used for
the risk calculations
is available online.
Soil concentration
identified in field review
feedback as part of the
statewide soil standards
in the voluntary cleanup
program, the Iowa Land
Recycling Program.
November 2009
Page 28
-------
TABLE 7 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin per State: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
Toxicity
Value
(mg/kg-d)'1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scientific Basis
Exposure Toxicity 1 Risk
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
IN
180
Jun-09
150,000
Commercial/industrial
provisional default
closure level for TCDD in
soil, based on direct
contact. (The 2009
internal draft value is the
same.)
General equation j Slope factor from j 10'5
uses incidental ;HEAST.
ingestion as <
primary contributor ; j
! I
: i
i i
I
The technical guide
is available online.
(2009 values have
not yet been
published and are
pending any
changes in
algorithms or
toxicological data.)
The 180 ppt value was
identified by IDEM as part
of field input to this data
compilation effort. The
current online (published)
value is also 180 ppt.
KS
100
Jun-07
150,000
Tier 2 risk-based
standard for TCDD,
nonresidential scenario.
"Chemical-specific and
media-specific risk-
based cleanup goals."
(See Tier 2 context in
right-most column.)
Exposure equation
considers
ingestion,
inhalation, and
dermal exposure
routes.
Slope factor from
HEAST.
10"5
The cleanup level
and equation with
soil exposure factors
are available online.
Tier 2 addresses a single
contaminant and medium,
and standard
conservative default
exposure assumptions; it
does not include soil to air
transfer, cumulative risk
from multiple
contaminants or media,
nor risk to ecological
receptors
MD
18
Jul-09
130,000
Cleanup level for
industrial scenario.
Exposure equation Slope factor from 10"6
considers CalEPA.
ingestion,
inhalation, and
dermal exposure ;
routes.
EPA RSL equations
are available online.
Field review feedback
identified the EPA RSL for
the industrial scenario as
the soil cleanup level for
MD.
November 2009
Page 29
-------
TABLE 7 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin per State: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
Toxicity
Value
(mg/kg-d)'1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scientific Basis
Exposure Toxicity Risk
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
ME
31
Jul-09
130,000
Draft generic soil
cleanup level for dioxin
TEQ, based on a
commercial worker
scenario.
Value considers
incidental ingestion,
dermal contact, and
inhalation of
fugitive dust.
Slope factor from
CalEPA.
10®
Equations and a
summary of
calculations are
available online.
Concentration found via
weblinks from field review
feedback. The
commercial scenario
value of 31 ppt is
considered representative
(with a more conservative
target ILCR, 10*), as it is
°applicable at sites with
more than one
contaminant of concern."
MN
35
Dec-08
1,400,000
Soil reference value for
industrial worker, direct
contact.
Exposure equation
takes into account
exposure from
ingestion,
inhalation, and
dermal contact.
Draft slope factor
from EPA
(2003), which
was derived from
Kociba et al.
(1978).
10"5
Derivation
methodology and
updates to
parameter values
are available online.
Current industrial worker
SRV.
MS
38.2
Feb-02
150,000
Tier 1, target
remediation goal for
TCDD, restricted land
use scenario.
General equation Slope factor ; 10"6
uses incidental source is given
ingestion as as HEAST.
primary contributor.
Equations taken
from EPA sources,
for EPA RAGS are
available online.
State document explains,
"Tier 1 TRGs may either
be used as "default"
remediation goals or as
screening values that will
initiate a Tier 2 Evaluation
or Tier 3 Evaluation."
NE
160
Oct-08
150,000
Remediation goal
established under the
NDEQ Voluntary
Cleanup Program
guidance for TCDD,
based on direct contact.
General equation j Slope factor
uses incidental ! source is given
ingestion as as HEAST.
primary contributor, i
10"5
Cleanup levels and
remediation goals
are available online.
Current industrial VCP
RG.
November 2009
Page 30
-------
TABLE 7 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin per State: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
Toxicity
Value
(mg/kg-d)'1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scientific Basis
Exposure Toxicity ' Risk
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
NMI
1,800
Oct-08
130,000
Tier 2 action level for
nonresidential scenario
(upper end) for dioxin
TEQ. Remedial action
guide varies for dioxin
concentrations between
170 and1,800 ppt.
General equation . Slope factor from; 10"4
for direct contact; -2008 EPA RSL
considers jtable.
ingestion, i
inhalation, and !
dermal routes of !
exposure. ' :
The information
summarized here is
available online.
Action level adopted from
Guam EPA represents
the value above which
nonresidential use is not
recommended absent
remedial action to reduce
potential exposure.
NH
300
May-07
150,000
Risk-based S-2 soil
category for workers
who come into contact
with soil as part of their
employment.
General equation
for direct contact;
considers ingestion
and dermal
exposure routes.
Slope factor
taken from RAIS
(ORNL,
2005/2006),
appears to
reflect 1997
HEAST.
10"6
Risk
characterization and
general derivations
are available online.
Derived for an adult
worker exposed in a work
environment or passive
recreational setting,
assuming soil ingestion of
100 mg/d, 146 d/y, 25 y.
OR
16
May-05
150,000
Acceptable risk level for
TCDD, industrial
scenario.
Equation is based
on exposure from
ingestion,
inhalation, and
dermal contact.
Equations ! 10"6
adopted from !
former EPA j
Region 9 PRG ;
document. i
i
i
•
\
Values and
derivation
methodology are
available online.
Acceptable risk level
defined as "The level of
risk above which some
action must be taken to
reduce exposure to
contaminants of concern."
Reflects the EPA
Region 9 PRG.
PA
530
Nov-01
150,000
Medium-specific
concentration for TCDD,
based on nonresidential
scenario and direct
contact.
General equation;
considers ingestion
route.
Slope factor
source is given
as HEAST
(undated).
10"5
PADEP documents
are available online.
Current nonresidential
MSC for surface soil.
November 2009
Page 31
-------
TABLE 7 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin per State: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
Toxicity
Value
(mg/kg-d)'1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scientific Basis
Exposure Toxicity Risk
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
TX
5,000
Mar-09
Not found
Protective concentration
level for TCDD in soil,
commercial/industrial
scenario.
Exposure equation Not found
takes into account .
ingestion,
inhalation, dermal
contact, and
vegetable
consumption.
Soil values available
online, but the
derivation basis is
ambiguous. Toxicity
values and some
chemical-specific
parameter values
are not provided.
"The TRRP Tier 1
protective concentration
levels (PCLs) are the
default cleanup standards
in the TX Risk Reduction
Program."
WA
1,500
Jun-09
150,000
Cleanup level for TCDD
in soil, direct contact,
industrial scenario.
Equation considers
ingestion as
primary contributor.
Slope factor | 10"5
source is given [
as HEAST. j
!
Equations, cleanup
levels, and risk
calculations are
available online.
Current cleanup level for
the industrial scenario.
Notes: More details including citations can be found in the tables in Appendix B.
For AZ, it is not clear from information found online whether the state may still be using a cancer slope factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 and a target
risk of 10"5 for the nonresidential scenario.
November 2009
Page 32
-------
6,000
5,000
Q_
Q_
c 4,000
o
C3
i_
c
o>
£ 3,000
o
O
c
x
"q 2,000
o
(/)
5,000 (C)
5,000 (I)
1,000 --
1 ,bUU (I)
"TjBODTir
1,800 (I)
160 (C/l)
n 4Qf/l) 30JC/!)
1,600 (I)
360 (C/l)
1 80 (C/l) 1 QQ Q
~ I I
160(1)
300 (I)
18(1) 31 (I) 35(1) 38.2(01) ^ [~[ 16
530 (C/l)
10
1,500 (C/l)
&
f J J" J? J* ^ ^ ^ j? J* J? J1 J
P cp ^
cr
^ r3' «v< <$>' ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
5* ^ ^
^ J?
^ ' &•' <*" *y ^
FIGURE 10a Soil Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by State
(Standard arithmetic scale; a dark border indicates the basis is TEQ; a dashed border indicates a draft value.)
November 2009
Page 33
-------
10,000
5,000 (C)
1,000
a.
Ci.
100 --
o
CO 10
5,000 (I)
1,800 (I)
1,800 (I)
160 (C/l)
40(C/l)
30 (Ol)
1,600 (I)
1,800 (I)
360 (C/l)
300 (I)
180 (C/l)
160 (I)
100 (I)
18(1)
0)
35 CD 38.2 (Ol)
530 (C/l)
16(1)
1,500 (C/l)
t———i———i———r
$ <§> <£ <$> ^ <§> & ^ A J
^ ^ Vs O ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
4 ¦ $?
^ V3
' ^ ^ ^ N ^ ^ ^ ^ o^' ^ ^ ^
FIGURE 10b Soil Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by State
(Logarithmic scale; dark border indicates basis is TEQ rather than TCDD; draft values have dashed borders.)
November 2009
Page 34
-------
1,000
Q.
A
100 --
10 --
5,000 (C) 5,000 ((VI)
1,800 0)1,800 0) 1,800 (I)
1,800 m
1,600(1)
530 (I)
360 (C/l)
300 (C/l)
180 (I)!60 (C/l}60
(C/I)
100 (C/l)
40 (I)
38.2 (C/1)
35 (C/l) 31 (!) 3Q
(I)
18 (C/l)
16(1)
i—'—1—r
t—1—'—r
/V o*
r y
&
FIGURE 11 Soil Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by Concentration
(A dark border indicates the basis is TEQ; a dashed border indicates draft values; parentheses indicate field input.)
November 2009
Page 35
-------
10,000
1.000
100
10
3! (I)
t
1
300 (!)
: *0 (c/i>
18(1)
5.000 (C)
530 (C/l) =
130 (G1)
33.2 (C/l) :
30 (C/l) _
5.000 (C/J) :
35(1)
360 (C/l)
160 (I)
100 (I}
1.800(1) 1,800(1) 1,800 (1)
1,600 (I)
160 (C/l)
10
^ *
S>° yy
o" v?
& ^ r-
&
O o
sS-
<*" ** ^ #• ^ o^' ^
o-
3"
-------
TABLE 8 Additional State Concentrations for Dioxin: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
Toxicity
Value
(mg/kg-d)'1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scientific Basis
Peer Review
and Availability
Selection Rationale
Exposure
Toxicity
Risk
AS
170
Oct-08
1,400,000
Tier 2 action level for
TCDD TEQ, lower bound
for nonresidential scenario,
where remedial actions
vary when soil dioxin
concentration is between
170 and 1,800 ppt.
General equation
for direct contact,
incidental ingestion
as primary
contributor but
inhalation also
considered.
From MNDOH
(2003), animal
bioassay upper
bound derived
from Kociba et
al., tapped from
range of values
in EPA draft
reassessment
(2003a).
10*4
Information is
available online.
Value adopted from Guam
EPA. Represents lower
end of Tier 2 action level,
below which no remedial
action is required.
AZ
240
1997
1997 Soil remediation level
for TCDD, nonresidential
use based on direct
contact.
Value has since been
updated by 2007 SRLs;
only applicable for sites
characterized before
May 5, 2007 and to be
remediated or a risk
assessment completed
before May 5, 2010.
GM
170
Oct-08
1,400,000
Tier 2 action level for
TCDD TEQ, lower bound
for nonresidential scenario,
where remedial actions
vary when soil dioxin
concentration is between
170 and 1,800 ppt.
General equation
for direct contact,
incidental ingestion
as primary
contributor but
inhalation also
considered.
From MNDOH
(2003), animal
bioassay upper
bound derived
from Kociba et
al., tapped from
range of values
in EPA draft
reassessment
(2003a).
10^
Information is
available online.
Represents lower end of
Tier 2 action level, below
which no remedial action is
required.
November 2009
Page 37
-------
TABLE 8 Additional State Concentrations for Dioxin: Commercial/industrial (Restricted) Use
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
Toxicity
Value
(mg/kg-d)'1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scientific Basis
; i
Exposure Toxicity | Risk
Peer Review
and Availability
Selection Rationale
HI
170
Mar-06
1,400,000
Tier 2 action level for
TCDD TEQ, lower bound
for nonresidential scenario,
where remedial actions
vary when soil dioxin
concentration is between
170 and 1,800 ppt.
General equation ;From MNDOH j 10"4
for direct contact, '(2003), upper j
incidental ingestion bound derived i
as primary from Kociba et al.j
contributor but (1978) bioassay, ;
inhalation also |from range of i
considered. 'values in EPA ' !
(reassessment I
(2003a). ;
Information is
available online.
Represents lower end of
Tier 2 action level, below
which no remedial action is
required.
ME
310
Jul-09
130,000
Generic soil cleanup level
for dioxin TEQ, based on a
construction/excavation
worker.
Value considers Slope factor from j 10"6
incidental ingestion, iCalEPA.
dermal contact, and j i
inhalation of fugitive > j
dust. : I
Equations and a
summary of
calculations are
available online.
Commercial use, 31 ppt
indicated in field review
feedback is used as the
representative value for
commercial/industrial use.
NH
5,000
May-07
Soil standard for TCDD
TEQ, commercial scenario.
[Reflects OSWER'
;directive, per the {
jKimbrough et al. i
1(1984) evaluation!
|of Kociba et al. |
1(1978) data. i
Value reflects the 1998
OSWER directive. See
Table 7 for the state-
specific soil value identified
for the commercial
scenario.
OR
17
Sep-03
Risk-based concentration
(RBC) for TCDD,
occupational scenario for
direct contact.
General equation
for direct contact,
incidental ingestion,
dermal contact, and ;
10"6
The 2005 updated
concentration is used in
this report as a
representative state-
specific value for the
industrial scenario, direct
contact.
130
120
RBC for TCDD,
construction scenario for
direct contact.
RBC for TCDD,
occupational use protective
of leaching to GW.
inhalation all
considered.
10"®
10'6
November 2009
Page 38
-------
100,000
10,000
1,000
o
o
o
5
o
CO
10
17.7 1S
FIGURE 13 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by State (Cleanup levels are solid bars; screening values are unshaded.)
November 2009
Page 39
-------
100,000
10,000 --
1,000 --
o
o
o
b
o
CO
100
10
20.000
12,100
1.600 1.300 1,600
1,500
.000
160 180 170 170 170 1 70 170 160 16Q
*0 38.2 36
31 30 30
18 Id 18 16 16 16 16 18 18 16 16 18 16 17.7
^ f£ c$> c$> eP _c^
FIGURE 14 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by Concentration (Cleanup levels are solid bars; screening values are unshaded.)
November 2009
Page 40
-------
100.000
10
10.000
1.000
£
o
c
lla ill
100
10
.1
a" V V >?¦ vT" v5 V »" .<¦ ,«f a" V .<>jSr V V -f" -pi"' if .if i? «<¦ if <#• <• is' .*¦> !l»VWW" o¦*»•><'' »•"/^Vvvyi-'V^ WV-a-'V sfs-v y >'«* «~
if .if V if' V *¦ *" .*¦ if .if" rf- .if" *• .«.> & .»- .<•
^/v"1 jf ^^^ \TO:" IT*-"" ^V*1 (_•*!-•* p**
f «r •.#" -»• /¦ «#- f ^«»-
FIGURE 15 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by Region
(EPA Regions are across the top; cleanup levels are solid bars; a dark border indicates the basis is TEQ; a dashed border indicates a draft or supporting value; screening values are unshaded.)
November 2009
Page
-------
100,000
10.000
Q. 1,000
Ci.
c
o
o
c
'x
O
b
100
10 --
300
240 I—I
30 30 30
1.000 1.000 1,000
/ / / / / / / ,/ / / • <>-¦ er ^ ¦?>¦ *-• 4--
dS v
-------
100.000
10,000
1.000 --
o 100
o
o
5
o
CO
10
1 --
20000 20.000
t.OOO 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1.000 675
— 30 30 30
2? 25
I—I —i 3.2
/ • &•
FIGURE 17 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Restricted Use from Contaminated Site Applications, by Concentration (Cleanup levels are solid bars; screening values are unshaded.)
November 2009
Page 43
-------
(Page intentionally left blank.)
November 2009 Page 44
-------
TABLE 9 Supporting State Context: Subsurface Values
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
Toxicity
Value
(mgAg-d)'1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scientific Basis
Peer Review and
Availability
1
Exposure j Toxicity
I
Risk
AS,
GM,
NMI
1,500
Oct-08
130,000
Tier 1 environmental
screening level (ESL)
for dioxin TEQs, deep
soil (>3 m bgs) for
construction/trench
worker scenario.
General equation
based on direct
contact.
The slope factor was taken from
the 2008 EPA RSL table, based
on a CalEPA maximum likelihood
estimate (MLE) and linearized
95% upper confidence value
(UCL) citing NTP animal data from
1980 and 1982 converted to
equivalent human exposures per
scaling factors. (See tables in
Appendix B for more information.)
10"6
The equations and
toxicity value used to
derive Tier 1
environmental
screening levels for
different exposure
scenarios are
available online.
PA
1.9*1011
Nov-01
150,000
Medium-specific
concentration for
TCDD, based on
nonresidential
subsurface soil
(2-15 ft).
General equation j Reflects earlier EPA value 10"5
uses incidental j indicated in HEAST. j
ingestion as \ j
primary j ;
contributor. j j
i i
PADEP documents
are available online.
November 2009
Page 45
-------
1,000,000,000,000
100,000,000,000
10,000,000,000
§
c
o
(0
L_
c
0)
u
c
o
o
X
o
o
00
1,000,000,000
100,000,000
10,000,000
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
10
1
1,500
&
V9
d°
1,500
.5^
o^'
cr
1,500
&
cr
1.90E+11
p*
FIGURE 18 Supporting State Context: Subsurface Values, by State
November 2009
Page 46
-------
TABLE 10 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup Levels9
Cancer
Toxicity Value
(mg/kg-dJ1
Number
of States
Specific
States
Scientific Basis
Nature of Value
and Peer Review
150,000
15
AK,AL,
DE, FL,
HI, IA,
IN, KS,
MS, NE,
NH, OH,
OR, PA,
WA
The source of this value is commonly given as EPA HEAST1997, which lists
several citations including the Health Assessment Document for
Polychorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin. (EPA 1985). This slope factor is based on
the female rat bioassay by Kociba et al. from 1978. The two-year dietary study
of TCDD in female Sprague-Dawley rats indicated the highest dose
(0.1 (jg/kg-d, or estimated dietary amount 2,200 ppt) produced multiple
toxicological effects, with lesser effects reported at 0.01 pg/kg-d (210 ppt).
(This was considered to support a previous study indicating chronic ingestion
of 5,000 ppt caused many toxicological effects.) No adverse effects were
reported at 0.001 jjg/kg-d (22 ppt), and no carcinogenic effects reported at
0.01 or 0.001 pg (210 or 22 ppt).
This older toxicity value reflects earlier methodology for classifying liver
tumors, which was updated by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in
1986. Many states cite the (outdated, indirect) EPA HEAST as the source.
(Note this earlier EPA value from HEAST was also listed in the previous
Region 9 PRG table - which preceded the 2008 harmonization of regional
screening levels or RSLs.)
HEAST identified this as a
provisional value, and qualified it
as being under further evaluation.
Specific peer review information
was not found; however, the 1985
EPA Health Assessment
document (listed as one of the
sources) underwent external peer
review. (It is not clear that the
HEAST value was based solely
on this document, however, since
that lists a cancer slope factor of
156,000 per mg/kg-d.) The
HEAST tables are now outdated.
(From the HEAST introduction:
"The HEAST is a comprehensive
listing consisting almost entirely of
provisional risk assessment
information .... Although these
entries in the HEAST have
undergone review and have the
concurrence of individual Agency
Program Offices, and each is
supported by an Agency
reference, they have not had
enough review to be recognized
as high quality, Agency-wide
consensus information." The
HEAST document also states that
when used, "the provisional
nature of the value should be
noted.").
November 2009
Page 47
-------
TABLE 10 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup Levels3
Cancer
Toxicity Value
(mg/kg-d)'1
Number
of States
Specific
States
Scientific Basis
Nature of Value
and Peer Review
75,000
1
Ml
Based on a reevalution of tumor data from the 1978 rat study by Kociba et al.
(see above), using the 1986 NTP update of the liver tumor classification
scheme. This reevaluation indicated lower tumor incidence rates, which
resulted in a slope factor of 52,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 based on liver tumors alone,
and a slope factor of 75,000 (mg/kg-d)"' based on total significant tumors -
which updated the factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 that had been based on the
older methodology.
Seven independent pathologists
reassessed the tumor data from
the Kociba study and subsequent
analyses by Squire, a pathologist
consultant to the EPA Carcinogen
Assessment Group.
1,400,000
1
MN
MN adopted this draft value, the upper bound slope factor based on animal
data that was included in the EPA (2003) draft reassessment, which was
derived from the Kociba et al. (1978) bioassay described above. (This value is
40 percent higher than the recommended draft upper bound slope factor from
the reassessment, which was based on epidemiological data.) The MNDOH
documentation notes: driving pathway-oral; endpoints-immune, repro, cancer;
cancer target organ-liver; class-human carcinogen. Per the MNDOH overview,
concerns about the quality of exposure estimates in human epidemiological
studies preclude quantitative use of these data in developing a slope factor,
but results from modeling the human studies are consistent with the cancer
slope derived by modeling data from animal studies. MNDOH also notes this
slope factor was derived from the same study as the previous value of
156,000 (mg/kg-d)"1, and that its development utilized current methods of
analysis, including use of body burden as the dose metric for animal-to-human
dose equivalence calculations (i.e., adjustments to account for the differences
in half-life of dioxins in the bodies of laboratory animals and humans), and a
re-evaluation of liver tumors in the Kociba study using the latest pathology
criteria.
The EPA draft reassessment
underwent extensive internal and
external agency peer review, and
subsequent peer review by an
independent NAS committee from
2004 to 2006. In noting this draft
basis, MNDOH indicated it will
update its guidance and
recommendations if appropriate,
but at this time continues to
recommend using its current
guidance for assessing potential
carcinogenic health risks (which
includes not recommending early-
life adjustment for cancer
potency).
M,
to derive a
supporting
lower
bound for
a cleanup
range)
f/\S, GM,
HI, NMI)
These four entries are shown in parenthetical italics because this value only
underlies supporting soil concentrations, not the basic cleanup levels for these
Pacific islands. That is, this draft toxicity value was used to generate a lower
bound as a companion to the standard cleanup levels based on
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 for HI, and on 130,000 (mg/kg-d)'1 for the other three
islands. This toxicity value supports the lower end of the cleanup range, while
the main cleanup level above which remedial action is to be considered is
based on the two other slope factors applied by nearly all other states:
130,000 and 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1.
November 2009
Page 48
-------
TABLE 10 Dioxiri Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup Levels3
Cancer
Toxicity Value
(mg/kg-d)'1
Number
of States
Specific
States
Scientific Basis
Nature of Value
and Peer Review
130,000
7
AS, AZ,
GM, MD,
ME, NMI,
WY
This slope factor is listed in the current EPA Regional screening level table for
residential soil, with the source given as CalEPA; its derivation is documented
by California EPA (CalEPA). (As a note, the CalEPA soil screening level for
2,3,7,8-TCDD is 4.6 ppt.) The asterisk * in the RSL table for the cancer basis
indicates that a screening level based on the noncancer endpoint is <1% of
that based on the cancer endpoint (indicated as "[n SL < 100X c SL]").- This
toxicity value is based on the NTP rat gavage studies from 1982. Summarizing
from the CalEPA derivation document: a linearized multistage model was used
with the NTP male mouse hepatocellular adenoma/carcinoma tumor data for
TCDD, providing point estimates of extra risk for both maximum likelihood
estimate (MLE) and linearized 95% upper confidence value (UCL); the UCL
was calculated by maximizing the linear term, or forcing a best fit (method
consistent both with expected low-dose linearity and linear nonthreshold
theory). The slope of 95% UCL (q1*) was taken as the plausible upper bound
cancer potency of TCDD at low doses. Rodent exposure data were converted
to equivalent human exposures with scaling factors. Assumptions include: oral
and inhalation routes are equivalent, air concentration is assumed to be daily
oral dose, route of exposure does not affect absorption, and no difference
exists in metabolism/ pharmacokinetics between animals and humans. Total
weekly dose levels were averaged for a daily dose level; this assumes daily
dosing in the NTP studies would give the same results as the actual twice
weekly dosing schedule (as described, the TCDD half-life is relatively long so
both schedules should give similar tissue concentrations). A significant
increase in hepatocellular hyperplastic nodules was observed in female rats
exposed to 0.1 or 0.01 pg/kg-d, while the next lower dose (0.001 jjg/kg-d)
showed no effect. (Note CalEPA is currently evaluating more recent toxicity
data, notably the 2004 NTP study. Implications for an updated oral toxicity
value are anticipated to be available later in 2009 or early 2010, following
completion of the external review process.)
This value was developed by the
California Department of Health
Services in 1986, as documented
in the derivation report developed
for the California Toxic Air
Contaminant program. It
underwent external peer review
by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) scientific review
panel and was endorsed in 2002
when it was summarized and
included in the 2002 CalEPA Hot
Spots document.
External review by the scientific
panel (primarily from academia)
was in accordance with a process
that has been in place since
1983, per the original state air
toxics legislation from the early
1980s. As described in the
CalEPA overview of this value,
comprehensive reviews of human
studies available when the
evaluation was written for the
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC)
program are found in 1980s
documents from the U.S. EPA
and Veterans Administration.
(+1)
(IN)
This entry is in parenthetical italics because 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 underlies the
internal draft cleanup level being considered by Indiana (60 ppt), based on field
input during the review phase of this data compilation effort. The slope factor
of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 underlies the current provisional level of 45 ppt.
November 2009
Page 49
-------
TABLE 11 Supporting Context from Other Agencies
Endpoint
Tv°/X!city Unit
Value
Agency Date
Scientific Basis
Nature of Value and
Peer Review
Cancer
Slope factor
In final
review
(mg/kg-d)"1
CalEPA*
Final
publication
anticipated in
late 2009 or
early 2010
Based on an NTP (2004) chronic gavage study of
female Harlan Sprague-Dawley rats (chosen per their
high incidence of hepatocarcinogenicity), dosed 5 d/wk
for up to 105 wk. The study design, species, and dose
range of 1 to 100 ng/kg-d were based on the dosed-
feed chronic study by Kociba et al. (1978), which
reflected continuous dietary exposure of Sprague-
Dawley rats. Increased incidences of neoplasms were
observed in the liver, lung, oral mucosa, uterus, and
pancreas.
"The recent chronic NTP (2004) gavage study in female
Harlan Sprague-Dawley rats appears to provide a
superior basis for risk assessment, due to its careful
design and conduct, as well as improved survival rate,
compared to Kociba et al. (1978)." Cal EPA (2007)
also offers this historical context: "The non-significant
risk level for TCDD calculated for California's
Proposition 65 is 5 pg/day (OEHHA, 2004). This
calculation uses a TCDD cancer potency factor of
1.3*10s (mg/kg-day)"1 derived by the Air Toxics group in
1986 (DHS, 1986; OEHHA, 2005) ... based on the
incidence of liver tumors in a gavage study in male
mice (NTP, 1982a). The potency factor derived [in] this
PHG document, ... based on the latest NTP study
(NTP, 2004) in female rats ... derived using updated
methodology, is considered to represent a "more
accurate estimate of potential human cancer risk."
Has undergone
independent peer review
since 2007, currently in
final phase.
Noncancer
Chronic
minimal risk
level (oral)
1*10"9 mg/kg-d
ATSDR Current
Dec-08
(established
Dec-98)
Developmental endpoint from Schantz et al. (1992);
point of departure (POD): 0.12 ng/kg-d, LOAEL for
altered social behavior in offspring.
UFs: 3 for minimal LOAEL, 3 for animal-human
extrapolation, 10 for human variability.
ATSDR MRLs are
independently peer-
reviewed prior to being
finalized (see ATSDR
2008b).
November 2009
Page 50
-------
TABLE 11 Supporting Context from Other Agencies
Endpoint
Toxicity
Value
Unit
Agency j Date
I
Scientific Basis
Nature of Value and
Peer Review
Policy
guideline
(Toxicity
value
underlying
recent soil
guideline of
50 ppt
is not
specified,
see notes
below)
ATSDR I Nov-08
t
j
l
ATSDR (2008a) explains that this screening level
"should be used as the comparison value when
following the PHAGM. The comparison value is not a
threshold for toxicity and should not be used to predict
adverse health effects." The note accompanying dioxin
health assessment values: slope factors for congeners
(including 130,000 per mg/kg-d for TCDD): "Linearized
multistage procedure (GLOBAL79), fitted to male
mouse hepatic adenoma and carcinoma data (NTP,
1982), body weight scaling, cross-route extrapolation
(CDHS, 1986)."
The external review
draft of this guideline
was posted for public
review before being
finalized, as were four
earlier external peer
review drafts (1991,
1992, 1994, and 1997).
Note the 1998 policy
was reviewed by a panel
of university and
Canadian health
officials.
Notes:
The recent ATSDR (2008a) policy modified its 1998 policy guideline for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds in residential soil (the previous 1 ppb
action level was eliminated in the 2008 update). The current policy guideline of 50 ppt for residential soil represents a screening level for dioxins,
including 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and dioxin-like compounds. This level is defined to serve as an initial comparison value for site-specific health
assessments evaluating exposure to dioxin directly from residential soils. As presented in ATSDR 1998/2008, this policy update replaces
Appendix B of the dioxin toxicological profile and eliminates two categories of the 1998 policy guideline - namely the action level (1 ppb) and
evaluation level - retaining only the 0.5 ppb screening level, to avoid confusion and maintain consistency with the ATSDR 2005 Public Health
Assessment Guidance Manual (PHAGM). This value is based on the noncancer endpoint for ingestion of soil in residential settings (EPA 2008).
Note that EPA (2008) also indicates: "EPA generally uses 1 ppb dioxin as a starting point for setting cleanup levels for RCRA and CERCLA sites,
based on the direct contact exposure pathway for human health (does not apply to other exposure pathways, such as migration of soil
contaminants to ground water or to agricultural products)."
November 2009
Page 51
-------
14
12
10
CO
o
4-»
TO
-
O
L.
o
XI
E
3
75.000
MIDEQ (1998J/TSG (1990):
based on Kociba et al. (1978)
and updated (1986) NTP
tumor classification method
130,000
EPARSL (2009V
CalEPA(2002 (2003]):
based on NTP (1982) and more
recent methodology
Cancer Toxicity Value (mg/kg-d)"1
(AS)
(GM)
(HI)
(NMI)
150,000
EPA HEAST (1997):
based on Kociba et al. (1978)
and earlier (pre-1986) NTP tumor
classification method
1,400.000
UNDOH (2003):
based on Kociba et al. (1978).
from upper bound animal bioassay
draft value in EPA (2003a)
FIGURE 19 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup Levels
(Italics indicate the toxicity value is used for a draft or supporting cleanup level.)
November 2009 Page 52
-------
TABLE 12 Target Risks for the State Cleanup Levels
State per
Risk Level
Soil Concentration (ppt) per Land Use Scenario
Terminology for Dioxin Cleanup Level
(as TCDD or Dioxin TEQ)
Unrestricted/Residential
Commercial/Industrial
106 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
NE
3.9
(see entry under 10'5)
Remediation goal for TCDD
OR
3.9
16
Acceptable risk level for TCDD
DE
4
40
Uniform risk-based remediation standard
for TCDD
MS
4.26
38.2
Target remediation goal for TCDD
AZ
4.5
(see notes below)
Soil remediation level for TCDD
MD
4.5
18
Cleanup level for TCDD
WY
4.5
-
Cleanup level for TCDD
FL
7
30
Soil cleanup target level for TCDD
NH
9
300
Risk-based soil standard for TCDD
ME
10
31
Generic soil cleanup level for dioxin TEQ
WA
11
(see entry under 10"5)
Cleanup level for TCDD
5*10~6 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
IA
19
(see notes below)
Cleanup level for TCDD
10'5 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
MN
20
35
Soil reference value for TCDD
OH
35.8
-
Generic cleanup number for TCDD
AK
38
-
Risk-based concentration for TCDD
IN
45 (60)
180
Soil default closure level for TCDD
KS
60
100
Risk-based standard for TCDD
GA
. 80
-
Notifiable concentration for TCDD
Ml
90
-
Direct contact criterion; risk-based
screening level for TCDD
PA
120
530
Medium-specific concentration for TCDD
NE
-
160
Remediation goal for TCDD
WA
-
1,500
Cleanup level for TCDD
10~* Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
HI
390
1,600
Action level for dioxin TEQ
AS
450
1,800
Action level for dioxin TEQ
GM
450
1,800
Action level for dioxin TEQ
NMI
450
1,800
Action level for dioxin TEQ
Notes: Values are given for states where target risk assumptions are provided for cancer-based cleanup levels. AL
has adopted residential and commercial soil cleanup levels for dioxin from the 1998 OSWER directive. TX has
adopted similar values but does not explicity state they are from OSWER. Although the AZ nonresidential soil
remediation level of 160 ppt is not accompanied by an explicit target risk level, general language in the regulation
indicates the cumulative excess lifetime cancer risk should not exceed 10"4. The IA nonresidential cleanup level for
dioxin is based on the noncancer endpoint. The current IN (2006) value is 45 ppt; 60-ppt is under consideration.
November 2009
Page 53
-------
500
400
a
5 300
c
o
o
o
O
o
15
o
cn
200
100
10
.6
5x10'6
10
-5
3 9 3.9 4
4.26 4.5 4.5 4.5 7
¦ '—' ¦ '—' . r-1 , r-1 , n
10
19
n
120
35.8 33 ^
45 80
(60) GO
-90-
20
H
10"
450 450 450
~wn
NE OR DE MS AZ MD WY FL NH ME
IA
MN OH AK IN KS GA Ml PA
HI AS GM NMI
FIGURE 20 Distribution of States Listing Specific Risk Targets for Dioxin Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use
(A dark border indicates the basis is TEQ rather than TCDD; a dashed border and lighter shading indicate a draft value.)
16 October 2009
Page 54
-------
10-
10
-5
10
1,800 1.800 1.800
1,500
530
300
16
18
i—i
30
r~i
31
- i
38.2
n
40
n
OR
MD
FL
l
ME
MS
DE
160 160
180
100
35
JUL
1,600
MN KS A2 NE IN PA WA
l-a AS GM NMI
FIGURE 21 Distribution of States Listing Specific Risk Targets for Dioxin Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial Use
(Dark border indicates the basis is TEQ rather than TCDD; dashed border indicates a draft value.)
November 2009
Page 55
-------
3.3 DERIVATION METHODOLOGY
States have applied standard methodology to determine soil cleanup levels for dioxin.
Exposure and toxicity components of this methodology are highlighted in Sections 3.3.1 and
3.3.2, respectively. These discussions focus on the scientific basis of cleanup levels identified
for unrestricted/residential land use. The figures and tables also include information for
commercial/industrial (restricted) use.
3.3.1 Exposure Calculation
A review of derivation methods underlying the soil cleanup concentrations indicates that states
follow the standard approach outlined by EPA for calculating exposures, risks, and cleanup
levels for contaminated sites. The basic equation is presented in the Agency's risk assessment
guidance for Superfund (EPA, 1989) and related guidance, such as for soil screening levels.
Dioxin is one of many chemicals for which states have derived cleanup levels, so the agencies
have identified generic exposure calculations for broad application. Although terminology varies
and other relatively minor differences exist in the equation structures, the basic concepts and
exposure routes used to calculate exposures and associated cleanup levels are essentially the
same. The equations and parameter values used by states to derive cleanup levels for dioxin in
soil are summarized in Table 13.
The exposure driver for unrestricted/residential use scenarios is direct contact, which considers
incidental ingestion as well as inhalation and dermal exposures. Incidental soil ingestion is the
primary contributor, typically accounting for at least 90 percent of the total target risk (TR).
(Note that the ingestion contribution for cleanup levels from several states - Arkansas, Indiana,
Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio - is not this dominant.)
Although states use different acronyms and parameter values, the same basic components are
reflected in the calculations. These include: intake rate (IR), exposure frequency (EF),
exposure duration (ED), body weight of the exposed individual (BW), averaging time (AT),
cancer slope factor (SF) (or oral reference dose, RfD for the noncancer endpoint), total target
cancer risk (TR) (or total hazard quotient, THQ, for the noncancer endpoint), and a conversion
factor (CF) as needed.
To illustrate, the equation used to calculate a soil cleanup concentration for the residential
scenario based on incidental ingestion and the cancer endpoint is:
Most states reflect different exposure factors for children and adults - including child and adult
ingestion rates (IRC and IRa), exposure durations (EDC and EDa), and body weights (BWC and
BWa). For this reason, an age-adjusted soil ingestion factor (IFSadj) is commonly applied to
account for these age-specific inputs for chronic residential scenarios. Thus, a combined
residential scenario (that covers the same hypothetical individual from childhood to adulthood)
often reflects an IFSadj calculated as follows,
November 2009
Page 56
-------
""W — cf,/ fitttW Sl-VifW
The age-specific ingestion rates, exposure durations, and body weights can be lumped into a
single variable, which simplifies this equation to:
c /«t£\ ra»4r(3«fowy)
Although incidental ingestion is the dominant contributor to cleanup levels for
unrestricted/residential use, the equations for other routes such as dermal absorption and
inhalation (which also include modeling components unique to volatile compounds) are
maintained as part of the general state calculations. For some nonresidential scenarios, both
additional exposure routes play a more significant role in the derivation of the dioxin cleanup
level, such as for the Pacific Rim trench worker scenario.
Regarding specific parameter values, states generally apply common EPA defaults, so most
exposure factors are similar. However some differences exist that reflect state-specific data.
For example, the representative value for exposure duration in the Minnesota calculation is
slightly less than the EPA default value. Highlights of similarities and differences in the
elements of the calculations for this primary contributor are presented in Table 14. (Shading is
used to distinguish among different values in related entries.) This summary indicates that the
overall exposure calculations are generally within a factor of ten; for example, the values for
exposure frequency differ by about 2.4-fold, and those for soil ingestion differ by nearly 3-fold.
3.3.2 Toxicity Values
Most of the 24 states that list cleanup levels for dioxin in soil have identified the underlying
toxicity values. Nearly all the cleanup levels are based on cancer risk. For its nonresidential
scenarios, Iowa has identified concentrations based on the noncancer endpoint. The reference
dose applied is 10"9 mg/kg-d (which is the ATSDR minimal risk level determined in 1998). For
Texas, the noncancer endpoint is identified as the basis for both the residential and
commercial/industrial cleanup levels, but no information is provided regarding the actual toxicity
value. Otherwise, the oral slope factor is the driver, and incidental ingestion the primary route.
Four different cancer slope factors have been applied: 75,000; 130,000; 150,000; and
1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"1. These toxicity values are based on rodent bioassays conducted more
than 25 years ago combined with modeling derivations by CalEPA, U.S. EPA groups, and
supporting scientific groups to estimate the incremental risk of cancer incidence for humans
over a lifetime. The sources of these values cited by the various states range from old HEAST
tables to CalEPA, the EPA (2003a) draft dioxin reassessment, and former and current EPA
Regional screening level tables.
All but two states use a value of either 130,000 or 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 to determine the
standard soil cleanup levels for unrestricted use. These two very similar values are based on
bioassay data from NTP (1982) and Kociba et al. (1978), respectively. The original toxicity
studies were independently peer reviewed as part of the scientific publication process, as were
the subsequent derivations of the slope factors.
November 2009
Page 57
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
AK
38
CL = TR*AT*365d/v
EF*[(SFo*IFSoii/adj*CF) + (SFS*ABS*SFdxCF)]
CL = cleanup level, (mg/kg)
TR = target cancer risk, 10'5
AT = averaging time, 70 y
EF = 330 d/y
SFo = oral slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
IFsoit/adj = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,
114 (mg-y/kg-d)"1
SFS = soil dermal factor, 361 mg-y/kg-d
ABS = absorption factor, 0.03
SFa = derm slope factor, 300,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
CF = conversion factor, lO^kg/mg
Ingestion,
dermal
AL
1,000
NA
Not applicable.
All
Adopted the residential
cleanup value from the
OSWER directive.
AS
450
See EPA RSL equation (last entry of this table)
AS uses the EPA RSL equation and toxicity
values to derive its cleanup level, but applies a
TR of 10"4 instead of 10"6.
All
Adopted the GEPA policy
for soil cleanup.
AZ
4.5
See EPA RSL equation (last entry of this table)
As given for the EPA RSL.
All
Adopted the EPA RSL as
the AZ SRL for residential
use.
DE
4
RBCrot = TR xATr
EFrxlFSadj*CSF0xCF
RBCres = residential risk-based concentration,
(mg/kg)
TR = target cancer risk, 10"6
ATc = averaging time carcinogens, 25,550 d
EFr = exposure frequency, 350 d/y
IFSadj = soil ingestion factor, 114.3 mg-y/kg-d
CSFo = oral cancer slope factor,
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
CF = 10"6 kg/mg
Ingestion
DE presents the equation
for residential soil
ingestion from the EPA
Region 3 RBC tables;
other exposure routes are
not identified.
November 2009
Page 58
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
State
Cone
(ppt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
FL
7
SCTL = (TR*BW*ATxRBA)
EFxEDxFC(EXPoral+EXPdenTi+EXPinhal)
where:
EXP0 = oral term = CSF0x|R0xCF
EXPd = dermal term = CSFdxSA*AFxDAxCF
EXPi = inhalation term = CSFjx|R|x(iA/F+1/PEF)
SCTL = soil cleanup target level (mg/kg)
TR = target cancer risk, 10"6
BW = body weight, 51.9 kg resident
AT = averaging time, 25,550 d
RBA = relative bioavailability factor, 1.0
EF = exposure frequency, 350 d/y
ED = exposure duration, 30 y
FC = fraction from cont. source, 1.0
CSFo.i = oral and inhalational slope factor,
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
CSFd = dermal slope factor, 166,667
(mg/kg-d)"
IRo = oral ingestion rate, 120 mg/d
IRi = inhalation rate, 12.2 m3/d
CF = 10"6 kg/mg
SA = surface area of skin exposed,
. 4,810 cm2/d resident
AF = adherence factor, 0.1 mg/cm2
DA = dermal absorption, 0.01
VF = volat. factor, 4.619x106 m3/kg
PEF = particulate emission factor,
1.24x10® m3/kg
All
November 2009
Page 59
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
GA
80
NC = (TR * BW* AT x 365 d/v)
EFxED (EXPorai+EXPindai)
where:
EXP0 = oral term = CSF0xIRsoiixCF
EXP, = inhalation term = CSFiX|Ri*(1/VF+1/PEF)
NC = notifiable concentration (mg/kg)
TR = target cancer risk, 10"5
BW = body weight, 70 kg
AT = veraging time, 70 y
EF = exposure frequency, 350 d/y resident,
250 d/y non-resident
ED = exposure duration, 30 y resident,
25 y non-resident
CSF0ii= cancer slope factor, (mg/kg-d)"1
IRsoil = soil ingestion rate, 114 mg/d resident,
50 mg/d non-resident
IRi = inhalation rate, 15 m3/d resident,
20 m3/d non-resident
CF = conversion factor, 10"6 kg/mg
VF = equation given but not all chemical-
specific parameters provided
PEF = particulate emission factor,
4.63 *109 m3/kg
Ingestion,
inhalation
GADNR website
references EPA RAGS
Equation 6 for carcinogen
in commercial/industrial
soil, but the specific
derivation basis is unclear
and some chemical-
specific parameters are
not identified.
GM
450
See EPA RSL equation (last entry of this table)
GM uses the EPA RSL equation and toxicity
values to derive its cleanup level, but applies a
TR of 10"4 instead of 10"6
All
Represents value above
which residential use is
not recommended in the
absence of remedial
actions to reduce potential
exposure.
HI
390
See EPA RSL equation (last entry of this table)
HI uses the EPA RSL equation to derive its
cleanup level but applies a TR of 10"4 instead
of 10"6 and an oral slope factor of
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 instead of
130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1.
All
Represents value above
which residential use is
not recommended in the
absence of remedial
actions to reduce potential
exposure.
November 2009
Page 60
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
IA
19
CL = 1
CL =
cleanup level (mg/kg)
Ingestion,
1/Coral+1/Cderm
EDa =
exposure duration for adult, 24y
dermal
EDC =
exposure duration for child, 6y
where:
EFa =
exposure frequency for adult, 350d/y
EFC =
exposure frequency for child, 350d/y
Coral dfirm — R F * AT
ERa =
exposure rate for adult, 100 mg/d oral,
Abs*CFx(A+B)
400 mg/d dermal
ERC =
exposure rate for child, 200 mg/d oral,
and
560 mg/d dermal
BWa =
body weight adult, 70 kg
A = (ERr.xEFrxED^
BWC =
body weight child, 15 kg
BWC
CF =
conversion factor, 10"6 kg/mg
Abs =
absorption factor, 1 oral, 0.03 dermal
B = (ERaxEFa*EDa)
AT =
averaging time, 25,550 d
BWa
RF =
TR/SF,
TR =
target risk, 5x10"®
SF =
slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
November 2009
Page 61
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
IN
45
DCL = TRxATr*365 d/v
EFr*(A + B)
where:
A = SFnxflnaFarti+fSFSariixABSn
10s mg/kg
B = lnhFa
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
KS
60
RBC (ma/kal = (TR * BW * AT * SGSdM
EF*ED*[(A)+(B)+(C)]
where:
A = INGsxCF*SFo
B = INHxSFix{1A/Fs+1/PEF}
C = SF0xCFxSA*AF*ABS
RBC = risk based concentration (mg/kg)
TR = target cancer risk, 10"5
BW = body weight, 70kg
AT = averaging time, 70 y
EF = exposure frequency, 350 d/y
ED = exposure duration, 30 y
INGS = soil ingestion rate, 100 mg/d
CF = conversion factor, 10"6 kg/mg
SF0 = oral cancer slope factor,
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
INH = soil inhalation rate, 20 m3/d
SFi = inhalation cancer slope factor.
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
VFS = soil volatilization factor, m3/kg
PEF = particulate emission factor,
1.18*109m3/kg
SA = surface area of skin, 5000 cm2/d
AF = adherence factor, 0.2 mg/cm2
ABS = absorption factor, 0.1
All
For carcinogens, KS uses
default exposure
assumptions for an adult
receptor.
MD
4.5
See EPA RSL equation (last entry of this table)
See EPA RSL parameters.
All
Per state review feedback,
the EPA RSL is the MD
soil cleanup level.
November 2009
Page 63
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
ME
10
RAG = 1
(1/EPC/„g) + (1/EPC inh) + (1/EPCdemi)
where:
EPC/nn = ILCR x AT
RAG = remedial action guideline (mg/kg)
EPC = exposure point conc. (mg/kg)
ILCR = incremental lifetime cancer risk, 10"6
AT = averaging time, 25,550 d
SF = oral slope factor, 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1-
EDyc = exposure duration (child), 6 y
EDa = exposure duration (adult), 24 y
EFyc = 150 d/y
EFa = 150 d/y
I Rye = soil contact rate (child), 200 mg/d
IRa = soil contact rate (adult), 100 mg/d
BWyc = body weight (child), 14 kg
BWa = body weight (adult), 70 kg
CF = conversion factor, 10"6 kg/mg
IUR = inhalation unit risk, 38 (pg/m3)"1
PEF = 1.36 x 109 m3/kg
DAF = dermal absorbance factor, 0.03
All
Equations provided in
MERAG draft technical
document.
SF0x[{EDycxEFycx(IRyc*CF/BWyc)}+{EDa* EFa*(IRa*CF/BWa)}]
Shortened versions of EPC equations with several exposure
parameters lumped were available for inhalation and dermal
pathways.
EPCinh = 0.68 X 10"4
[IUR(pg/m3)"1x(1,000pg/mg)x(l/PEF + 1A/F)]
EPCrf.™ = 0.45 (ka BW x dav/ka soil) x 1
SF0 DAF
Ml
90
DCC = (TRxATxCF)
SF0x[(EFiX|FxAEi)+(EFdxDFxAEd)]
DCC = direct contact criterion, (pg/kg)
TR = target risk, 10"5 cancer risk
AT = averaging time, 25,550 d
CF = correction factor, 109 pg/kg
SFo = 75,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
EFi = ingestion exposure frequency, 350d/y
IF = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,
114 mg-y/kg-d
AEi = oral absorption efficiency, 0.5
EFd = dermal exposure frequency, 245 d/y
DF = age-adjusted soil dermal factor,
2442 mg-y/kg-d
AEd = dermal absorption efficiency,
chemical-specific, 0.03
Ingestion,
dermal
Parameter values given in
1998 MIDEQ document.
More recent 2006 MIDEQ
document lists a generic
DF value = 353 mg-y/kg-d.
November 2009
Page 64
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
State
Cone
(ppt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
MN
20
SRV= TRxAT
(A) + (B) + (C)
where:
A(innt«mi= IR* SFxCFxFI*EF„xEDxSF*AE
BW
B (rtnrmlRrm) = SF X CF X SAx AF X ABS*EFrtx ED
BW
C (inhterm) = IURx(1,000 pg/mg)xEFixEDx(l/PEF+ 1A/F)
Original equations from 1999 MPCA guidance document:
ADDinn= ECRinn/fSFxAE) = Cc*|RxCFxFlxEFo*ED
BWxAT
ADDrtp™= ECRrinrm/S F = C«x C Fx SAx AF x ABS x EFnx ED
BWxAT
ADCinh = ECRinh/lUR = Csx(103 pg/mg)xEFixEDx(l/PEF+ 1/VF)
SRV = concentration of contaminant in soil (or
CS|), mg/kg
SFo.d = 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
TR = 10"5 cancer risk
ECR = estimated cancer risk, route-specific
AT = 25,550 d
IR = soil intake rate, 68 mg/d (age-
adjusted)
CF = correction factor, 10"6 kg/mg
Fl = fraction from contaminated area, 1.0
EFo.i = exposure frequency oral and
inhalational, 350 d/y
EFd = exposure frequency dermal, 74 d/y
(adult), 97 d/y (age-adjusted)
ED = exposure duration, 33 y
AE = oral absorption efficiency, 0.55
SA = skin surface area, 3,609 cm2 (age-
adjusted)
AF = adherence factor, 0.17 mg/cm2 (age-
adjusted)
ABS = absorption factor, 0.03
IUR = inhalation unit risk, 400 (pg/m3)'1
VF = volatilization factor, 2.49 *108 (m3/kg)
PEF = particulate emission factor,
7.7x108 (m3/kg)
BW = body weight, 51 kg (age-adjusted)
All
From Field feedback,
20 ppt is a rounded value
(appears to correspond to
a target risk of
1.21 x 10'5.) Toxicity
values taken from MPCA
spreadsheet, provided
during field review, with
support from MPCA
(2008) excel documents.
Initial equations and
default parameter values
taken from 1999 MPCA
Guidance document were
updated per field input.
November 2009
Page 65
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
MS
4.26
TRG = TR *AT
EFxIFSadjxCSF0*CF
TRG = target remediation goal (mg/kg)
TR = target risk, 10"6
CSF0 = 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
BW = body weight
AT = averaging time, 25,550 d
EF = exposure frequency, 350 d/y
ED = exposure duration,
IFSadj = soil ingestion factor, 114 mg-y/kg-d
CF = conversion factor, 10"6 kg/mg
Ingestion
(as
indicated in
field
feedback
and on the
MSDEQ
website)
Equation reflects field
input during the review
phase which reflects
equations and parameters
from EPA (1996) Soil
Screening Guidance
November 2009
Page 66
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
NE
3.9
CL = 1
[(1/ Cres soil irtgestion)+(1 /Cres soil dermal)+(1/Cres soil inhalation)]
where:
Cres soil tnaestion — TRfXATr.
EFrx|FSa(ijxSFox10"€ mg/kg
Cres soil derma! — TRr* ATr
EFr*SFSacjjxABS()*(SFo/ABSGi)x10"6 mg/kg
Cres soil inhalation — TRrxATr.
EFrxEDnx[(URFx1000 ua/ma)l
PEF
CL = cleanup level, (mg/kg)
TR = target risk, 10"6
SF0 = oral slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
ATC = averaging time, 25,550 d
EFr = exposure frequency, 350 d/y
EDa = exposure duration, 30 y
IFSadj= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,
114 (mg-y/kg-d)"1
SFSadj = age-adjusted soil dermal factor,
361 mg-y/kg-d
ABSd = dermal absorption fraction, 0.03
ABSgi = gastrointestinal absorption eff., 1.0
URF = unit risk factor, 3.3x10 3 (pg/m3)"1
PEF = particulate emission factor,
1.2*109 m3/kg
All
NH
9
Concsnii = (ELCR*CF)
{CSFx(£A+£B)}
where:
A = (IRixEFxEDixRAFn)
(ATxBWi)
B = (SAixEFxEDxAFxRAFh)
(ATxBWi)
Concsoii = soil concentration (mg/kg)
ELCR = target cancer risk, 10"6
CF = conversion factor, 106 mg/kg
CSF = slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
IRi = soil ingestion rate, 200 mg/d (2-6 y),
100 mg/d (7-31 y)
EF = exposure frequency (160 d/y)
ED, = exposure duration,2-6 (5 y),7-16(1 Oy),
17-31 (15 y)
RAF0 = relative absorption factor ingestion, 1
AT= averaging time, 25,550 d
BWj = body weight, 17kg (2-6y), 40kg(7-16y),
70 kg (17-31 y)
SAi = skin surface area, 2632 cm2 (2-6 y),
3432 cm2(7-16 y),5044 cm2(17-31y)
AF = soil-to-skin adherence factor (adult,
0.013 mg/cm2, child, 0.014 mg/ cm2,
2-6 year old 0.36 mg/cm2)
RAFd = relative absorption factor for soil
dermal contact 0.03
Ingestion,
dermal
November 2009
Page 67
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
NMI
450
See EPA RSL equation (last entry of this table)
NMI uses the EPA RSL equation and toxicity
values to derive its cleanup level for dioxin.
However, they use a TR of 10"4 instead of 10"6.
All
NMI has adopted the
GEPA policy for soil
cleanup.
OH
35.8
GCN = TR x AT
A + B + C
Where:
A = SFox(IFSadjxCFxFI*EF)
B = SFo/OABSx(SFSadjxABS*CFxEF)
C = SFix[lnhFadjxEFx(1/PEF)+(1A/F)]
GCN = generic cleanup number, mg/kg
TR = target risk, 10"5
AT = averaging time, carcinogens, 25550 d
SF0 | = oral and inh cancer slope factor,
150,000 mg/kg-d
IFSadj = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,
114.3 mg-y/kg-d
CF = conversion factor, soil 10"5
Fl = soil fraction ingested, 1.0
EF = exposure frequency, 350 d/y
Oabs = oral absorption factor, 0.5
SFSadj = age-adjusted soil dermal contact
factor, 360.8 mg-y/kg-d
ABS = dermal absorption factor, 0.03
InhFadj = age-adjusted inhalation factor,
10.9 m -y/kg-d
PEF = particulate emission factor,
1.36x109 m3/kg
VF = volatilization factor, no value provided
All
OR
3.9
Cone =
TRxAT
TR = target cancer risk, 10"6
ATr = averaging time, 25,550 d
EFr = exposure frequency, 350 d/y
IFSadj = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,
114 (mg-y/kg-d)"1
SF0 = oral slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
CF = 10"6 kg/mg
SFSadj = soil dermal contact factor,
361 mg-y/kg-d
ABS = dermal absorption fraction, 0.03
InhFadj = 11 (m3-y/kg-
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
PA
120
MSC = TR*ATr*365d/v
CSF0* AbsxEF*IFadi*CF
TR = target risk, 10'5
ATC = averaging time for carcinogens, 70 y
CSF0 = oral cancer slope factor,
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
Abs = absorption, 1.0
EF = exposure frequency, 250 d/y
IFadj = ingestion factor, 57.1 (mg-y/kg-d)
CF = conversion
Ingestion
TX
1,000
"'Soilnmib = 1
[(1 /"'Soil.nh.VPHI /^'SoihngH 1 /^'Soiloenn)]
Not found
Derivation basis is not
described. TX might have
adopted OSWER values.
Toxicity values and
chemical-specific
parameter values were not
found online.
WA
11
SCL = (RISKxABWxATxUCF)
(CPFxSIRxAB,xEDxEF)
SCL = soil cleanup level, mg/kg
RISK = acceptable cancer risk level, 10"6
ABW = average body weight over the
exposure duration, 16 kg
AT = averaging time, 75 y
UCF = unit conversion factor, 1,000,000
mg/kg
CPF = 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
SIR = soil ingestion rate, 200 mg/d
AB1 = gastrointestinal absorption fraction,
0.6
ED = exposure duration, 6 y
EF = exposure frequency, 1.0
Ingestion
WY
4.5
See EPA RSL equation (last entry of this table)
See EPA RSL parameters
All
State review feedback
indicates the EPA RSL is
the WY soil cleanup level.
November 2009
Page 69
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
EPA Regional Screening Level Derivation for Residential Scenario
EPA
RSL
4.5
RSL™ = 1
[(1/Cres soil ingestion -ca)+( 1 /Cres soil dermal - ca)"*"(1/Cres soil inhalation - ca)]
where:
Cr«R mil innpsiinn - TRrxATr
CSF0xERrxlFSadj*CF
Crp*
-------
TABLE 14 Summary Comparison of State Derivations for Incidental Soil Ingestion (primary contributor)3
Generic equation for residential/unrestricted scenario (incidental ingesiion): Cres .to = TR*AT / SF0xEF*IFSad
* 10"6 kg/mg
State
Cone
(ppt)
Oral Cancer Slope Factor.
SF0 (mg/kg-d)'1
Target Cancer Risk,
TR
Averaging Time,
AT (d)
Exposure Frequency,
EF (d/yj
Soil Ingestion Factor, IFSadj
or (IR*ED)/BW (mg-y/kg-d)
NE
3.9
150,000
10"6
25,550
350
114
OR
3.9
150,000
10"6
25,550
350
114
DE
4
150,000
10*
25,550
350
114
MS
4.26
150,000
10"6
25,550
350
114
A2
4.5
130,000
10"6
25,550
350
114
MD
4.5
130,000
10"6
25,550
350
114
WY
4.5
130,000
10"6
25,550
350
114
FL
7
150,000
10"6
25,550
350
69
NH
9
150,000
10"6
25,550
160
105
ME
10
130,000
10"6
25,550
150
120
WA
11
150,000
10*
27,375
365
75
IA
19
150,000
5x10"®
25,550
350
114
MN
20
1,400,000
10~5
25,550
350
45
OH
35.8
150,000
10"5
25,550
350
114
AK
38
150,000
10"5
25,550
330
• 114
IN
45
150,000
10"5
25,550
250
114
KS
60
150,000
10"5
25,550
350
42
GA
80
(not specified)
10 s
25,550
350
48
Ml
90
75,000
10"5
25,550
350
114
PA
120
150,000
10"5
25,550
250
57
HI
390
150,000
10"
25,550
350
114
AS
450
130,000
10"
25,550
350
114
GM
450
130,000
10"
25,550
350
114
NMI
450
130,000
10"
25,550
350
114
AS
450
130,000
10"
25,550
350
114
AL
1,000
150,000
(not specified)
(not specified)
(not specified)
(not specified)
TX
1,000
(not specified)
(not specified)
(not specified)
(not specified)
(not specified)
a Shading highlights variations within related entries.
November 2009 Page 71
-------
November 2009
Page 72
-------
November 2009
-------
Rats exposed to the highest dose (0.1 (jg/kg-d, or a dietary level of 2,200 ppt) exhibited a higher
incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of lungs, hard palate, nasal
turbinates, and tongue (yet a decreased incidence of other tumors). Lesser effects were
reported at 0.01 pg/kg-d (2.10 ppt), while no adverse effects were reported at 0.001 pg/kg-d
(22 ppt), and no carcinogenic effects were reported at either 0.01 or 0.001 pg (210 or 22 ppt).
These findings were considered to support a previous study that indicated ingestion of 5,000 ppt
TCDD led to many toxicological effects.
In 1986, NTP updated its tumor classification scheme, and scientists (including Kociba and his
colleague Squire, and EPA work groups) used that newer methodology to reassess the
incidence of female rat liver tumors and other tumors from the Kociba et al. data (TSG 1990,
Sauer 1990). This reassessment identified a tumor incidence lower than previously determined,
which produced a lower toxicity value. A slope factor of 52,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 was defined based
on liver tumors alone, and a slope factor of 75,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 was determined based on total
significant tumors. The latter (half the previous slope factor) was used to establish the Michigan
soil cleanup level.
The slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 is used by nearly a third of the states. This value is
derived from a chronic study of Osborne-Mendel rats dosed by gavage 3 times/week, and
B6C3F1 mice gavaged 2 days/week (NTP 1982). Summarizing this scientific context from the
ATSDR toxicogical profile for chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (ATSDR 1998/2008): a dose of
about 0.007 pg/kg-d significantly increased the incidence of thyroid follicular cell adenoma; a
dose ten times higher increased the incidence of neoplastic nodules in the liver and
hepatocellular carcinoma in females. At 0.1 and 0.01 pg/kg-d, females exhibited a significant
increase in hepatocellular hyperplastic nodules, while those at the next lower dose
(0.001 pg/kg-d) did not. Total weekly doses were averaged to estimate a daily dose level, which
assumes daily dosing would give the same results. (As described in the summary, because the
TCDD half-life is relatively long, both schedules were expected to give similar tissue
concentrations.) The rat data were converted to equivalent human exposures with basic scaling
factors; assumptions included: oral and inhalation routes are equivalent, air concentration is
assumed to be the daily oral dose, the exposure route does not affect absorption, and TCDD
metabolism/pharmacokinetics do not differ between animals and humans.
CalEPA (2002/2003) documented the application of a linearized multistage model to these NTP
rodent hepatocellular adenoma/carcinoma tumor data to derive the slope factor. Early
development of this slope factor is documented in the 1986 California Department of Health
Services derivation report prepared for the CalEPA Toxic Air Contaminant program. This value
underwent external peer review by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) scientific review
panel and was endorsed in 2002 when it was summarized and included in the CalEPA (2002)
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer
Slope Factors. External review by the scientific panel (primarily from academia) was in
accordance with a process that has been in place since 1983, per the original state air toxics
legislation from the early 1980s (CalEPA 1999).
This slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 underlies the basic soil cleanup levels established by
Arizona and three Pacific islands (American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands),
as indicated above. This oral toxicity value is also reflected in the current EPA Regional
screening level (RSL), which has been adopted by WY and MD. In addition, it underlies the
draft cleanup levels recently developed by Indiana and Maine - bringing the total number using
and considering this slope factor to eight.
November 2009
Page 74
-------
The slope factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1 is the toxicity value most commonly applied, by about
60 percent (14) of the states that have established a cleanup level. As a note, this value has
also been used to determine supporting concentrations for other states, such as the Nevada
basic comparison (screening) level. This toxicity value is based on the two-year dietary study
of Sprague-Dawley rats by Kociba et al. (1978).
In 2003, the Minnesota Department of Health (MNDOH) tapped the draft upper bound value of
1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)'1 based on animal bioassay data (from Kociba et al. [1978]); this was one
of the values presented in the draft dioxin reassessment (EPA 2003a). (Note the reassessment
recommended a value of 1,000,000 that was based on human epidemiological data). At roughly
ten times the toxicity values most often used across states (and about 20 times higher than the
Michigan value), Minnesota used this slope factor to calculate the state soil cleanup level. It
was also .used in a supporting role by the Pacific islands American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, and
the Northern Mariana Islands, to estimate a lower-end concentration (creating an operational
cleanup range), as a companion to the standard cleanup level above which remedial action is to
be considered. Those standard values are based on either 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 (for Hawaii) or
130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 (for the other islands), as discussed for those slope factors above.
3.3.3 Target Risk Levels
The target risk levels used by states to back-calculate a soil cleanup concentration (with the
exposure calculation and toxicity value) range from 10"4 to 10"6, as shown in Tables 12 and 14.
Nearly half the states (11) use a target risk of 10"6; eight target the midpoint 10"5, and one (Iowa)
applies a target between these two, at 5 x 10'6. Four Pacific islands use the upper target risk of
10"4. Similar orders-of-magnitude differences were found for targets used to establish cleanup
levels for commercial/industrial use. The span of these target risks accounts for larger
differences between state cleanup levels. Note that in addition to Iowa's risk-based value for
unrestricted use, the state has identified a cleanup level for restricted use based on a reference
dose; That toxicity value is the same as the chronic oral minimal risk level from ATSDR
(1998/2008).
3.3.4 Differences among State Cleanup Levels
A key factor contributing to differences among state cleanup levels is the chemical basis - i.e.,
whether the value applies to TCDD alone or to dioxin TEQ. This can account for order-of-
magnitude differences, depending on the fraction of TCDD in the soil dioxin mixture. Another
factor is different assumptions in calculating exposures, including for incidental ingestion - the
dominant contributor to cleanup levels for unrestricted use. Highlighting differences
among parameter values used by states to calculate cleanup levels for this route provides a
quick indication of key sources of variation across states. As shown in Table 14, such a
comparison indicates that the target risk is the most significant factor, accounting for differences
of up to 100. An additional key factor is the selection of TCDD only or dioxin TEQ as the basis.
Beyond this single-route comparison, a more detailed review of the state calculations offers
additional insights into the various soil concentrations identified. In addition to soil ingestion,
many states incorporate dermal and inhalation exposures in the cleanup level calculation (as
was shown in Table 13.) Differences in parameter values used across these combined routes
are identified in Table 15. To facilitate comparisons across states, the calculation that was used
to determine the U.S.EPA Regional screening level (RSL) for unrestricted land use was
selected to serve as the common basis, because the state calculations generally follow this
form. Values were normalized to the target risk, to control the impact of that primary factor
November 2009
Page 75
-------
Table 15 Main Factors Leading to Differences in Cleanup Levels for the Unrestricted/Residential Scenario3
Comparison basis,
EPA RSL equation for
cancer endpoint,
unrestricted/residential
scenario:
RSLres -
1
[(1 /Cres soil ingestion)"*"(1/Cres soil dermal)+(1 /Cres soil inhalation)]
Where:
Cres soil ingestion ~~
TRxAT
: 4.5*10 mg/kg TR
AT
_= 4.9x10 mg/kg
-res soil dermal
•res soil inhalation
CSFoxEFxIFSadjxCF
TR*AT
CSF0xEFxDFSadjxABSd*CF
TR x AT
_= 5.2 *10 mg/kg
= target cancer risk, 10
= averaging time, 25,550 d
CSF0 = slope factor, 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
EF = exposure frequency, 350 d/y
ED = exposure duration, 30 y
IFSadj = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor, 114 (mg-y/kg-d)
CF =10"® kg/mg
DFSadj = soil dermal contact factor, 361 mg-y/kg-d
ABSd = dermal absorption fraction, 0.03
IUR = 38 (pg/m3)"1
VF
= volatilization factor
lURfpg/m ) x(ii000Mg/mg)xEFx(1/VFs+1/PEF)xED
_= 8.7*10"2 mg/kg PEF = particulate emission factor, 1.4*10 m /kg
Component and Comparison to EPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) Values
State
Cone
(PPt)
Target
Risk
(TR)
Ratio
to RSL
TR
Ingestn , j Ingestion
Subtotal, "atl° to .Contribution
per TR , ln^n j to Cleanup
(mg/kg)
Level (%)
Dermal | Ratio j Dermal
Subtotal | to
perTR {Dermal
(mg/kg) j RSL
^Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Inhaln ] Ratio | Inhalation
Subtotalj t° (Contribution
perTR ; Inhaln , to Cleanup
(mg/kg) ; RSL J Level (%)
Explanation of Difference between
State Value and EPA RSL
EPA
RSL
4.5
1CT
4.9
91
S.2*101 . 1
8.7* 1(f
<1
AZ
4.5
10^
4.9 •
91
5.2 xlO1
<1
AZ has adopted the RSL for the
unrestricted/residential scenario.
MD
4.5
10"1
4.9
91
5.2 *10
8.7*10 1
<1
MD has adopted the RSL for the
unrestricted/residential scenario.
WY
4.5
10'
4.9
91
5.2 *101 ' 1
8.7*10 • 1
<1
WY has adopted the RSL for the
unrestricted/residential scenario.
NE
3.9
10"1
4.3 0.9
91
4.5 *101 t 0.9
8.9*10® >104
<1
The CSF0 of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"
accounts for the difference. Although it
has a negligible impact on the final
cleanup value, NE cites an IUR that is
10,000 times lower than that used to
calculate the RSL.
November 2009
Page 76
-------
Table 15 (Cont'd.)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Component and Comparison to EPA RSL Values
1
Target 1 Ratio
Risk ' to RSL
(TR) • TR
Inaestn
Subtotal
i
Ratio j Ingestion
to | Contribution
Ingestn; to Cleanup
RSL j Level (%)
Dermal
Subtotal
Ratio J Dermal
to j Contribution
Dermal, to Cleanup
RSL , Level (%)
Inhaln
Subtotal
I
Ratio { Inhalation
to Contribution
Inhaln to Cleanup
RSL , Level (%)
Explanation of Differences between
State Value
and EPA RSL
(PPt)
(PPt)
(PPt)
OR
3.9
!
j
10* | 1
t
t
i
4.3
|
0.9 ] 91
i
i
4.5 *101
0.9
9
5.8*10"
0.7
<1
The CSF0 of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 accounts
for the difference. OR uses a CSFi rather
than an IUR, and some parameter values
were not found online. However, the
contribution of inhalation was negligible
compared to oral and dermal routes.
DE
4
10"6 : 1
4.3 : 0.9 : 100
Ingestion route only. CSF0 of
150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1.
MS
4.26
10"6 i 1
4.3 i 0.9 ! 100
Ingestion route only. CSF0 of
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1.
FL
7
10"6
1
7.0
1.4
94
1.6 x102
3.1
4
3.2*102
.004
2
Difference can largely be explained by
FL-specific calculations for aggregate
resident attributes and their impact on the
ingestion calculation: BW = 51.9 kg,
IR0 = 120 mg/d, SA = 4,810 cm2/d. Using
these values, the FL equivalent IFSadj is
only 60 percent of that used in the RSL
calculations. This along with a CSF0 of
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 accounts for most of
the difference. The ABSd of 0.01 makes
the dermal route contribution three times
higher than the RSL value. The FL use of
VF accounts for the significantly lower
inhalation route contribution.
NH
9
10"6
1
o
X
2.1
92
1.2 «102
2.2
8
Difference can largely be explained by the
EF (160 d/y), which is less than half that
used in the RSL calculation. This along
with a CSF0 of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
accounts for a value twice as high as the
RSL. Although less significant, NH does
use different values for BW, exposed skin
area (SA), and adherence factor (AF).
November 2009
Page 77
-------
Table 15 (Cont'd.)
State
Cone
(PPl)
Component and Comparison to EPA RSL Values
Target Ratio
Risk to RSL
(TR) TR
Inaestn ! Rfio
Subtotal;. °
Ingestion
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Dermal I Ratio ! Der™!
Subtotal i to .Contribution
Inhaln i Ratl°
Subtotal) to
Inhalation
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Explanation of Differences between
State Value
and EPA RSL
, nueslii
(ppo ; rsl
Dermal to Cleanup
(PPf) ( rsl | Level (%)
, Inhaln
(PPO • rsl
(
ME
10
1
10"6 | 1
|
|
j
1.1 x101 ! 2.2
t
i
91
t i
i i
i i
1.2*1021 2.2 i 9
I i
i i
i i
|
t
I
2.4 x10s! 27.6
i
i
<1
Similar to NH, the difference in the ME
level can largely be explained by an
EF (150 d/y) that is less than half that used
in the RSL calculation. Although it has a
negligible impact, ME uses a children's
BW of 14 kg instead of 15 kg.
WA
11
10"6 ; 1
: i
1.1 *101: 2.2 100
i
WA uses a number of exposure
assumptions that differ from those of most
other states. The level appears to be
derived based on several parameter values
for a child: ED = 6 y; BW = 16 kg;
IR = 200 mg/d. Also, the WA AT is 75 y.
IA
19
5x10"® 1 5
1
i
4.3 0.9 91
i
i
: i
i
4.5 *101; 0.9 ! 9
[ I
The difference can be explained by a TR
that is five times higher than that used for
the RSL, along with a CSF0 of
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1.
MN
20
O
ir>
O
2.1 0.4 77
1.5 x101 0.3 11
1.3 *101 . 0.0001 12
MN uses a TR of 10"5 and a CSF0 of
1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"1. However, these two
inputs essentially cancel each other with
respect to a net difference compared with
the RSL (because they are both about
10 times higher than parallel RSL values
and the TR is divided by the CSF0). Other
differences in exposure assumptions,
particularly the IR (68 mg/d, age-adjusted),
help explain the difference between the
MN value and RSL. Other differences
include: ED = 33 y; age-adj BW = 51 kg;
age-adj dermal EF = 97 d/y. Differences in
the inhalational route can be explained by
a given VF value and an IUR that is 10
times higher than the parallel RSL value.
November 2009
Page 78
-------
Table 15 (Cont'd.)
State
Cone
(PPO
Component and Comparison to EPA RSL Values
Target : Ratio
Risk ' to RSL
(TR) ! TR
Inqestn
Subtotal
i
Ratio j Ingestion
to j Contribution
Ingestnj to Cleanup
RSL j Level (%)
Dermal
Subtotal
i
Ratio j Dermal
to j Contribution
Dermal j to Cleanup
RSL j Level (%)
Inhaln
Subtotal
Ratio , Inhalation
to Contribution
Inhaln t to Cleanup
RSL ; Level (%)
Explanation of Differences between
State Value
and EPA RSL
(ppo
(PPt)
(PPt)
OH
35.8
10"5
10
4.3
0.9
84
2.3 *101
0.4
16
6.1 *10"
0.7
<1
The difference can largely be accounted
for by the OH TR of 10"5 and CSF0 of
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1. Also, when
calculating the dermal term, OH divides the
CSF0 by an oral abs factor of 0.5, so the
dermal term is half the value used for the
RSL. Consequently, this term has a greater
effect in terms of reducing the final cleanup
level. The contribution from the inhalation
route is negligible.
AK
38
10"5
10
4.5
0.9
84
2.4 *101
:
0.5 : 16
i
The AK difference can largely be explained
by a TR of 10"5 and CSF0 of 150,000
(mg/kg-d)'1. Like OH, AK uses a dermal
CSF of 300,000 (mg/kg-d)"1. Although its
impact is negligible, AK uses an EF of
330 d instead of 350 d.
IN
45
.
6.0
i
)
I
f
1.2 ! 75
I
i
i
! !
I ?
f i
1.8*101! 0.34 I 25
i I
; !
I I
)
i I
! i
8.2 *104 \ 0.9 1 <1
i i
i i
i i
For the ingestion route, IN uses a CSF0 of
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 and an EF of 250 d/y
instead of 350 d/y. For the dermal route,
IN uses a DFSadj (1,257 mg-y/kg-d) that is
3.5 higher than the value used in the RSL
calculation. This value and the EF account
for dermal route differences.
November 2009
Page 79
-------
Table 15 (Cont'd.)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Component and Comparison to EPA RSL Values
Target - Ratio
Risk to RSL
(TR) TR
Inqestn
Subtotal
Ratio , Ingestion
to , Contribution
Ingestn to Cleanup
RSL i Level (%)
Dermal
Subtotal
Ratio | Dermal
to Contribution
Dermal, to Cleanup
RSL , Level (%)
Inhaln
Subtotal
1
Ratio , Inhalation
to Contribution
Inhaln { to Cleanup
RSL , Level (%)
Explanation of Differences between
State Value
and EPA RSL
(PPt)
(PPt)
(PPt)
KS
60
10"5
10
1.1 x101
2.3
50
1.1 *101
0.2
50
o
X
CO
CD
0.78
<1
In addition to a TR of 10"5 and CSF0 of
150,000 (mgfag-d)"1, differences in the KS
exposure assumptions for the oral and
dermal routes contribute to the difference
between the RSL and KS value. In
particular, KS does not use an age-adj IFS
but rather assumes an IR of 100 mg/d, a
BW of 70 kg, and an ED of 30 y.
Consequently, the KS equivalent IFS of
42 (mg-y/kg-d)"1 is nearly three times
smaller than the age-adj IFS used for the
RSL. This factor of three is reflected in the
ingestion-based concentration. Similar
assumptions are made for the dermal
route. The KSABSdOf0.1 instead of 0.03
makes the dermal-based concentration
smaller, which gives it a greater impact on
the overall cleanup level.
GA
80
10"5 j 10
( I
i
: i
Cannot;
Not be Cannot be
found deter- j determined
mined •
I :
i ;
i
i Cannot \
Not ¦ be i Cannot be
found \ deter- ¦ determined
! mined '
i ;
; I
i !
Not
found
i
j
!
Cannot j
be | Cannot be
deter- [ determined
mined ;
J
1
Online information indicates that GA uses
a TR of 10"5, and it appears that GA does
not apply a grouped age-adj IFS but rather
an EF = 30 y, soil IR = 114 mg/d, and
BW = 70 kg resulting in an IFS-equivalent
value of 49 mg-y/kg-d. This value, which is
less than half the RSL IFSadj, would help
explain the difference in the GA value after
it has been normalized per the TR.
November 2009
Page 80
-------
Table 15 (Cont'd.)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Component and Comparison to EPA RSL Values
I
Target > Ratio
Risk * to RSL
(TR) ' TR
Inaestn
Subtotal
t
Ratio ; Ingestion
to , Contribution
Ingestnj to Cleanup
RSL j Level (%)
Dermal
Subtotal
1
Ratio | Dermal
to | Contribution
Dermal! to Cleanup
RSL j Level (%)
Inhaln
Subtotal
i
Ratio | Inhalation
to Contribution
Inhaln ( to Cleanup
RSL , Level (%)
Explanation of Differences between
State Value
and EPA RSL
(PPO
(PPt)
(PPt)
Ml
90
10"5
10
1.7 x101
3.5
53
1.9 x101
0.4
47
In addition to a TR of 10"5, Ml uses a CSF0
of 75,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 and an oral
absorption efficiency of 0.5 for the soil
ingestion calculation. These differences
account for a Cing that is 3.5 times higher
than the RSL value after both have been
normalized per TR. In addition, the Ml
DFSadj (2442 mg-y/kg-d) is significantly
higher than the value used to calculate the
RSL. This in turn makes the dermal-based
concentration smaller which gives it a
greater impact on the overall cleanup level.
PA
120
10"5
10
1.2 *101
2.4
100
In addition to a TR of 10"5 and CSF0 of
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1, PA uses an IFSadj
(57.1 mg-y/kg-d) - which is half the value
used to derive the RSL. In addition, PA
uses an EF of 250 d/y instead of 350 d/y.
These differencesmake the ingestion
contribution 2.4 times higher than the
equivalent RSL after both have been
normalized per the TR.
HI
390
10"
100
4.3
0.9
91
4.5 *101
0.9
9
i
1
8.7x10" | 1
!
!
<1
HI uses the same equations and parameter
values as the EPA RSL except for applying
a TR of 10"" and a CSF0 of
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1.
AS
450
10" 100
4.9 1 91
5.2 *101 1 9
8.7x104 1 <1
AS adopted the EPA RSL equations and
parameter values except for using a TR of
10".
GM
450
10" j 100
4.9 ' 1 ' 91
t
5.2 x101 1
9
8.7x10" 1 <1
: i
i :
GM adopted the EPA RSL equations and
parameter values except for using a TR of
10".
NMI
450
!
i
10" J 100
! i
4.9 ; 1 | 91
i
5.2 x101 ¦ 1
9
! i
8.7x10" j 1 | <1
. |
NMI adopted the EPA RSL equations and
parameter values except for using a TR of
10".
November 2009
Page 81
-------
Table 15 (Cont'd.)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Component and Comparison to EPA RSL Values
Target Ratio
Risk to RSL
(TR) TR
Inaestn
Subtotal
1
Ratio ( Ingestion
to Contribution
Ingestn to Cleanup
RSL , Level (%)
Dermal
Subtotal
t
Ratio } Dermal
to Contribution
Dermal to Cleanup
RSL ; Level (%)
Inhaln
Subtotal
1
Ratio ( Inhalation
to Contribution
Inhaln to Cleanup
RSL | Level (%)
Explanation of Differences between
State Value
and EPA RSL
(PPt)
(PPt)
(PPt)
AL
1,000
Not
given
Not
given
Not
given
AL adopted the residential cleanup value
outlined in the OSWER directive and did
not provide the derivation information in AK
documentation.
TX
1,000
Not
found
Cannot
be
deter-
mined
¦ Cannot
Not i be
found ! deter-
! mined
Cannot be
determined
Not
found
Cannot!
be i Cannot be
deter- j determined
mined \
j Cannot |
Not 1 be ! Cannot be
found ! deter- j determined
j mined j
The derivation basis is unclear, as toxicity
values and chemical-specific parameter
values were not found online. It appears
that TX has adopted the OSWER value.
a Notes:
Ingestn = incidental soil ingestion; inhaln = inhalation.
To facilitate comparisons, cleanup concentrations were calculated for each route (i.e. ingestion, dermal, inhalation) contributing to
an individual state cleanup level and normalized by the total target risk applied for the state. This allowed for a more direct
comparison of component values across states. The EPA RSL was used as the standard reference point. Individual route-based
concentrations for each state were compared to the parallel concentrations for the RSL as a ratio. The contributions to total target
risk and overall cleanup levels were also compared as ratios. Entries shaded gray indicate those routes are not included in the
state cleanup level calculation. Shading
November 2009
Page 82
-------
The route-specific soil concentrations were also normalized according to the target risk.
Table 15 presents these route-specific comparisons to the parallel RSL values. This table also
identifies the contribution of each exposure route to the ultimate soil cleanup level (as a
percent), to highlight the main contributors.
3.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA
The four evaluation criteria considered in assembling information for state soil cleanup levels
are:
• Nature of peer review
• Transparency-public availability
• Scientific basis
• Incorporation of most recent science
In many cases, only limited information was found to address these evaluation criteria during
the online search. For this reason, a checklist that emphasized the type of documentation
needed to effectively consider these criteria was provided to the field (Appendix A), together
with site-specific clarification questions, to guide review and feedback. The feedback did little to
address gaps in this area - particularly with regard to the nature of the peer review and
transparency. Context for the evaluation criteria is included in the data tables of Appendix B
and highlighted in overview tables of Chapter 3. Key criteria information is summarized in
Section 4.3
4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
This chapter summarizes the spread of soil concentrations identified in the search for state
dioxin cleanup levels (Section 4.1), indicates key contributors to similarities and differences
(Section 4.2), and considers the context provided by the evaluation criteria (Section 4.3).
4.1 STATE SOIL CLEANUP LEVELS FOR DIOXIN
Information on soil dioxin cleanup levels was pursued for all 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, and four Pacific Rim islands. Online sources checked extended from state and
other government agency websites to the EPA online database of site cleanup decisions and
peer-reviewed scientific literature extended. About 280 values were identified for dioxin in soil,
across scenarios ranging from surface soil for residential use to subsurface soil for industrial
use, and including screening values - which in some cases have been adopted as cleanup
levels. From this larger set, a single representative cleanup level was identified per land use
scenario (unrestricted vs. restricted) (Note these representative values do not include cleanup
levels from site-specific decisions, even for states that have identified cleanup levels should be
determined on a site-specific basis.) Frequency distributions of the representative state values
for soil cleanup designed for unrestricted and restricted use are presented in Figure 22.
For unrestricted/residential land use, nearly half (26) have established cleanup levels, which
span more than three orders of magnitude because of the different cancer slope factors, target
risks, and exposure assumptions used. (Note that online information for the Trust Territories
appears to be the same as for Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands, but
these data are not reflected in tables and plots based on limited field feedback.)
November 2009
Page 83
-------
Cleanup levels for a few states reflect the current OSWER directive of 1,000 ppt, but most levels
for unrestricted use are 120 ppt or lower. The concentrations for unrestricted/residential use
range from about 4 to 1,000 ppt. More than 75 percent of the values (20) are at or below
120 ppt, and most of these (15) are less than 40 ppt. At the low end are seven concentrations
documented by states within the past ten years that are consistent with values commonly used
for preliminary screening evaluations: 3.9 to 4.5 ppt. These values indicate that nearly a third
of the states with cleanup levels have essentially adopted a concentration intended for
screening purposes (typically based on a target risk of 10"6 with default residential assumptions).
In the next higher concentration set are four values that are 100 times these "screening"
parallels - at 390 to 450 ppt, for Hawaii and three Pacific Rim islands (last documented from
2006 and 2008, respectively). These are based on dioxin TEQ, not TCDD, so it is reasonable
that they are higher. At the upper end of the distribution is the cleanup level of 1,000 ppt
identified by two southern states (Alabama and Texas, most recently documented in 2007 and
2009, respectively); this concentration represents the current OSWER value for dioxin TEQ.
For restricted commercial/industrial land use, cleanup levels have been identified by 21 states
and territories. States for which values were found for residential but not restricted uses are:
Alaska, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and Wyoming. As expected, the concentrations for restricted
use are a bit higher than those for unrestricted use, based on less extensive exposures and in
some cases less restrictive target risks. These concentrations are also more broadly
distributed. The lowest third falls between 16 and 40 ppt, the middle third ranges from 100 to
just above 500 ppt, and the top third (which includes Hawaii and three Pacific Rim islands)
ranges from 1,500 to 5,000 ppt, with Alabama and Texas again indicating the highest value
In both land use categories, no clear regional patterns are evident beyond the similarities in
values among the Pacific islands. From this summary, states within U.S. EPA Regions 2, 3, 6,
and 8 have established the fewest cleanup levels for dioxin in soil, although screening levels
have been established by most states. Because a number of states call for site-specific
determinations of cleanup levels, context was also pursued for recent cleanup decisions. Many
of those data reflect the OSWER value of 1,000 ppt.
From the fuller set of cleanup values identified (see Appendix B), more cleanup levels were
identified for states and territories within Regions 10 and 9 (nearly 100 combined) than for the
other states. The fewest are available for Region 2, with Region 8 states also producing
relatively few values. Key factors affecting these totals include (1) certain states do not have
the same extent of contaminated sites as others, and (2) a number of states have eschewed
established a general cleanup value for dioxin, instead calling for these to be determined on a
site-specific basis (which allows for setting-specific conditions to be reflected).
November 2009
Page 84
-------
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Unrestricted (Residential)
Restricted (Commercial/Industrial)
11
WA
10
ME
9
NH
7
FL
4.5
AZ. M3, WY
4.26
MS
4
DE
3.9
NE, OR
120
PA
90
Ml
80
GA
60
KS (IN)
45
IN
38
AK
35.8
OH
20
MN
19
IA
450
AS, GM,
NM
390
HI
1,000
AL, TX
40
DE
38.2
MS
35
MN
31
ME
30
FL
18
MD
16
OR
160
AZ, NE
100
KS
530
PA
360
IA
300
NH
180
IN
5,000
AL, IX
1,800
AS, GM,
NMl
1,600
HI
1,500
WA
OP
&
Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)
FIGURE 22 Distribution of Soil Cleanup Levels by Concentration: Unrestricted and Restricted Uses
(A dark border indicates the basis is TEQ rather than TCDD; italics in parenthesis indicate a draft value)
November 2009
Page 85
-------
4.2 FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
The key contributors to similarities and differences among the state cleanup levels are:
exposure routes and assumptions, toxicity values, target risk levels, and contaminant basis - as
dioxin TEQ or TCDD. A further important consideration is that several states directly adopted
EPA screening values as cleanup levels. Also, some states have deferred establishing generic
cleanup levels, invoking instead a risk-based determination of these levels in order to account
for setting-specific conditions.
4.2.1 Exposure Calculations
State that calculated soil cleanup levels followed the standard EPA approach, generally
applying the equations in EPA (1989) with common default values. Some variations reflect
state preferences for parameter values with incorporation of regional and local conditions (as
illustrated in Table 13). Considerations extend from the exposure routes included to specific
parameter values applied. For example, a trench worker scenario is included for several Pacific
Rim entities but not for the continental states, and inhalation and dermal exposures are
additional key contributors to selected nonresidential (restricted) scenarios. The highlights for
the ingestion pathway show that the main difference underlying cleanup levels for unrestricted
use is the target risk - accounting for a factor of 100. Other contributors include the slope factor
with differences of about 20-fold, the soil ingestion factor with differences of nearly 3-fold, and
the exposure frequency with differences of about 2.4-fold. A further primary factor is the
reporting of the cleanup level as TCDD or TEQ - with most of the higher values reflecting the
latter.
4.2.2 Toxicity Values
Cancer is the driving endpoint for the residential cleanup levels, and because incidental
ingestion is the dominant exposure route, the oral slope factor is the toxicity value of interest.
Four have been identified across the 24 states that provided this information: 130,000; 150,000;
75,000; and 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"1. The last three are based on the chronic dietary TCDD study
in rats by Kociba et al. (1978). Thus, the full range accounts for a factor of 20 difference.
The slope factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1, an older value based on outdated methodology,
underlies the cleanup level for most states (14) that identified the toxicity value basis. These
are Alaska, Alabama, Deleware, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
A reevaluation of the 1978 Kociba et al. data with the updated 1986 NTP tumor classification
scheme, based on all significant tumors (rather than liver tumors alone), halved the slope factor
to 75,000 (mg/kg-d)"1. One state, Michigan, uses this number.
The slope factor of 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 is a draft value that was included among those
discussed in the EPA draft dioxin reassessment (EPA, 2003a). This represented the upper
bound value from animal bioassay data, and it too was based on analyses of the Kociba et al.
(1978) data. Although 40 percent higher than the upper bound value based on human
epidemiological data (which was the slope factor recommended in the reassessment), this draft
value was used by Minnesota to calculate its soil cleanup level. At roughly ten times the values
commonly used by most other states (and about 20 times higher than the Michigan value), this
value was also used in a support role by the Pacific islands American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii,
and the Northern Mariana Islands. That is, it was used to estimate a lower-bound soil
November 2009
Page 86
-------
concentration to create an operational cleanup range, as a companion to the standard cleanup
levels established for these islands using the more commonly applied slope factors.
The slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 is based on a slightly more recent study (NTP 1982),
and it is considered by nearly one-third of the states. This toxicity value was derived by CalEPA
using the linearized multistage model, and its derivation was extensively documented and peer
reviewed. This slope factor serves as the basis of the cleanup levels identified for Arizona,
Maryland, Maine, and Wyoming, as well as three Pacific islands: American Samoa, Guam, and
the Northern Mariana Islands.
Data from an even more recent NTP study (2004) have since become available and are being
evaluated by both U.S. EPA and CalEPA . As indicated by certain states (including California
and Minnesota), information from these ongoing evaluations may offer useful insights for
consideration in developing updated context for soil cleanups.
4.2.3 Target Risk Levels
Nearly half the states that identify a target risk for their unrestricted-use cleanup level (11 of 24)
apply a target of 10"6, eight use the middle level of 10"5, one (Iowa) targets a risk between these
two (5 x 10"6), and four (Pacific islands) use the higher level of10"4. These targets span orders
of magnitude, which helps explain the larger variations among state cleanup levels. Similar
differences exist between cleanup levels identified for commercial/industrial (restricted) use.
As a note, in addition to a risk-based value for unrestricted use, Iowa has identified a cleanup
level for restricted use based on a reference dose that is the same as the ATSDR chronic oral
minimal risk level, or MRL (ATSDR 1998/2008). (That MRL had undergone extensive peer
reiview prior to being finalized in 1998, under the standard process documented by ATSDR
[2008b].)
4.3 EVALUATION CONTEXT
The four evaluation criteria can be grouped into two sets: (1) scientific basis, including the
recency of the studies and methodology on which the value is based; and (2) nature of the value
in terms of draft or final published value, and its peer review. Even though information and field
input in these areas was relatively limited, some context is available as summarized in individual
tables within the body of the report and as part of the data compilations in Appendix B. This
information can be used to guide interpretation of the final values presented, in terms of
scientific strength and transparency of the process, including public availability and the pedigree
of the scientific peer review, with an emphasis on independent review by external experts.
Toxicity values from CalEPA are considered to address the evaluation components relatively
well. Values from this agency are extensively peer reviewed in accordance with a long-standing
external review process. For dioxin, the current CalEPA slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 -
which is used by one-third of those states that identify an underlying toxicity value - is well
documented in terms of scientific basis, methodology, and peer review. This value was derived
from a slightly more recent bioassay (1982 NTP study) than the other toxicity values (which are
based on 1978 bioassay data from Kociba and colleagues) using the linearized multi-stage
model, and its derivation and review process are publicly available online.
In contrast, documentation for the slope factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1 used by most states is
limited. It is based on an outdated methodology, and the general citation is an outdated EPA
November 2009
Page 87
-------
HEAST source. That HEAST cancer slope factor was indicated as being a provisional value,
and it was qualified as being under further evaluation. HEAST tables were described in the
1997 document as containing "provisional risk assessment information" that "have not had
enough review to be recognized as high quality, Agency-wide consensus information." Specific
peer review information has not been found; however, the 1985 EPA Health Assessment
Document (which is listed as one of the sources for the HEAST value) underwent external peer
review. Note it is not clear that the HEAST value was based solely on this document, since
EPA (1985) lists a cancer slope factor of 156,000 (mg/kg-d)'1, while the HEAST value is
150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1. Thus, this value is considered relatively weak in terms of the evaluation
criteria.
The third slope factor, the value of 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)'1 used by Minnesota, is a draft taken
from the draft EPA dioxin reassessment (which is still under review). The lack of a final peer-
reviewed publication basis for this value limits its broader strength.
The fourth slope factor, the value of 75,000 (mg/kg-d)'1 used by Michigan, is a final published
value based on an updated and peer-reviewed evaluation of the Kociba data using the updated
NTP tumor classification. Documentation of this derivation, independent peer review, and public
availability of supporting information were not found to be as extensive as for the CalEPA value.
More recent scientific data (such as the 2004 NTP study) are currently being evaluated,
including by U.S. EPA and CalEPA. Related insights anticipated in late 2009 or early 2010 are
expected to further inform the development of an updated soil cleanup level for dioxin.
With regard to the range of cleanup levels, concentrations at the lower end (around 4 ppt) were
identified by a number of states that had essentially adopted values actually developed for
screening purposes (not cleanup decisions), as reflected in the recently harmonized U.S. EPA
Regional screening level table and related data sources. The scientific basis, external peer
review, and transparency of these values for this application do not appear to be well
documented, i.e., for purposes other than the preliminary screening for which they were
designed.
5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their appreciation to colleagues who contributed to the compilation
of detailed data tables in Appendix B and integrated plots, notably Aisha Ahmad, Jessica
Chung, John Jacobi, Prakriti Joshi, Boyan Peshlov, James Shannon, Rebecca Williamson, and
David Wyker of the Argonne team.
We also wish to extend our deep appreciation to the many dioxin experts in the EPA Regions
and states who provided input to this summary. Their combined inputs and insights have been
invaluable.
(Argonne National Laboratory's work was supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under an interagency agreement, through U.S. Department of Energy contract DE-
AC02-06CH11357.)
November 2009
Page 88
-------
6 REFERENCES
Below are selected references cited in the body of this report; others are listed in Appendix B.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 1998/2008, Toxicological Profile
for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS),
Atlanta, GA (Dec.) http://www.atsdr.cdc.qov/toxprofiles/tp104.pdf; Appendix B (policy
guideline) updated Sept. 2008.
ATSDR, 2008a, Update to the ATSDR Policy Guideline forDioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds
in Residential Soil, DHHS, Atlanta, GA (Oct. 15, 73 Federal Register [FR] 61:133; with minor
editorial update Nov. 28, 73 FR 72:484);
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/dioxin/policv/Dioxin Policy Guidelines.pdf.
ATSDR, 2008b, Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs), DHHS, Atlanta, GA (Dec.);
http://www.atsdr.cdc.aov/mrls (identifies 1998 as date of final (extant) dioxin MRL)
CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency), 1986, Technical Support Document,
Report on Chlorinated Dioxins and Dibenzofurans, Part B - Health Effects of Chlorinated
Dioxins and Dibenzofurans, Department of Health Services (Feb.);
http://www.arb.ca.qov/toxics/id/summarv/dioxptB.pdf.
CalEPA, 1999, 1999-08-12 California Air Toxics Program Background, Air Resources Board;
http://www.arb.ca.qov/toxics/backqround.htm (page last reviewed June 23; accessed Sept.).
CalEPA, 2002/2003, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part II,
Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors, Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Sacramento, CA;
http://www.oehha.ca.qov/air/hot spots/pdf/TSDNov2002.pdf.
CalEPA, 2005, Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors,
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment, Sacramento and Oakland, CA (May);
http://www.oehha.ca.qov/air/hot spots/pdf/Mav2005Hotspots.pdf.
CalEPA, 2007, Public Health Goal for TCDD in Drinking Wafer (June) (review draft for second
public comment period); http://www.oehha.ca.qov/water/phq/pdf/PHGDioxin062907.pdf.
CalEPA, 2009a, Air Toxics Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines Part II: Technical Support
Document for Cancer Potency Factors (May);
http://www.oehha.ca.qov/air/hot spots/2009/TSDCancerPotency.pdf.
CalEPA, 2009b, Proposition 65 Status Report, Safe Harbor Levels: No Significant Risk Levels
for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive
Toxicity, OEHHA, CA (Feb.); http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/2009FebruarvStat.pdf.
CalEPA, 2009d, Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Values, Appendix H (July);
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2009/AppendixHexposure.pdf.
Cal EPA, 2009c, Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), Note 2, Interim, Remedial
Goals for Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds for Consideration at California
Hazardous Waste Sites, (May);
http://www.dtsc.ca.qov/AssessinqRisk/upload/HHRA Note2 dioxin-2.pdf.
CalEPA, 2009d, Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Values, Appendix H (July);
http://www.oehha.ca.qov/air/hot spots/2009/AppendixHexposure.pdf.
ECOS (Environmental Council of the States), 2007, Identification and Selection of Toxicity
Values/Criteria for CERCLA and Hazardous Waste Site Risk Assessments in the Absence
of IRIS Values, ECOS-DoD Sustainability Work Group, Emerging Contaminants Task
Group, Risk Assessment Provisional Values Subgroup Issue Paper, Washington, DC
(April 23); http://www.ecos.org/files/2733 file FINAL ECOS PV Paper 4 23 07.doc.
November 2009
Page 89
-------
Kimbrough R.D., Falk H., Stehr PI, Fries G., 1984, Health Implications of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) Contamination of Residential Soil, Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health, 14(1):47-93.
Kociba R.J., Keyes D.G., Beyer J.E., Cerreon R.M., Wade C.E., Dittenber D.A., Kalnins R.P.,
Frauson L.E., Park C.N., Barnard S.D., Hummel R.A., Humiston C.G., 1978, Results of a
Two-Year Chronic Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin
in Rats, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 46(2):279-303.
NAS (National Academy of Sciences), 2006, Health Risks from Dioxin and Related Compounds:
Evaluation of the EPA Reassessment, National Academies Press, Washington, DC (July);
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php7record id=11688.
NTP (National Toxicology Program), 1982, Carcinogenesis Bioassay of 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (CAS no. 1746-01-6) in Osborne-Mendel Rats and B6C3F1
Mice (Gavage Study), : DHHS Publication No. (NIH) 82-1765, Carcinogenesis Testing
Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; National
Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC.
NTP, 2004, Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin
(TCDD) in Female Harlan Sprague-Dawley Rats (Gavage Study), NIH publication No. 04-
4455, NTP TR 521, DHHS, PHS, NIH, Research Triangle Park, NC;
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/LT rpts/tr201 .pdf.
ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), 2005/6, The Risk Assessment Information System,
online RAIS database (cited as the source of toxicity values used by states, from Feb. 2005
and 2006); http://rais.ornl.gov/.
Sauer, M., 1990, Pathology Working Group: 2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin in Sprague-
Dawley Rats, PATHCO Inc., submitted to Maine Scientific Advisory Panel (per TSG 1990).
TSG (Toxic Steering Group, linked from Ml DEQ 1998), 1990, Carcinogenicity Slope Factor for
2,3,7.8-TCDD: Overview and Recent Developments, Toxic Steering Group Meeting (July
10); http://www.michioan.gov/documents/deg/deg-whm-hwp-dow-
slope factor 251918 7.pdf.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1985, Health Assessment Document for
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins, Final Report, EPA/600/884/014F, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC (Sept.);
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.cfm?deid=38484.
U.S. EPA, 1997a, Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST): Annual Update, FY
1997, National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and
Development and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1989a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1, Human Health
Evaluation Manual, Interim Final, Washington D. C., Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. EPA/540/1-89/002 (Dec.);
http://www.epa gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsa/pdf/rags-vol1-Pta complete.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 1998, Approach for Addressing Dioxin in Soil at CERCLA and RCRA Sites. OSWER
Directive 9200.4-26, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC
(Apr. 13); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedv/pdf/92-00426-s.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 2003a, Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds, NAS review draft, Volumes 1-3
(EPA/600/P-00/001Cb, Volume 1), National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC (Dec.); http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/pdfs/dioxin/nas-review/.
U.S. EPA, 2003b, Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments, OSWER
Directive 9285.7-53, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC
(Dec. 5); http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/hhmemo.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 2008, Frequently Asked Questions on the Update to the ATSDR Policy Guideline for
Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds in Residential Soil, OSWER 9285.7-84FS (Dec.);
November 2009
Page 90
-------
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/additions.htm:
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/92-857-84fs.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 2009, EPA's Science Plan for Activities Related to Dioxins in the Environment,
Washington, DC (May 26); http://www.epa.gov/dioxin/scienceplan:
http://cfpub.epa. gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=209690.
November 2009
Page 91
-------
APPENDIX A: SUPPORTING DETAILS FOR THE APPROACH
November 2009 Page A-1
-------
November 2009
Page A-2
-------
APPENDIX A:
SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR THE APPROACH
This appendix presents additional context for Phase II.
The Phase I searches produced varying levels of information. Gaps across the key entries were
addressed via review and input from knowledgeable experts from the U.S. EPA Regions and
individual states - which is essential to ensuring that OSWER has the best understanding of
existing state cleanup levels to frame the development of an updated interim soil cleanup level.
To support field feedback on the preliminary data tables, a checklist was provided that
emphasized two main themes (see Table A.2): (1) assure the data table reflects current soil
cleanup levels for dioxin, and (2) provide supporting information not found online, particularly for
the scientific basis and other evaluation criteria. State-specific questions were also offered to
help guide field clarifications and additions.
TABLE A.1 Checklist to Support Field Review of Data Tables
Table Element
Field Input Needed
Notes
Current Entries
Soil concentration
Please specify if the basis is wet or dry
weight.
Reminder: Our scope is TCDD or
dioxin TEQs (not other DLCs.)
If you add or revise here, please
also update corresponding entries
(including the information source).
Please confirm or revise as indicated. Note
some units are converted for consistency
across all entries
Endpoint basis
If missing, please identify "ca" (cancer) or
"nc" (noncancer) where known.
If another agency value is
adopted, please indicate which
one so we can characterize this.
Toxicity reference value
Please confirm/revise as above, also noting
same conversion for overall unit consistency.
Please see the evaluation criterion
for scientific basis (below).
Information source
Confirm or revise as indicated; also add
sources to account for any change
Please include any supporting
weblinks in this table field.
Context basis
Definition-application: Please confirm or
define (if missing) the nature of the
concentration term and its application specific
to soil cleanup. In particular: if a screening
level, please indicate if (a) the value is
defined to not be used as a cleanup objective
or goal, and (b) the value has in fact been
used as a soil cleanup level (in some case).
Further: If a value is identified as ecological-
based, please indicate if it has also been
used as a health-based cleanup level.
Many state values appear to be
screening levels, so this
clarification is crucial - to know
whether they have essentially
been used as cleanup levels. If
so, please provide that
documentation (including weblink
if available).
Context basis (cont'd.)
Scenario and risk target: Please confirm or
identify (if missing) the land use/scenario for
which the value applies - as well as the
primary receptor, exposure route(s), and
target risk, where specified (e.g., 10"6 or 10'5),
or the hazard index (for "nc"-based levels).
Coverage: Please confirm or identify (if
missing) whether the value is for TCDD only,
or TCDD equivalents or total dioxins.
Regarding the scenario: The
primary focus is levels considered
acceptable for unrestricted use.
(with equations and parameter
values to be given in the "scientific
basis" column, see below.)
Reminder: We do not need any
information for DLCs (e.g., PCBs).
November 2009
PageA-3
-------
Table Element
Field Input Needed
Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of peer review
Please characterize the peer review of both
the soil concentration value and its derivation
methodology, including assumptions.
For example, types of review may include:
a. Internal: by same agency, same division or
department responsible for the level.
Please at least indicate if any
external peer review was
conducted.
b. Internal-independent: by same agency but
another division or department.
c. External: please indicate general type/
number of peers (e.g. international panel
including 6 state university toxicologists and
epidemiologists); or (b) remote individual
review by 3 state university toxicologists.
Please provide further context as feasible
(e.g., "2-year process with external review,
internal revision, and reconsideration by the
external reviewers").
Transparency-public
availability
Transparency/clarity and public availability:
Please identify whether the dioxin level and
derivation approach are publicly available
and clearly described - including specific
calculations and scientific study(ies) on which
the soil and toxicity values are based.
Public comment:. Please indicate if the public
had an opportunity to review and comment
on the dioxin cleanup and/or toxicity value.
If this information is publicly
available but the source is not yet
identified in the table, please
provide it in the "information
source" column.
Provide any further information for
public input to the dioxin cleanup
level or derivation methodology.
Feel free to give any further useful
information on public input directly
relevant to the soil dioxin level.
Public comment: Please indicate if the public
had an opportunity to review and comment,
specific to the soil cleanup level for dioxin.
Scientific basis
Please confirm/Zrevise or provide if missing -
including: specific equation(s) used, specific
input values (per scenario), the toxicity value
basis, and supporting documentation -
including original literature or evaluation
reports underlying the toxicity value or soil
concentration, particularly if these have not
yet been found online (and please provide if
possible, e.g., as weblink, pdf, or hard copy).
Review input is especially key,
because this is a data gap for
many values and the information
is essential for a solid evaluation.
Note some entries may have
general placeholder notes for the
moment, which will need to be
replaced by the specific scientific
basis.
Incorporation of most
recent science
Please check to confirm or update, e.g., if
ongoing state initiatives reflect more recent
scientific studies or methodology.
Note also pursuing original
documentation cited as the basis
A key aim of this phase was to obtain primary documentation underlying soil cleanup values
(not found online), ranging from state derivation methodology or guidance documents to the
original scientific literature studies and calculation approaches that underlie the toxicity values
applied. (Similarly, many basic evaluation documents with derivation details underlying the
supporting context from RODs were not found online.)
November 2009
PageA-4
-------
APPENDIX B: DETAILED DATA TABLES
November 2009 Page B-1
-------
November 2009
Page B-2
-------
APPENDIX B:
DETAILED DATA TABLES
[Guam]
Amanean 8«moal
Northern Malaria
latanda
B.1 DATA ORGANIZED BY U.S. EPA REGION
To facilitate field review and input, data from the Phase I online searches were compiled in
tables organized alphabetically by state within U.S. EPA Regions 1 through 10. The Regional
distribution of states is illustrated in Figure B.1.
FIGURE B.1 States in U.S. EPA Regions (Source: EPA, 2008x, Regional Map, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, http://www.epa.qov/oswer/reqionalmap.htm;
last updated Dec. 26, 2008; accessed Aug. 2009.)
These Regional tables presented on the following pages include:
• State: Using the standard abbreviations.
• Soil concentration: As ppt to facilitate comparisons (several were converted to this unit).
• Date: As month-year where available (to help indicate timing per the extant OSWER
directive, as well as recent scientific studies and harmonization efforts).
• Endpoint basis: Cancer (c) or noncancer (n).
• Toxicity reference value: Includes term used (e.g., slope factor, cancer potency factor).
• Toxicity value units: As consistent unit: (mg/kg/d)"1 (or mg/kg-d for noncancer endpoint),
to facilitate comparisons across states.
November 2009
Page B-3
-------
• Information source: Streamlined reference (for quick indication of the nature of this
source, e.g., state agency or other), includes weblink to facilitate checks.
• Context notes: Includes where available: (1) the contaminant addressed - TCDD or
toxic equivalents (TEQ), (2) the scenario (e.g., unrestricted or commercial/industrial),
(3) terminology used (e.g., cleanup level, or screening or comparison level), and
(4) application objective.
• Evaluation criteria: Highlights information relevant to the four criteria, to the extent
available.
The references cited in these tables are provided in Section B.2.
Formatting distinctions have been applied to facilitate quick-glance checks.
1. Concentration column
- No state cleanup level: This entry is blank if the state has not developed a soil
cleanup level for dioxin. (Note in some cases states have developed cleanup levels
for other chemicals and conditions but those documents did not include dioxin).
- Same concentration as OSWER directive: The shading is more intense for values that
are the same as those identified in the 1998 directive - i.e., 1,000 ppt for the
residential scenario, and 5,000 and 20,000 ppt for commercial/industrial scenarios.
2. Sources other than state agencies
- Lighter font and italics are used to distinguish entries for site-specific applications and
journal and other articles from entries directly reflecting state agency information.
A review of these values indicates that more cleanup levels were found for states and territories
within Regions 10 and 9 (nearly 100 combined) than for the other states. The fewest are
available for Region 2, with Region 8 states also producing relatively few values. Key factors
affecting these counts include (1) certain states do not have the same extent of contaminated
sites as others, and (2) a number of states have eschewed establishing a general cleanup value
for dioxin, instead determining that these should be identified on a site-specific basis (which
allows incorporation of setting-specific conditions).
November 2009
Page B-4
-------
TABLE B.1 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 1
Soil
Cone
tppi)
End-
point
Basis
{,000
Sep-05
Toxicity Reference
Value
150.000 (mg/kg-d)'1
(CSF)
EPA (2005d), ROD Summary, Solvents
Recovery Service of New England, Inc
(SRSNE) Site, Southington
(http/Avww eoa aov/superfund/sites/rods/futite
xt/t0105008 pdf)
150,000 (mg/kg-d)~
»EP
BW*AP*Ci*C7
where
OHM^
target risk-based concentration in
soil, direct contact (ingestion), mg/kg
ELCR = target lifetime excess cancer risk. 10"*
LADSIR = lifetime average daily soil ingestion
rate, (d)"'
RAF«.-*>?= relative absorption factor for cancer.
oral exposure (1. per RAGS Part E)
CSF«*~ oral cancer slope factor.
150.000 (mg/kg-d)"1
IR««j = soil ingestion rate. 50 mg/d
EFi = exposure frequency. 5 d/wk
EF2 = exposure frequency. 30 wk/y
EP = exposure period, 30 y
BW = body weight, 54.2 kg
AP = averaging period. 70 y
Ci = conversion factor, 355 d/y
C? - conversion factor. 108 mg/kg
LADSDCR = lifetime average daily soil dermal
contact rate, (d)"1
SSA - average dailv skin surface area exposed.
5,653 cm
SAF = soil adherence factor. 0.13 mg/cmJ
The UCLs (upper concentration limits] are
simply 10-fold multiples of the highest Method 1
exposure-related (S-1, S-2 or S-3 in soil)
standard, capped at a maximum concentration.
For soil, the UCL is capped at 1%" (MADEP, D).
November 2009
Page fl-5
-------
TABLE B.1 State Cleanup Levels for Oioxin in Soil: Region 1
State
Soil
Cone
tPP*)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer _^,nsPar?(nfy.T. Scientific Basis Incorporation ot Most Recent Science
Review Public Availability
MA
(cont'd.)
4
1,000
2006
(2004)
Sep-04
c
i
I
i
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(httoJAvww.trxmews net/Documents/TRW/Reo
uest%20to%20atsdi%20to%20darifv%20l00
Ooot odf\: Lists same values identified in:
EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in
Other States, cited in table available via
Tittabawassee River Watch (TRW) News
(httoJAvYM trvmews net/imaaes/StateCleanuo
2006.PDF).
Basrs not provided.
Fordioxin TEQ. based on 1998 OSWER
directive: 'one ppb is to be generally used as a
starting point for setting cleanup levels for
setting cleanup levels for CERCLA removal sites
and as a deanup level (or remedial sites for
dioxin in surface soil involving a residential
exposure. The 'adjacent resident. \y/o
groundwater exposure' scenario on which the
remedy is based assumes appro*/Vnafe/y 150
days of exposure to site soils, which is
essentially equivalent to an on-site exposure.
Therefore, the deanup goal tor dioxin protective
of human health is beino set at 1 ppb TEQ.'
Limited information is Basis not provided.
available via the
neblinks at left, with
neither the derivation
methodology or basis
of underlying toxicity
values.
•
EPA (20040. EPA Region 1, Shpack Landfill
Superfund Site Record of Decision Summary.
Norton/AtUeboro
fhtto:/Av\vw.eoa.oov/suoeriund/sites/rods/fuUte
*t/r0104694.odf).
'ROD is available ! The Kimbrough et al. (1904) evaluation of
'online (via PODS 'Kotiba et al. (1978) underlies the OSWER
database). value.
i !
; i
ME
10
17
31
310
Jut-09
c
130.000 (mg/kg-dr
(sf.) ;
i
MEDEP (2009a), Maine Remedial Action
Guidelines for all Scenarios
httD://www.maine.aov/deo/rwm/oublications/au
idance/raas/MERAGS%20APPENDIX%201 2
3%20Numbers Public Rev Draft 7-17-
09.xls): based on calculations in MEDEP
(2009b), Technical Basis and Background for
the Maine Remedial Action Guidelines
(httD://www.maine.ooWdeo/rwm/Dublications/a
uidance/raas/MERAG Basis Draft For Publi
c Comment 2009 iulv 14 V2-fhd.DOC)'
from Wright (2009) (personal communication).
Fordioxin TEQ, residential scenario, based on
sites with more than one contaminant of concern
MEDEP (2009a & An ILCR of10"® was 'Applicable at sites with
2009b) rs available more than one contaminant of concern." TEQ
'and is currently open toxicity is based on WHO 2005 guidelines. ME
to public comment is in the final stages of revising generic draft soil '
icleanup levels for dioxin TEQ. These guidelines J
! lare based on MEDEP (2009b). Equation is }
j ^provided in MERAG technical document. j
'highlighted in Table 15 of the report |
!
c
c
c
For dioxin TEQ, park user scenario, based on
sites with more than one contaminant of concern
For dioxin TEQ. commercial worker scenario,
based on sites with more than one contaminant
of concern
Fordioxin TEQ. excavation/construction worker
scenario, based on sites with more than one
contaminant of concern
NH
9
May-07
c
c
150.000 ¦ (mg/kg-d)"1
(CSF) •
I
i
i
i
I
I
i
NHDES (2007), Risk Characterization and
Management Policy. Groundwater Quality
Table 2. Appendix A-E with soil values
fhtto://des nh.oov/oraanization/divisions/waste
/hwrto/documents/rcmo.Ddfl: the hioher values
are estimated using EPA (1998a), Approach
for Addressing Dioxin in Soil at CERCLA and
RCRA Sites. OSWER Directive 9200.4-26
(httD://vww,eDa.aov/suoertund/resource$/rem
edv/Ddf/92-00425-s.odft.
For2.3,7,8-TCDD. risk-based S-1 soil category,
for sensitive uses of property and accessible
soils, either currently or in the foreseeable
future. For these soil concentration entries,
TCDD is marked as 'negative contaminant
migration* so groundwater was considered for
each of the NH soil concentrations listed here
and determined to not be a contributing factor.
The May 2007 jBoth the NH risk lAssumes the upper-bound lifetime excess
NHDES {characterization jcancer risk from residential exposure to a
document is jdocument and EPA concentration of 1 ppb dioxin is 0.00025. The
referred to as ,OSWER directive are {estimate for commercial/industrial exposure to
being under 'available online. j5 ppb is 0.00013. Slope factor of 150.000 per
review; intra- 1 img/kg-d (citing indirect resource RAIS 2/2006)
agency. j (used to develop the direct contact risk-based
' concentrations.
30
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD. risk-based S-2 soil category,
for moderate exposure and accessible soil,
either currently or in the foreseeable future.
300
1.000
5.000
20.000
c
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD. risk-based S-3 soil category,
for restricted access property with limited
poteotial for exposure, either currently or in the
foreseeable future.
For 2.3.7.6-TCDD TEQs, based on OSWER
directive approach using TEQs. S-1 category.
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD TEQs. based on OSWER
directive approach using TEQs, S-2 category.
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD TEQs, based on OSWER
directive approach using TEQs. S-3 category.
! i 1
! ! I
i i i
c
c
c
i
} ;
November 2009
Page B-6
-------
TABLE B.1 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 1
Soil
Cone
(PP)
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Nature of Peer* Transparency-
Rotfew Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
RIDEM (2004). Rules and Regulations for the
Investigation and Remediation of Hazardous
Material Releases
(h»p://www.demri-Qov/pubs/reos/reos/waste/r
emreo04.pdfl.
These RIDEM Remediation Regulations
(updated February 2004} contain tables listing
direct exposure critena for residential and
commercial/industrial soils for a number of
contaminants. They were checked for dioxin
entries but none were found (nor was other input
provided during the field review phase).
The RIDEM (2004) Basts not pursued because dioxin is not
document is available induded in this suite of state values,
online.
Sep-97
DoN (l 997). Final Record of Decision: Site 09
Allen Harbor Landfill. Naval Construction
Battalion. OU 01. Davisville
(http /AvAW epa.gov/suDerfund/sites7rods/tullte
Xt/r0l97l57.pdf)
For 2.3,7.8-TCDD equivalents, determined using
toxic equivalency factors from EPA (1994),
specific citation not provided: represents risk-
based concentraUon (or soils up to a depth of
10 ft. (As a note, the entry for TCDD soil
screening level is ND, no data.)
ROD is avaiJable
online (via RODS
database).Public
comments included
support (or no action,
limited action, two of
the pi oposed plans
(one of which was
implemented), and
landfill excavation.
May-09
130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
(SF0)
VTDEC, Brownfields Reuse Initiative
(http://wvr.iv.anr. state. vi.us/dec/wastediv/SMSf
RCPP/Cleanup-Stand-Guid.htm): for soil and
air. links to EPA (2009). Regional Screening
Levels (RSL) for Chemical Contaminants at
Superfund Sites. RSL Table Update
(http://www.epa.QOv/reqion09/superfund/pra/in
dexhtmll
For 2.3,7.8-TCDD in residential soils, total risk
The VT website introduces the link to the
Regional EPA screening values (and VT links for
other environmental media) with: "The following
links are provided to standards and guidance
utilized by the Department in the management of
brownfield projects.*
For 2.3,7,6-TCDD in industrial soils, total risk;
with further note as above.
Note the supporting documentation includes an
RfDo of 1.0* 10"9 mgTkgd; however, cancer was
the limiting endpoint for the residential and
industrial screening levels. (Note this RfD is the
same as the ATSDR chronic MRL finalized in
1998.)
The VT context and See Table 13 of the report for the derivation
the EPA RSL table methodology and values underlying the EPA
and User's Guide regional screening levels.
(EPA 2OO9e,0.
including equations,
are available online.
November 2009
Page 8-7
-------
TABLE B.2 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 2
Soil
Cone
(ppt)
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency-
Review Public Availability
Scientific Baals
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
50 -
NJDHSS (2001). Public Health Assessment:
Franklin Burn Site
(httoJAvwiv.state.ni.us/health/eoh/assess/Tb o
c.Pdf).
For 2.3.7,8-TCDD TEQs, adopted from the
ATSDR screening value used as a 'comparison
value" for public health assessment al that time.
(See related information in the A TSDR entry in
Table 1 f of the report.)
See information \ See ATSDR entry in jSee ATSDR entry in Table 11.
forthe ATSDR \Table 11; toxicity j
entry in value not found in
Table 11. the NJ j
[documentation. |
Sep-07
) May-04
DoA (2007b). ROD. Site 180 (PICA 093)
Waste Burial Area, Final. Picatinny
(httpJAvww eoa.gov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fuMe
xVr2007020002S38.Ddf).
EPA (2004d), ROD, Franklin Bum. OU 01,
Franidin Township
(hup/AvwYj.eDa.gov/suDerfund/sites/rods/1ullie
xt/r2004020001417 odf)
For 2.3,7.8-TCDD toxic equivalency
concentration (TEC) for surface and subsurface
soil, based on the EPA Region 3 risk-based
concentration for the industrial scenario; IRBCs
were used when NJ had not established a
nonresidential direct contact soil cleanup
criterion.
For dioxin, the surface soil risk-based
preliminary remedial goal is described in the text
as a policy-driven value, the 1 ppb cleanup level
(or dioxins/furans is consistent with OSWER
Directive 9200.4-26."
1ROD available online\8ased on a target risk level of Id*; see Table 13
(RODS database) >of the report (or other values and the derivation
• Toxicity value not \methodology (first entry); note the Region 3
found. |RBCs have since been harmonized with the
j screening values from Regions 6 and 9.
ROD available online
(RODS database)
Toxicity value not
found.
The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation of Kooba
et at. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.
Sep-06
NYSDEC (2006). New York State Brownfield
Cleanup Program, Development of Soil
Cleanup Objectives, Technical Support
Document
(http://www.dec.nv.qov/docs/remediaiion hud
son pdfrtechsuppdoc.pdft: link provided in
feedback during field review, from Olsen
(2009) (personal communication)
This document states that 2,3,7,8-TCDD was
deleted from the list of priority contaminants
requiring a soil cleanup objective because dioxin
is rarely found at sites. If dtoxins are listed as a
contaminant of concern at Brownfield sites by
the EPA, then NYSDEC would consider dioxin in
its remedial programs.
I NYSDEC (2006)
^document available
online.
NY DEC (2009), TAGM 4046. Table 3
(http://www.dec.nv.qov/reQulations/30582.html
For 2.3.7.&-TCDD TEQs, identified as the
'allowable soil concentration* protective of
groundwater, whicfi assumes the contaminated
soil is in direct contact with the water table. That
is. the value assumes leachate'from
contaminated soil does not violate
groundwater/drinking water standards.
Alternative and
recommended
'cleanup objectives
are available online,
as is part of the
derivation
methodology and
context (notably for
the soil water
concentration).
Specific toxicity
values and bases
underlying the
cleanup objectives
have not been found
online.
Allowable soil concentration calculated using the
water-soil equilibrium partition theory:
C* = f*Cw*K*e
where:
C, = soil concentration
f = fraction of organic cart»n of the natural soil
medium, 1%or0.01
Cw= appropriate water quality value from NY
Division of Water Technical and Operational
Guidance Series (TOGS) 1.1.1. given as
0.000035 yg/L for TCDD in TAGM 4046.
Table 3
Kec = partition coefficient between water and soil
media. 1,709.800
November 2009
Page B-8
-------
TABLE B.2 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 2
State
Soil
Cone
(ppf)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Va1u«
Information Source
Context Notos
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer ^nsPar?n|*?|! Scientific Basis Incorporation of Most Recent Science
Review Public Availability r
NY
(cont'd)
60.000
40
For 2.3,7,8-TCDD TEQs. "Soil deanup
objective' that is protective of groundwater
quality. This value assumes that contaminated
soil in (ho unsaturated zone above the water
table is subject to attenuating processes during
transport to groundwater.
(NY DEC TAGM 4046 states that alternative
deanup objectives are derived considering a
number ot criteria induding HEAST and RfD
values, concentrations protective of
groundwater, detection limits, and background
concentrations. 'Recommended* deanup
objectives are based on the criterion that
produces the most stringent value. No such
'recommended* deanup objective value is
provided for TCDD.)
Soil deanup objective protective of groundwater 1
is derived by applying a correction factor to the
aDowable soil concentration. This factor assumes
that various properties and processes induding
volatility, transformation, and degradation
prevent transfer of the full contaminant from soil
:to groundwater.
Soil Cleanup Objective = C,*CF
where:
C» = soil concentration
CF = 100 (consistent with EPA's dilution
attenuation factor [DAF] approach) •
Nov-04
USAF (20O*a), Final ROD for the
Electrics! Power Substation. Area of Concern
(SS-44) at the Former Griffiss Air Forte 8ase.
Rome
(httoJ/www.eoa.aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xJr0205015 odf).
For 2,3,7.8-TCDD. soil guidance value. This
value is reported within the comments section of
the ROD. which cites a report that has not been
found online (Law Engineering and
Environmental Sendees, Inc., December 7996,
Draft-Final Pnmary Report, Volume 7. Remedial
Investigation, Griffiss Air Force Base. New York,
Contract No. DACA41-92-D-8001. Kennesaw.
GA). Residential, recreational, and
commercial/industrial future land use scenarios
were evaluated
ROD available online '. .
(via RODS •
database), but not
the report referenced t
for the indicated ;
guidance value
Toxicity context not ! :
found. : i
1 !
1.000
Mar-03
c
USAF (2003a), SiteSS-026 Explosive
Ordinance Disposal Range: ROD. Pittsburgh
Air Force Base. Installation Restoration
Program. Plattsburgh
(httDJAvww.eoa oov/suoerfund/sites/rods/futUe
xt/r0?030?? odf)
As dioxin toxicity equivalence. The ROD states
(hat the regulatory criteria used in the
assessment lor soil include the NY TAGM 4046
Soil Cleanup Guidelines (1994. see earlier entry
in this table) and EPA dioxin toxic equivalency
guidelines (EPA 1989). and refers to the EPA
recommended action level of 1 pg/kg TEQ.
ROD available online The Kimbrough ef al. (1984) evaluation of Koaba'
(via FiODS ef a/, <^975^ underlies the OSWER value,
database) Toxicity
value not found.
PR
1.000
Apr-04
c
EPA (2004c). ROD, Vega Baja Solid Wasfe
Disposal. OU 01, Rio Abajo Ward
(httoJAvww eoa Qov/superfund/sites/rods/fuilte
xt/r200402000l J21 odf).
For dioxin; the POD mentions the EPA
recommended act/on level of 1 ppb (which
suggests (he basis was me OSWER directive).
Dioxin was not considered o chemical of
concern at the site because soil concentrations
did no: exceed 1 ppb.
ROD available online1 The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation of Koaba ¦
(via RODS et al (1978) underlies the OSWER value,
database); toxicity
value not found. J
November 2009
Page 3-9
-------
TABLE B.3 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 3
State
Soil
Cone
(PPO
Data
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
NaRe-n°e'ree' Pu^A^aMty Scientific Basis Incorporation of Most Recent Science
DE
4
40
3
4
Dec-99
2006
(2004}
c
eco
150.000 (mg/kg-d)"'
(CSF.)
i
DEDNREC (1999). Remediation Standards
Guidance under the Delaware Hazardous
Substance Cleanup Act
fhttD://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/divisi
ons/awm/sirto/docs/odfs/misc/remstnd.odfl.
For 2,3,7.8-TCDD. based on unrestricted use.
p/Vhere current or future use will not be
restricted in any way to ensure the protection of
human health" (DEDNREC 1999)].
Based on both critical and non-critical water
resource area in both surface and subsurface
soil, from OE Uniform Risk-Based Remediation
Standards (URS) for protection of human heahh.
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD. based on restricted use.
("Where current or future use will be restricted in
some way (either through deed restriction, risk
management or engineering control measures)
to ensure the protection of human health"
(DEDNREC 1999)].
Based on both critical and non-critical water
resource area in both surface and subsurface
soil, from DE URS for protection of human
health.
URS for protection of the environment for
surface soil from ORNL May 1998 screening
benchmark levels tor ecological risk assessment
Intra-agency
Calculations and Cancer slope factor values obtained from EPA The document uses equations and values
risk-based tables Heahh Effects Assessment Summary Table from the EPA 1995(b) Regional RBCs; note
can be found in both (HEAST) document (1997). The PA document these regional screening levels were
the DEDNREC also provides calculations. recently harmonized (in 2008. with 2009
[?er™*<^t'on Some of the risk-assessmeni equations are upate).
Standards based on EPA (1989) suggestions and the
k da on • 3 Inhalation Numeric Values are based on EPA
, BufletJ" (1995b) Risk-Based Concentration Tables
(1997). both of '(RBC)
which are available ! •
on]ine < DEDNREC (1999) document provides RBC
.equations for soil ingestion.
RBC«= TR-AT,
EF,*IFS.v«CSF.*CF
[where: j
'RBC.. = residential risk-based concentration
|tR = target cancer risk. 10* I
|AT, = averaging time carcinogens. 25,550 d j
[EF, = residential exposure frequency, 350 d/y j
llFS„jj = soil ingestion factor. 114.29 mg-y/kg-d
{CSF, = oral carcinogenic slope factor.
I 150.000 (mg/kg-dp
|CF = 10"® kg/mg
Original ORNL !
document not found..
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1.000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(httoJAwm trwnews net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20darifv%20l000
poi.Ddf): lists same values identified in:
EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in
Other States, cited in table available via
Tittabawassee River Watch News
(htto^Avwv trwnews.net/imoaes/StateCleanuD
2006PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information Basis not provided.
;is available via the
, weblinks at left, with
neither the
derivation
methodology or
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
November 2009
Page B-10
-------
TABLE B.3 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 3
State
Soil
Cone
tPPQ
Date
End*
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency- ' Scientific Basis ' Incorporation of Most Recent Saence
Reviow Public Availability
DC
JuW)9
Rios JafoJIa (2009a) (personal communication)
Feedback during the field review phase
indicated DC has not identified a soil dioxin level
for site cleanups because it does not have the
authority. The DC Voluntary Cleanup Program
relies on the EPA RBC Table for screening
levels, but DC may be developing its own
deanup standards. Those standards may also
be used by other environmental programs in DC.
! !
38
47
63
Jurv-08
c
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
(SF0)
AK DEC (2008b). Cumulative Risk Guidance
fhltD://ddoe.dc.oov/ddoe/1ibfddoe/Rioos Reme
dy $4 pdO' based on calculations found in AK
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalent (TEQ),
based on direct contact with soil, where the
exposure frequency = 330 d/y.
Not found The AK DEC Used EPA standards for exposure frequency
documents are and developed AK-specific soil parameters,
available online. Equation used for dioxin in residential soil:
CL= TR*AT*365d/v
EF*SF#*IF»«v,dJ*l0"* kg/mg
where:
CL = cleanup level, mg/kg
TR = target cancer risk, 10"3
AT = averaging time. 70 y
EF = exposure frequency, Arctic zone 200 d/y.
under 40 inch zone 270 d/y. and over
40 inch zone 330 d/y
SF0 = oral slope factor. 150.000 (mg/kg-d)*'
IFm«,4= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor.
114 (mg-y/Vg-d)'1
DEC (2008a). Cleanup Levels guidance
(htto://www.info2.dec. state.ak.us/soar/csD/auid
ance/cJeanuolevets.odD. This table was found
after searching the DC government website for
the terms "soil screening level dioxin". It
appears to be a table from AK that the DC
government uses to conduct soil cleanup.
For 2,3,7,S-TCDD toxicity equivalent (TEQ).
based on direct contact with soil, where the
exposure frequency = 270 d/y.
For 2.3.7.8-TCOD toxicity equivalent (TEQ).
based on direct contact with soil,, where the
exposure frequency = 200 d/y.
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
fhtto //ivmv /nvneivs net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%2CtQ%20atsdrt'o20to%20danfv%201000
ppt.pdf): lists same values identified in:
EC (2004). Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in
Other States, cited in table available via
Tiltabawassee River Watch News
(huoJ/vAvw invnews netfimaaes/StaieCleanuD
2006 PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information Basis not provided. j
is available via the
weblinks at left, with '¦
neither the •
derivation ;
methodology or
basis of underlying .
toxicity values.
4.3
Dec-07
c
NAVFAC (2007b), FFA Final ROD (or Sites 1.
2. 3. 7. 9. 11. and 13, Washington Navy Yard
(huo/Avww eoa oov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r?COS030002W3 odf)
For total dioxin TEQ. screening toxicity value
reflects toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs) for
dioxins/furans from EPA (2000): the full citation
was not found in the ROD.
Available online (via . Supplemental exposure point
RODS database). concentrations calculated with older TEFs
from Van den Berg (1997). to compare with
the screening toxicity value. (Full source
citation was not found in the ROD.)
November 2009
Page 8-11
-------
TABLE B.3 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 3
Slate
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Da to
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
NalRevieweCr : PuM^Sity ! Scientific Basis Incorporation of Most Recant Science
MD
4.5
18
Juf-09
i
Rtos Jafolla (2009b) (personal communication)
Feedback during the field review phase
identified the EPA residential RSL as the MD
deanup level. Feedback indicated MO
generally uses screening levels as deanup
levels, however site-specific factors are
considered, including what other contaminants
may be present
' ' 1
4
:
Easthope (2006), A TSDR 1.000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(htto'J/www tnvnews net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20a:sdrt(,20to%20d8rifY%201000
oot.odn: lists same values identified in:
EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in
Other States, cited in table available via
Tittabawassee River Watch News
(httD'JAv\v\v.trwnews.netfimaaes/StateCleanuo
2006 PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information
'is available via the
f weblinks at left, with
[neither the
'derivation
'methodology or
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided. |
j
j
l
i
i
J
1
25
1.000
Sep-07
c
150,000
(CSF)
(mg/kg-<3)
DoA (2007a). Canal Creek Study Area. ROD
for Remedial Action - G-Sheet Salvage Yard.
Final, Aberdeen Proving Ground
(httoJAvww.eoa oov/suoerfund/sites/mds/fultte
xt/i2007030001944.odf).
Based on total dioxin TEO: this final deanup
level is the risk'based goal for a site worker
based on a 10* risk target. From the 2005
leasibility study by Shaw Group (that document
has not t>een found online).
Available online (via
RODS database).
Cancer sJope factor from 1997 HEAST.
Derivation of risk-based remedial goals indicated
as being in the 2005 feasibility study, which has
not been found online.
Feb-99
c
EPA Region 3 (1999a). Documentation of
Environmental Indicator Determination
(httoJAvww.eoa.cov/reo2wcmd/ca/md/hhodf/h
h mdd98104i60i odf).
indicates the MD Department of Transportation
(DOT) discovered soil contaminated with dioxin
and pursued remediation at the site to a level of
1,000 ppt. based on the EPA OSWER directive.
The KimOrough et at. (1984) evaluation of
Kociba et al. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.
PA
120
530
1.9" 10"
Nov-01
2006
(2004)
c
150,000
(CSF)
(mg/kg-d)"1
)
PADEP (2001). Medium-Specific
Concentrations (MSCs) for Organic Regulated
Substances in Soil
(httD://www.deoweb.stateoa.us/1andrecwaste/l
For 2,3.7,8-TCDD, residential scenario, soil
(0-15 ft), direct contact, based on ingestion.
Based on cancer risk; noncancer toxicity value
also identified.
-The PADEP
•documentation is
'available online.
I
Criteria address slate legislation (PA 1997).
Equation used for ingestion of dioxin in
residential soil:
ibflandrecwaste/land recvdina/table 3a.Ddfl:
developed as part of the PADEP (2002) Land
Recycling Program Technical Guidance
Manual
(httD:/Avww.deoweb. state. Da. us/ocrlas/cwo/vie
w aso?a=1459&n=5iafi50V enuatinns hasflri
on PA (1997), Pennsytvania BuDetin,
Environmental Quality Board Administration of
the Land Recycling Program (Act 2). Ingestion
Numeric Values
(httoV/www. Dacode.com/secure/data/025/chaD
ter250/s250.306.htmh.
For 2.3.7,8-TCDD. nonresidential scenario,
surface soil (0-2 ft), direct contact, based on
ingestion. Based on cancer risk; noncancer
toxicity value also identified.
For 2.3.7,8-TCDD. direct contact, cap
(maximum) concentration for nonresidential
subsurface soil (2-15 ft). 190,000 mg/kg. Based
on cancer risk; noncancer toxicity value also
identified.
CSF.- Abs*EF«IF*u*CF
where:
TR = target risk, 10*
AT« = average time for carcinogens. 70 y
CSF. = oral cancer slope factor.
150.000 (mg/kg-dp
Abs c absorption, 1
EF = exposure frequency. 250 d
IF^j = ingestion factor. 57.1 (mg-y/kg-d)
CF = conversion factor. 10* kg/mg
120
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1.000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
fhtto'JAvwtv trwnews net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20lo%?0darifv%201000
oot.odf): lists same values identified in-
EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in-
Other States, cited in table available via
Tittabawassee River Watch News
(httoJAvw# trv.-newsnetAmaaes/StateCleanuo
2006 PDF).
Basis not provided.
1 Limited information ¦ Basis not provided,
is available via the i
• weblinks at left, with .
nerther the
'derivation
methodology or
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
November 2009
Page B-12
-------
TABLE B.3 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 3
Stato
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Valuo
Information Source
Context Notes
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
PA
(cont'd)
40
Sep-07
c
NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic (2007a). ROD. Sue 5
Soil, OU 4, Naval Air Station Joint Reserve
Base, Willow Grove
fhttDJAvww eoa.aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/futlte
For 2.3.7,8-TCDD equivalents, preliminary
remediation goal (PRG) tor resident, based on
1Cf5 cancer nsk; desenbed as agreed upon by
EPA PADEP, and Navy, 'developed by EPA
Available online {via
RODS database).
xt/f?007030001999 odf).
Region III and the Navy using EPA Region III
RBCs and based on site-specific risk (or lifetime
resident exposure scenarios.'
4.3
Jun-06
c
150,000
(CSF)
(mg/kg-d)'1
USACE (2006), ROD for the Phase IV BRAC
Parcels. Groundwater Southeastern (SE) Area
Operable Unit 3B and Part of Soil Operable
UmtSEOU 8. AEDBR Sites LEAD-016. -114.
• 115. Letterkenny Army Depot. Chambersburg
(htto'JAvww eca aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
Soil concentration calculated from the RBC
equation. The ROD identifies the calculations
and parameter values for developing age'
adjusted RBCs.
Available online (via | Slope factor taken from 2002 HE AST; equation •
RODS database), [for calculating age-adjusted residential RBCs for,
1 soil ingestion based on cancer risk: {
¦RBC = TR*AT |
j EF»CSFe»IFS.t*CF j
xt/i-2006030001362.pdf)
! where. |
[RBC = risk-based concentration, mg/kg j
TR = target cancer risk, 1(7' '¦
•AT = averaging time. 25.550 d
EF = exposure frequency. 350d/y !
,CSF0 = oral slope factor. 150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1
IFS,4 = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor. j
114 (mg-y/kg-d)"
CF = conversion factor, 10* kg/mg '
4.1
Aug-03
c
150,000
(CSF)
(mg/kg-d)''
USACE (2003). ROD for Phase III Parcels.
Letterkenny Army Depot. Chambersburg
(httD//w\Yw eoa.aov/suDeilund/sites/rods/fullte
2.3.7.8- TCDD TEQ soil risk-based health
screening concentration (RBSC) for future child
or adult resident.
Available online (via
RODS database).
Slope factor taken from 2002 HEAST. Equation
for calculating age-adjusted residential RBSC lor
soil ingestion based on cancer risk:
xt/r0303065 odf)
48
For 2,3.7,8-TCDD equivalents, subsurface soil,
represents the soil screening level tor
groundwater protection, basis indicated as
carcinogen; considered a total hazard quotient of
0.1: dilution attenuation (actor of 20 The ROD
refers to the remedial investigation/risk
assessment for the methodology explanation.
:
TR*AT
EF*CSF0*IFS.4*CF
where
RBSC• = nsk-based screening concentration,
mg/kg
TR =¦ taruet cancer risk. 10*
10.000
0 32
eco
(eco)
2,3.7,8-TCDD TEQ ecological benchmark. FPA
Region III STAG screening level for fauna, from
EPA (Region 3) (1995a)
For 2,3.7.8-TCDD TEO. identified as NOAEL-
based benchmark for humans/mammals, from
ORNL (1997}, ROD indicates PRGs were
adjusted to NOAEL-based cntena using a factor
0/ 10
; AT = averaging time, 25,550 d 1
EF = exposure frequency, 350d/y
CSF, = oral slope factor. 750.000 (mg/kg-d)'1 I
! j IF$.4j = age-adjusted ingestion factor,
' 114 (mg-y/kg-d)'1
CF - conversion factor, 10* kg/mg
1 6
eco
For 2.3.7,8-TCDD TEQ. NOAEL-based
benchmark for birds, from ORNL (1997): ROD
indicates PRGs were adjusted to NOAEL-based
catena using a factor of 10
November 2009
Page B-13
-------
TABLE B.3 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 3
Soil
Cone
(ppt)
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notos
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency-
Review Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
130.000 (mg/kg-d)"1
(SF.)
VADEQ (2009), Contaminants of Concern
Soil; Unrestricted
(http://www.deQ.virqinia.Qov/exDoiT/5ites/defaul
t/vrprisK/files/screen/vrp25,xls): SF0 from
VADEQ (2008a) Table 4.2.
(http://www.deQ.virQinia.oov/exoort/sites/defaul
t/vrprisk/fJes/toxicitv/vrp42,xl9);
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD. residential scenano, EPA
regional screening level and VA Voluntary
Remediation Program (VRP) Tier II screening
level.
Intra-agency
Aug-08
VADEQ (2008b). Contaminants of Concern
Soil: Restricted
fhttpy/www.deq.virqinia.QQv/export/sites/dofaul
t/vrprisk/files/screen/vrp29.xls).
For 2.3.7,8-TCDD, commercial/industrial
scenario. EPA regional screening level and VRP
Tier III screening level.
VADEQ (2008c)
provides toxicity
tables, risk
calculations and
route-specific
(dermal, ingestion,
inhalation)
equations for
remediation levels;
Jthis document is
available online.
The VADEQ VRP adopts the lower value of the VADEQ cites the most recent EPA (2005)
EPA Region III RBCs for the residential scenario j guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment
or EPA Soil Screening guidance for transfer from
soil to groundwater or air as its Tier II.
unrestricted (residential) screening levels. See
-Table 13 of the report regarding the Regional
EPA RBCs..
.Same as above, except RBCs for industrial ;
scenario and Tier III, restricted
j(commercaal/industria!) screening levels. j
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006). ATSDR 1.000ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter Irom concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(httpJAvivw.tnvndws.nel/Documents/TRW/Rea
Basis not provided.
uest%20to%20atsdr%2Qto%20darifv%2OW00
ppt.pdf): lists same values identified in:
EC (2004). Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in
Other States, cited in table available via
Tittabawassee River Watch News
(htto//ww\v.tnvne\vs net/imaaes/StateCleanup
2006.PDF)
Limited information Basis not provided,
is available via the
weblinks al left, with .
neither the
derivation
methodology or
bass of underlying
toxicity values.
May-05
DoA (2005), Decision Document. EBS-13
Parcel, OU 6, Blackstone,
(httpJ/wwv/.eoa.Qov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0305061 odf).
For dioxin toxicity equivalents: the document
indicates the TEO risk (alls within the target
range (10>4 to Iff*) and indicates PRGs were
developed based on the EPA Region HI RBCs,
but does not provide the concentrations used:
cites the site evaluation document by Tetra Tech
(2004), which has not yet been found online.
Decision document
is available online
(via RODS
¦database).
156.000 j (mg/kg-d)"1
(CPS.) ;
WVDEP (2001), Voluntary Remediation and
Redevelopment Act: Guidance Manual,
Version 2.1
(http://www.wvdep.oro/Docs/3200 Remediatio
nGuidanceVersk>n2-1 ,pdO,
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential scenario, based
on soil ingestion: slope factor from HEAST
(specific citation not provided): value reflects
EPA Region III risk-based concentrations from
July 1996.
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD. industrial scenario, based on
soil ingestion; slope factor from HEAST (citation
not provided); concentration reflects EPA
Region III risk-based concentration from Juty
1996, multiplied by 10 to yield a value based on
10"3 risk.
Expert peer
review
coordinated by
the National
Institute for
Chemical Studies
The equations are
'given in WVDEP
i(2001) which is
Available online.
The WVDEP
document cites
EPA (1989, 1996a.
1996b).
Uniform risk-based equation for residential sou
'ingestion:
; C = TR-AT,
: [(EF,»(IFSm«CSF.)] xlO^kg/mg
where:
C = soil concentration, (mg/kg)
TR = target cancer risk, 10"*
ATC = averaging time for carcinogens. 25,550 d
|EF, = exposure frequency. 350 d/y
ilFSnj = ingestion factor. 114 (mg y/kg-d)"1
CSF, = cancer slope factor oral,
156.000 (mg/kg-dP
(Equation for industrial soil ingestion is also
available in the WVDEP 12001) document.)
jCited documents range from 1951-1998;
most are from the late 1980s and early
i1990s.
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin so//
standard: Letter irom concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(htto//wwyv.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/ReQ
Basis not provided.
uest%20to%20atsdi%20to%20clarifv%20i000
ppt odfi: lisss same values identified in:
EC (2004). Dioxin Sal Cleanup Levels in
Other States, cited in table available via
Tittabawassee River Watch News
(httoJA-Avwtrwnewsnet/imaaes/StateCleanuo
2006.PDF).
I Limited information Basis not provided.
-------
TABLE B.4 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 4
Soil
Cone
(PP*)
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Roference
Value
Information Sourco
Contort Notes
Nature of Peer Transparency-
Roview Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
1.000
150,000 (mg/kg-d)'
(SF.)
ADEM (2008). AL Risk Based Corrective
Action Guidance Manual
(weblink from summer 2009 compilation
phase:
htto//www.adem.state.al.us/landDivision/Guid
ance/ARBCAFinaUune07.pdf: ifrom November
check, that link was no longer viable;
Current link:
httpV/www.adem.state.ai.us/LandDivision/GtJid
ance/ARBCAApril2008final.pdfl.
For 2.3,7,8-TCDD, residential scenario.
Preliminary screening level adopted as a
cleanup level for "Direct Contact Exposure
Pathway" from 1998 OSWER directive.
For 2.3,7.8-TCDD, commercial scenario.
Preliminary screening level adopted as a
cleanup level for "Direct Contact Exposure
Pathway" from 1990 OSWER directive.
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD, large soil source (4047.5m2).
soil screening level protective of groundwater
resource prolectionRM-1 levels per ADEM AL
Risk Based Corrective Action Guidance Manual
(ARBCA).
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD. small soil sourco (225m1),
soil screening level protective of groundwater
resource protection. Risk Management*! (RM-1)
Levels per ADEM ARBCA.
The ADEM The Kimbroogh et al. (1984) evaluation of Kodba et
screening value al. (1978) underlies the OSWER value,
and basis (OSWER
.directive) are General equations for deriving (other) deanup are
available online. available in ADEM (2008).
Values for equations are from EPA
-(1989. 2000).
150.000 (mg/Vg-d)"
(CSF0) ¦
FOEP (2005). Technical Report: Development
of Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs) for Chapter
62-77. F.A.C., Table 2
(hflp://www-dep.state.fl.us/waste/auick topics/
Apr-05
rules/documents/62-777/T ablellSoilCTLs4-17-
05.pdf. from
htip://toxi colQQv.ufl.edu/document5/TectinicalF
eb05.pdf.
For 2.3.7,8-TCDD. residential direct contact
SCTL. Derivation provided in FDEP (2005).
The value reported in the CTLs table
(7 mg/kg-d), is also cited by Paustenbach el al.
(2006) as the cleanup target level for FL (as
7 ng TEQ/kg. risk-based calculation).
Paustenbach et Derivation basis
al. (2006) was and equations
peer reviewed as values dear for
Slope factors and other toxicologicaJ information ate FDEP report was prepared in 2005.
the EPA 1997 HEAST. Model equation for developing Toxidty value and context was taken
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD. commercial/industrial direct
contact SCTL
part of the
journal
publication
process.
residential and
commercial/
industrial SCTLs.
Default and
chemical-speafic
values for equation
variables provided
in FDEP (2005).
Technical Report.
EPA (1997a)
Health Effects
Assessment
Summary Tables
(HEAST) values for!
norvradionudides
have not been
found via open
access online.
jacceptable risk based concentrations in soils for
carcinogens:
SCTL = fTR * BW» AT * RBA1 t
EF*EO*FC(EXP^I+EXPd.(m*EXP„ft,i)
!wtiere:
;EXP„ = oral term = CSF.x|R,*CF
EXPd = dermal term = CSFd*SAxAF*DAxCF
EXP* = inhalation term = CSF,*IR,*(WF+1/PEF)
,TR = target cancer risk, 10"®
;BW = body weight. 51.9 kg resident
'AT = averaging time. 25,550 d
^RBA = relative bioavailability factor, 1.0
EF = exposure frequency. 350 d/y resident
ED = exposure duration, 30 y resident
FC = fraction from contaminated source. 1.0
CSF = cancer slope factor, (mg/kg-d)'1
IR* = oral ingestion rate. 120 mg/d resident
IR» = inhalation rate, 12.2 m3/d resident
CF = conversion factor, 10*kg/mg
SA = surface area skin exposed. 4810 cm*/d resident
AF = adherence factor. 0.1 mg/cm7 resident
DA = dermal absorption. 0.01
VF = volatilization fador, 4.619*10* m3/kg resident
PEF = particulate emission factor, 1.24x10* m?/fcg
from the outdated EPA HEAST (1997)
source.
November 2009
Page B-15
-------
TA8LE B.4 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 4
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Nature of Peer Transparency*
Review Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
; Incorporation of Most Recent Science
FL
(ccnt'd.)
2006
(2004)
7
200
Easthope (2006). A TSDR 1,000 pp! dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(hUD/AY\Yw.tn,vnew3.net/Documen(s/TRW/Reo
Basis not provided.
uest%20to%20dtsdrt/o20toX20clarifv%201000
pptpdf): lists same values identified in:
EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in
Other States, died in table available via
Trttabawossee River Watch A/ews
(httD/Avww.tnvnews.netfimaae&fStateCleanuo
2006.PDF).
Limited information Basis not provided.
is available via the
weblinks at left,
with neither the
derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity valuef
Hirschhom (1997a). Cleanup Levels for Dioxin
Contaminated Soils
(http://www3.interscience.ivilev.conVcci-
binrtulltext/113513227/PDFSTART).
Indicated as TCDD TEO in soil. Escambia
Treating Company Superiund site. Pensacola.
FL. for residential scenario (reflecting ingestion,
inhalation, and dermal exposure), JO1"6 risk.
Hirschhom (1997b), Two Supertund
Environmental Justice Case Studies
(httptfwww trwnews net/Documents/Cleanuc/t
wo suoerfund environmental iust.htm)
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Supertund
site cleanup level; 10* risk. •
Article peer t
reviewed as part J
of journal j
publication
process.
Escambia Treating Company Superiund Site,
Pensacola (1996) cleanup level for off-site
residential areas (from EPA Region 4);
corresponds to 1(T4 cancer risk level (ignoring
noncancer health effects).
Sep-06
Aug-06
Aug-06
Hirschhom (1997a). Cleanup Levels for Dioxin
Contaminated Soils
(htto:/Av\vw3 interscience.wilev.com/cci-
bin/fulltext/113513227/PDFSTART):
Hirschhom (1997b), Two Superiund
Environmental Justice Case Studies
(hnoJAvww try/news net/Documents/Cleanup/t
Indicated as TCDD TEQ in soil; cited inATSDR
Public Health Assessment for Escambia
Superiund site (1995). Hirschhom indicates this
level is based on noncancer health effects (ncl
found in the ROD for this site, from the RODS
database)- .
Article peer
reviewed as part
of journal
publication
process
See information for the A TSDR entry in Table 11 of
the main report.
wo suoerfund environmental iust.htm).
EPA (2006f). ROD Summary of Remedial
Alternative Selection: Coleman-Evans Wood
Preserving Company: Superiund Site. OU 02
(Residual Dioxin in Soil). Whitehouse
(httD'J/wwr/.eDa.aov/suDerlund/siles/rods/fullte
xt/r200604000l242 Ddf).
Based on FL Department of Environmental
Protection Dioxin (FDEP) Toxic Equivalent
(TEQ) Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs) for
residential and commercial/industrial scenario;
7 ppt for attributable off-facility property. 30 ppt
for on facility property
EPA (2006c), ROD Summary of Remedial
Alternative Selection: Jacksonville Ash Site,
Jacksonville
(httpyAvww. eoa gov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2006040001162 odf).
Based on FDEP Dioxin TEQ SCTLs for
commercial/industrial scenario.
EPA (2006b), ROD Summary of Remedial
Alternative Selection: Brown's Dump Site,
Jacksonville
(httpJ/www epa aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
Remediation goals were adopted from FDEP
SCTLs: 7 ppt for residential scenario. 30 ppt for
commercial/industrial scenario; calculated for
iff* risk level.
xt/r2006040CQ 1161 odf): equations given in
(htxpJ/x o x'icoIoqv. ufl.edu/documentsfTechnical
Feb05 odf).
¦Available online
•(via RODS
¦database)
Available online
'(via RODS
database).
Available online See information for FDEP (2005) above,
(via RODS
database).
See information for
FDEP (2005)
above.
; See information regarding FDEP (2005)
above.
EPA (2006a). ROD Summary of Remedial
Alternative Selection: Escambia Wood
Treating Company: Supertund Site. Operable
Unit 01 (Soil). Pensacola
(httDJ/www.epa aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullie
xt/r2006040Q01445 odf).
Based on FDEP SCTL for commercial scenario,
lifetime cancer risk of 17*. (ROD notes the
Department shall not require site rehabilitation to
achieve a cleanup target level for an individual
contaminant that is more stringent than the site-
specific. naturally occurring background
concentration tor that contaminant. Florida
Statute 376.30701.)
'Available online
(via RODS
database).
November 2009
Page B-16
-------
TABLE B.4 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 4
Soli
Cone
(PPV
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Contort Notes
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
90
i Aug-04
GAONR (1992). Chapter 391-3-19 -
Appendix 1: Regulated Substances and Soil
Concentrations that Trigger Notification
(http://rules.sos.state.Qa.us/docs/391 /3/19fAP,
pdf) Part of GA Hazardous Site Response Act
(HSRA) (http.//njles.sos.state.qa,us/cqi-
bin/paqe.CQi?Q=GEORGIA DEPARTMENT O
F NATURAL RESOURCES%2FENV1RONM
ENTAL PROTECTION%2FHAZARDOUS SI
TE RESPONSE%2Findex.html&dl)
For 2,3,7.8-TCDD. notifiable concentration for
the unrestricted use scenario.
"These rules are promulgated to protect and
enhance the quality of Georgia's environment
and to protect the public health, safety, and well-
being of its citizens.*
From feedback during field review, when this
level is found in soil, it is a requirement to notify
the state. Not an official soil cleanup level, this
concentration is a default starting point for the
cleanup level that is determined on a site-
specific basis, which in some cases may be this
same concentration.
Easthope (2006), A TSDR 1.000 ppl dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
fhttpJAvww trwnews net/Documents/TRW/Reo
Basis not provided.
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20daritv%201000
Dpt.pdf): lists same values identified in:
EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in
Other Stales, cited in table available via
Tittabowassee River Watch News
(httoJtwww trwnews net/imaoes/StateCieanuo
2005 PDF).
Soil values are
readily available on
GADNR website,
but derivation basis
is ambiguous.
Some chem.
specific values
(e.g. diffusivity)
used in the
derivation of VF
are not provided.
Slope factors used
in derivation are
not provided in the
Appendix, calling
instead for using
current values from
the EPA Integrated
Risk Information
System (IRIS) or if
not listed in IRIS,
from HEAST.
Limited information
is available via the
we blinks at left,
with neither the
derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis of equation is from EPA (2000) Chapter 3.
Although not stated explicitly in HSRA Appendix,
Equation 6 of the EPA document was likely used to
calculate GA soil value. However, HSRA Appendix
provided different default parameter values than the
EPA document.
C = fTR»BW»AT»365 d/v)
EF*ED (EXP^.i+EXPrtui)
where:
EXP0 = oral term = CSF,*IRMi*CF
EXPi = inhalation term = CSR*IRi*(1/VF+1/PEF)
TR = target cancer risk. 10*4
BW = body weight. 70 kg
AT = averaging time. 70 y
EF = exposure frequency. 350 d/y resident
ED = exposure duration. 30 y resident
CSF = cancer slope factor, (mg/kg-d)'1
IRuh = soil ingestion rate. 114 mg/d resident
IRi = inhalation rate, 15 m3/d resident
CF = conversion factor, l0"*kg/mg
VF = equation given but not all chemical-specific
parameter values
PEF = particulate emission factor, 4.63x10s m3/kg
Basis not provided.
GA HSRA is from 1992. The basis (and
date) of the slope factor was not
specified.
Hirschhom (1997a). Cleanup Levels for Dioxin
Contaminated Sculs
-------
TABLE B.4 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 4
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
poirrt
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Na,Rro°v°wC°r PubNc^AvaTlabMrty Scientific Basis Incorporation of Most Recem Sclonco
KY
Aug-09
Martin (2009) (personal communication)
Feedback from field review phase indicates that
although KY is required by statue to screen
against 2002 PRGs, they also recommend
considering updated 2009 RSLs. They do
accept site-specific parameters that may allow a
soil concentration higher than that in the PRGs
or RSLs, however this generally requires an
Environmental Covenant to ensure that the
parameters remain valid.
4.5
18
Apr-09
c
c
130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
(SFO) I
!
1
1
KY Legislature (2009). Kentucky
Administrative Regulations
(htto://www.lrc.state.kv.us/kar/40l/l00/030.ht
m); based on EPA (2009a) Preliminary
Remediation Goals
(hno://1www.eDa.oov/reQion09/suDerfund'oro/D
df/ressotl si table run APRIl ?009 Drift A
('htto:/Awww.eoa.aov/reaion09/suoerfund/Dro/D
df/indsoi! si table run APRIL2009.odn.
For 2,3.7.8-TCDD. residential scenario. KY
regutation dictates that the state use EPA
Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)
(see Table13ofthe report for recently
harmonized regional levels).
For 2.3,7,8-TCDD. industrial scenario. KY
regulation'dictates that the state use EPA
Region 9 PRGs (see Table 13 of the report for
recently harmonized regional levels).
The PRG See Tables 11 and 13 for the basis of EPA regional CalEPA report from late 2002 reflects the
'documentation is levels, including the toxicity value. j 1982 NTP study (slightly more recent
available online. 1 'than the Kociba study, using updated
tumor classification methodology). See
Tables 11 and 13 of the report for
j ] [information underlying the recently
harmonized regional screening levels
i i l(last updated in fad 2009. with intent to
| 1 jassess for update every 6 months).
MS
38.2
4.K
Feb-02
c
150.000 \ (mg/kg-d)'1
(CSF.)
1
i
MSDEQ (2002), Final Regulations Governing
Brownfield Voluntary Cleanup and
Redevelopment in MS
fhtto://www.dea state.ms us/MDFO nsf/nrif/Ma
in HW-2/SFile/HW-2.DdPOoenElemenl):
For 2.3,7,8-TCDD. restneted scenario, based on
ingestion. Calculated using equations in EPA
RAGS (2000). Slope factors (hierarchy) from
EPA IRIS. HEAST, ATSDR or peer-reviewed
literature.
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD, unrestricted land-use
scenario, based on ingestion. Calculated using
equations in EPA RAGS (2000). Slope factors
are to be taken from EPA IRIS. HEAST. ATSDR
or peer-reviewed literature.
Target remediation [Residential TRGs are calculated using Equation 2 iThe Region 4 guide is from 2000. The
goals are available from USEPA (1996) Soil Screening Guidance basis of the outdated HEAST values was
online. TRG - TR *AT h®' reported.
Toxicological basis , ff*IFS -*CSF *CF i
ifrom HEAST ;
;(outdated) is not j Where :
[publidy available. TRG = target remediation goal, (mg/kg)
; (TR = target risk. 10"*
; CSFc = 150.000 (mg/kg-d)'1
! |AT = averaging time. 25,550 d
; |EF = exposure frequency. 350 d
{IFS., = soil ingestion factor, 114 mg-y/kg-d
[ |cF = conversion factor. 10
Limited information ' Basis not provided.
is available via the
weblinks at left.
with neither the
derivation
methodology nor
'basis of underlying
toxicity values.
c
based on EPA (2000) Supplemental Guidance
to RAGS
(htto://www.eoa aov/Reaion4/waste/ots/healtb
ul htm).
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppi dioxin soU
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(httpJ/www.trv.-news.net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20yiv3 interscience wilev.ccnVcai-
Indicated (or Naval Seabees Center. Gulfpoint.
MS; to remove contaminated soil with about
100 ppt dioxJns.
Article peer 1
reviewed as pan ) j {
of Journal '
700
bin/fulttext/113513227/PnFSTART)
Commercial scenario in Gulfport. MS in 1987;
'first commercial dioxin cleanup in the United
States ... goal of the Air Force project is to
reduce dioxin levels in the soil to less than
0. i ppb and then to delist the soil as safe.'
publication
process.
!
i
1,000
Scp-07
EPA (2007), ROD Summary of Remedial
Alternative Selection: Picayune Wood Treating
Site, Picayune
(hito /fwxvw.eoa aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xJr200 7040001948 odf).
Based on EPA 1998 OSWER directive.
Available online
(via RODS
database).
The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation of Kociba el j
al. (1978) underlies the OSWEff value.
November 2009
Page B-18
-------
TABLE B.4 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 4
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Roforence
Valuo
Information Sourco
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer ^®nsPar®n^Jl' Scientific Basis Incorporation of Most Recent Science
Review Public Availability r
NC
4.5
18
oct-oa
c
130,000 (mgAg-d)*'
(SF.)
NCDENR (2008). Inactive Hazardous Wastd
Sites Branch Health-Based Soil Remediation
Goals (webiink ifrom summer review;
httD//www.wastenotnc.ora/soiltable.odf- based
on EPA (2009a) PRGs (from April);
htto //www.eoa.oov/reaion09/suDerfund/Dra/Dd
f/ressoil si table run APRIL2009.pdf;
htto //www. eDa. aov/reaion09/suDerfund/Dra/pd
f/indsoil si table run APRIL2009.pdf).
For 2,3.7.8-TCDD. residential scenario PRG;
adopted from the EPA 2008 Regional Screening
Tables (see related entry in Table 13 of the
report).
For 2,3.7.8-TCDD. industrial scenario PRG;
adopted from EPA 2006 Regional Screening
Tables (see Table 13 of the report).
The PRG is See Tables 11 and 13 for the basis of the EPA CalEPA report is from late 2002. and it
available online. regional screening level, including the toxicity value, reflects NTP (1982) (slightly more recent
than Kociba et al., and with updated
tumor classification methodology). See
Tables 11 and 13 for information
underlying recently harmonized regional
screening levels (last updated in fail
2009. with indicated intent to assess for
update every 6 months).
4
2005-
(2004)
Easthope (2006). A TSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil
standard. Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(htto//www.tr\snews.net/Documents/TRW/ReQ
uest%20tO%20atsdr%20to%20cl3riMi201000
pot odf):lists same values identified in:
EC (200-i). Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in
Other Slates, ated in table available via
Tittabawassee River Walch News
(htto/Avww trwnews net/imaaes/StateCteanuo
2006 PDF).
Basis nor provided.
Limited information Basis not provided.
is available via the '
weblinks at left. < |
with neither the
derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
4.1
1.000
4
1997
Sep-08
Sep-06
—-
- -
Hirschhom (1997a). Cleanup Levels lor Dioxin
Contaminated Soils
i7if/o/Aviviv3 iiiterscience. wiiev. coin/coi-
bin/fulltext/113513227/PDFSTARD.
EPA (2008), ROD, Weyerhaeuser Co.
Plymouth Wood Treating Plant, Plymouth
Ifttto /Awvw eoa oov/svcerfund/sites/rods/fulite
xt/r20080400024S8 pdQ.
indicated as sfare cleanup value; no further
details provided, except 'presumably following
EPA lisk methods, but probably ivith some minor
change in one or more exposure parameters.'
Mentions EPA cleanup level of 1 ppb from 1998
OSWER directive and states soil levels are
below this level. The ROD calls for 'monitored
natural lecovery" given that soil dioxin is <¦ 1 ppb.
Article peer
reviewed as part
of journal
publication
process.
Available online
(via RODS
database)
r -
EPA (2006d). Record of Decision Summary of
Remedial Alternative Selection. Simon's
Septic Tank Site. Statesville
(htto/Avivw eoa aov/suoerfund/sites/rodsrfullte
xt/r2006040001281 Dtif).
NC soil remediation goat for dioxins.
Available online
(via RODS
database).
14.5
120
Sep-06
Jul-05
DoD (2006), Final ROD, Operable Unite 6,
Site 12, Maiine Corps Air Station Chetr/ Point.
Havelock
(httD/Avww.eDa.aov/sucerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r200604000l 306 odf):
Calculation given in Appendix 2. NC
DENR (2005)
fhttoyAvastenot.enr state nc.us/hwhome/auida
nce/od(A-iWSdeanuo5-Obdmh odf).
EPA (2005b), Amendment to Ihe ROD,
Carolina Transformer Site, Fayetteville
(htto/Away epa Qov/suoerfund/si'es/rods/fullte
xt/a0405038 Ddf).
The NC soil screening level for TCDD of 14.5 ppt
is back
-------
TABLE B.4 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 4
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Na,URrlPCCr P JbHc^/VvaflabMrty Scientific Bull ; Incorporation of Most Recent Science
SC
(cont'd.)
4.5
Apr-09
c
130.000 (mg/kg-d)"'
SCOHEC (2008). Removal Activities Fact
Sheet
fhtto7/www scdhflc oov/environment/lwm/nubs
For 2.3,7.8-TCDD. residential scenario. Fact
sheet indicates EPA Region 9 PRGs were used
(see related entry in Table 13 of the report).
The PRG is See Table 13 of the report for the basis of the EPA The CalEPA report is from late 2002. and
available online. regional screening levels (recently harmonized). it reflects the NTP study from 1982
(slightly more recent than the Kodba
18
—
/suoerfund docs/NvtronicsFaci%20SheeJ-
050108FINAL.odfV
Based on EPA Region 9 (2009a;. Preliminary
Remediation Goals
(hrto://www.eoa.aov/reoion09/suDerfund/Dra/D
df/ressoil si table run APRIL2009.DdH &
fhttD://www.eDa.Qov/reaton09/suDerfund/Dro/D
df/indsoil si table run APRIL2009.odft.
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD. industrial scenario. Fact
sheet indicates EPA Region 9 PRGs were used
(see related entry in Table 13 of the report).
Note the supporting documentation includes an
RfDo of 1.0* 10"* mg/kgd: however, cancer was
the limiting endpoint for the screening levels.
(Note this RfD is the same as the 1998 ATSDR
chronic MRL.)
PRG for residential scenario. Memo does not
provide derivation basis.
PRG for industrial scenario. Memo does not
provide derivation basis.
Remedial goal (RG) for TCDD isomers identified,
selected as the lower of the most restrictive
human health RG objectives (RGOs) for
expected future land use and lowest LOAEL-
based RGO. (RGOs calculated in WSRC 2003.
RFI/Rl/WPA with Baseline Risk Assessment for
the R -A/ea Burning Rubble Pits (131-R and
131-1R) and Rubble Pile (631-25G) Operable
Unit (U). WSRC-RP-2002-4183, Rev.1, June.)
I
Memo in which Scientific basis not found,
values are cited is
'available online.
i
¦A vailable online
'(via RODS
database).
;
study, using updated tumor classification
methodology). See Tables 11 and 13 of
the report for information underlying the
recently harmonized EPA regional
screening levels (last updated in fall
2009, with an indicated intent to assess
for update every 6 months).
3.9
16
3.2
Feb-99
Aug-04
i
1
t
1
SCOHEC (1999). Documentation of
Environmental Indicator Determination
(htlD://www.scdhec.oov/environment/lwm/Dubs
/eiodfs/Koooers%20CA725 %20datefl%20Aua
usi%2019 %202004.Ddft.
DOE (2004). ROD. Remedial Alternative
Selection for the R-Area Burning/Rubble Pits
(131-R and 131-lR) and Rubble Pile (631-
25G) Operable Unit (U). Aiken
(httDJ/mvw. eoa oov/suoerlund/sites/rods/fullte
xutwtnoss oan.
Memo is from 1999.
TN
50
Sep-09
j
!
j
DHHS (2003), Residential Dioxin
Contamination
fhtto://health stale.tn us/Environmental/PDFs/
hc-e-easvaoer.odfV
Based on ATSDR (1998). Toxicologtcal Profile
for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins
(hrtD:/AcAVw.atsdr.cdc.aov/toxorofi1es/to104 odf
);
Updated (2008b). Update to the ATSDR Policy
Guideline for Dioxins and Oioxin-Like
Compounds in Residential Soil
fhttD:tfwww.atsdr.cdc.aov/substances/dioxin/D
olicy/Dioxin Policy Guidelines,pdf).
Soil screening level for dioxins based on 10*
lifetime cancer risk over a 70-year life span.
Reflects recent ATSDR guideline.
ATSDR foDows Available online. See ASTDR entry in Table 11 of the report. The updated ATSDR dioxin policy was
an external net based on new scientific data or a
review process ' Preanalysis of the existing data. The
(e.g.. the 1998 'update does not change the assessment
policy with the i 'of health hazards associated with dioxin
screening value ' • exposure, as summarized in the 1996
was reviewed by; ¦ fATSDR Toxicological Profile and in the
a panel of 'derivation of the Minimal Risk Level
university and '(MRL). The policy update impacts site-
Canadian health • 'specific health assessments evaluating
officials). , exposure to dioxin directly from
residential soils.*
2,500
Jul-02
c
Bates et al. (2002), American Creosote Site
Case Study: SoHdificatiorVStabilization of
Dioxins. PCP and Creosote for $64 per Cubic
Yard IhttD //www3.interscience. witev.com/cai-
bin/fuittext/10806 7265&DFS TART).
Soil action level based on 1CT4 lifetime cancer
risk for future adult ivorker.
Article peer •Available online. Scientiric basis not found,
reviewed as part
of journal ' i
publication j J
process. ,
This contaminated site was remediated in
1996.
1,000
Jul-03
¦
EPA (2003e), ROD, Summary of Remedial
Alternative Selection for the Soil and
Groundwater at the Wrigley Charcoal Site,
Wrigley
(httoJAyww eoa oov/suoertund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0403576 odf)
The ROD indicates that soil n-as tested for diotin
on two separate occasions and found to be
below the EPA cleanup level of 1 ppb.
'Available online
JRODS database) <
I
November 2009
Page B-20
-------
TABLE B.5 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 5
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency*
Review Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
1.4x10'' mg/kg-0
(NOAEL)
CWLP (2005) Springfield. II, City Water,
Light & Power, Supplement to Pan 7 of PSD
Permit Application. Additional Impact Anolysis
for Metals
(http://vosemite.epa.qov/r5/r5ard.nst/c408a200
97100l8f3625716ft)04d9038/df97027430f55b6
d86257la3005a1BBe/SFILE/CWLP%20Metals
%20Analvsis 3 14 06.pdf):
Screening level of 1.4* 10'^ (or idxio-4) nig/kg soil is
based on the no observed adverse effect level
(NOAEL) for a ring-necked pheasant - which was
"used to represent dosest available species and
was the worst-case screening level for dioxms"-
taken from ORNL technical report for DOE.
"Toxicology Benchmarks for Wildlife.
1996 Revision."
based on wildlife benchmark in ORNL (1956)
benchmark report
(http://www.esd.oml.Qov/proqrams/ecorisk/doc
umentsflm86r3.pdf).
(1996 ORNL 'Pull derivation .Methodology is not provided, soil concentration The ecological benchmark from Nosek et al.
report approach not found, fappears to be the same value as the daily dose (1S92) is cited in the ORNL (1996) technical
underwent Summary ^summarized in ORNL (1996) from Nosek et al. report on toxicologic^! benchmarks for
technical review: information from tne,(l992). intraperitoneal, 10-wk study dunng cntical wildlife.
nature of peer toxicologies! study life stage for the reproductive endpoini: chronic
review for the is available online in NOAEL of 14 ng/kg-d, chronic of lowest observed .
screening level ORNL (1996). (The adverse effect level (LOAEL) 140 ng/kg-d.
denvation not onginal Nosek el al. ;ORNL (1996) also summarized similar dose
found.) [1992} amcJe is not -information from a second study , Murray et fil.
"publicly available ;(1979). rat dietary 3-generaiion study, chronic
online.) fNOAEL of 1 ng/kg-d; chronic LOAEL of
10 ng/kg-d.
Sep-02
ROD: OU 04, Sanganio Electric Dump Crab
Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. Cartery/fle
(htip //www, epa gov/saoerfund/sites/rods/fuflte
rt/r0502Q44.Odf)
(eco)
For Site 36, TCDD levels exceeded Region 9 PRGs
(screening values): no cleanup action was taken
because concentrations were below the 1,000 ppt
cleanup level from EPA 1998 OSWER directive: that
level TEQ translates is indicated to translate to
2 5* IP4 nsk for residential use. Site use is not
residential so applying this value is conservative; all
concentrations were less than 1 ppb A baseline
human health potential remediation goal (BHRG) of
1.000 ppt vvas identified lor recreational use.
For Site 22A, a BHRG of 60 ppt was established for
site workers.
Ecological risk-based concentration (RBC) identified
as interim cleanup level, based on the LOAEL per
assumptions given in the feasibility study (FS)
ecological risk model
Methodology and j The Kimbtvugh et al. (1934) evaluation of Kociba j
|assumptions lor iet al. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.
Jderiving BHRGs are5 j
.provided in the > !
17996 human health | i
i baseline risk . }
tassessmen/ and j « j
^.ecological nsk '
jassessmenr. for the j i
[site, not yet found j j
' via open access '
online.
The FS that
pmvides basis
information has not
been found online.
The ROD indicates the RBC basis is the LOAEL
foi each leceptor group (cites the FS. which was
not found online).
150,000 mg/kg-d)'1
(SF#)
IDEM (2006), Risk Integrated System of
Closure (RISC), Provisiona12006 Default
Closure Levels (data sheet): personal
communication from Anderson (2009):
algorithms and data, including hierarchies, are
stated as being from IDEM (2001), RISC
Technical Guide
(http://www.in.oov/idem/files/risctechquidance,
odfY. also note IDEM (2009). RISC Technical
Guide, Appendix 1. Default Closure Tables
(htm:/A*ww,in,qov/idem/files/risctech appendix
1 2006 rl.odf). this technical guide reflects
revisions since IDEM (2001) and IDEM (2006)
(note the internal 2009 tables are not yet
available).
Current provisional default dosure level for TCDD in
residential soil, is 4.5 * 10"5 mgAg (direct contact); it
is based on the cancer endpoint, with HEAST
(undated) identified as the source of the SF,
150.000 per mg/kg-d. (From field feedback during
the review phase, the draft internal proposed value
for the residential scenario is 60 ppt. based on the
slope factor of 130,000 per mg/kg-d from CalEPA.)
Current provisional closure level for TCDD for the
commercial/industrial scenarios is 1.8 * O^mg/kg,
the basis is the same as for the residential level.
This concentration is also the default level for
residential soil based on migration to ground water.
(It is also the draft internal proposed value from July
2009, based on feedback during the field review
phase.)
Note the supporting documentation includes an RfDo
of 1.0*10"" mg/hgd; however, cancer was the limiting
endpoint for the residential and industrial screening
levels. (Note this RfD is the same as the ATSDR
chronic MRL finalized in 1998.)
Not identified.
The RISC technical
guide (2006/2009.
which does not yet
contain any dioxan
values) is available
online. The
provisional and
proposed values
and their complete
derivation including
parameter values
;and citations/
context for the
'toxicity values are
'not yet found
'online.
Basic calculation from IDEM (2006):
DCL = TR«AT.»365d/v
EFfx(A+(lnhF1,»SF,*Bl)
A = SFnx(|noF.yrSFS..»»ABSP
106 mg/Vg
B = 1 * 1
VF p£F
where:
,TR = target risk. 10"*
ATe = averaging time. 70 y
EFr, = exposure frequency residential soil. 250 d/y
SF. = oral slope factor. 150.000 (mg/kg-d)"1
(130,000 for 2009 internal draft level)
IngF,* = ingestion factor soil age adjusted.
114 mg-y/kg-d
SFSmj = skin factor soil age adjusted.
1.257 mg-y/kg-d
ABS = skin absorbance factor, 0.03
InhF^ = inhalation factor age adjusted,
10.9 m3-y/kg-d
SF, = inhalation SF. same as for SF, above
VF = volatilization factor. mJ/kg
PEF = particulate emission factor,
1.316*10* m3/kq
The internal 2009 upate of the IDEM
Technical Guide refined selected values
used in the calculations, but the
methodology and citations for the toxicity
values were not provided; thus, it is not
known how recently the scientific basis
underlying those values was considered.
November 20O9
Page B-21
-------
TABLE B.5 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 5
State
Soil
Cone
(ppt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
NatpreJ>f Pcer ' e nifru Scientific Basis Incorporation of Most Recent Science
Review Public Availability K
IN
(cont'd)
60
JuJ-09
c
130.000 (mg/kg-d)*'
(SF.)
IDEM (2009). Risk Integrated System of
Closure (RISC). Proposed 2009 Default
Closure Let/els (data sheet); personal
communication from Anderson (2009):
updated levels reflect proposed changes in
default algorithms and hierarchies in IDEM
(2009) (same information source identified
above); per feedback during field review,
proposed levels may be released in :ate 2009
or 2010.
From feedback during field review, represents the
Internal draft proposed residential soil default
closure level for TCDD. given as 6.0 *10"® mgftg
(this is also the defauft closure level for residential
soil, direct contact): it is based on the cancer
endpoinl; CALEPA (undated) is given as the basis of
the oral slope factor of 130,000 per mg/kg-d (and
inhalation unit risk of 38 per pg/m5).
The proposed commercial/industrial default level for
soil direct contact, and the proposed residential and
commercial/ industrial level for migration to
groundwater, are the same as the 2006 provisional
level (160 ppt).
Not identified. As above. Basic equation is as above. . However, the As above.
internal draft proposed values incorporate the
CalEPA oral cancer slope factor and IUR (rather
than using the oral SF for the inhalation SF).
160
Proposed commercial/industrial soil default dosure
level tor TCDD. given as 1.8 *10* mg/kg; with the
same basis as the preceding entry. (This value is
also the default dosure level for industrial soil, as
well as the default level for residential soil based on
migration to ground water.)
The supporting documentation also considers the
noncancer end point noting the chronic ATSDR MRL
of 1 "10**mg/kg-d. (and intermediate MRL of
2* 10"® mg/kg-d). as wed as the CalEPA reference
concentration of 4*io'7mg/m>. However, cancer is
the driving endpoint for the closure levels.
1,000
Jun-89
c
i
i
i
)
!
i
EPA (1989c). ROD. OU 01. Wedzeb
Enterprises, Inc.. Lebanon
{httoSAvww eoa aov/suDerfund/sites/rods/futlte
xt/r0589097 odf)
Dioxin found at very tow levels: no cleanup action
taken because the concentration was less than the
cleanup level of 1,000 ppt.
[ROD indicates ;
[community j
[involvement was •
•nof significant;
iconcerns expressed-,
[by citizens and local1
[officials on remedy ¦.
'implementation ?
' were addressed at ,
'•the &1/89 public
[meeting so no ;
[ formal comments '
j were received by
•Wedzeb on the i
r remedy. I
November 2009
Page B-22
-------
TABLE B.5 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 5
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
End.
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Nature of Peer Transparency- •
Review Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
90
MIDEQ (2006). Attachment 1. Table 2. Soil;
Residential and Commercial.
(http://www.michraan.Qov/documents/deQ/deQ-
rrd-OoMemo
Direct contact criteria (DCC) and risk-based
screening level (RBSL) protective against adverse
health effects due to long-term ingestion of and
dermal contact with contaminated soil.
The DCC derivation
methodology is
available online.
Attachment! Table2SoilResidential 283553 7.
pdO: from Technical Support Document. Part
201 Generic Cleanup Criteria and Screening
Levels, Part 213 Tier 1 Rish-Based Screening
Levels (http://www.michigan,qov/deo/0.1607.7-
135-3311 4109 9846 30022-1Q1581-
OO.html):
Basis and equations from MIDEQ (2005).
Attachment 6 (from same main document as
above)
(httD://www.deo.state.mi.us/documents/deQ-
rrd-QpMemo 1-Attachment6pdfY
Generic residential and commercial algorithm:
DCC = fTR*AT *CR
SF*[(ER*lF*AE()+(EFd*DF*AEd)]
where:
DCC = direct contact criterion, pg/kg (ppb)
TR = target risk. 10"® cancer risk
AT = averaging time, 25,550 d
CF = correction factor, 10*Mg/kg
EF| = ingestion exposure frequency. 350d/y
IF = age-adj soil ingestion factor, 114 mg-y/kg-d
A& = oral absorption efficiency. 0.5
EFd = dermal exposure frequency. 245 d/y
DF = age-adjusted soil dermal factor,
2.442 mg-y/kg-
-------
TABLE B.5 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 5
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency' ¦
Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
Ml
(cont'd.)
990
EPA (1998c). AMD. OU03. Ott/Story/Cordova
Chemical Co.. Daiton Township
IhttpJ/YJww epa Qov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fuilte
xt/aOS98lQ1.pdf).
TCDD TEO concentrations do not exceed any State
or Federal requirement for industrial land use. and
the Ml direct contact value (DCV) of 0.99 ppb
applies (rather than the default standard of 1 ppt for
residential use) 'If anyone were to perform any
future excavation, soils 1 to 3 feet below grade may
present a 1 in 100,000 chance of an individual
developing cancer if that individual performs
industrial work on the site for 70 years.' (Note this
ROD preceded the OSWER directive and refers to
the RCRA Land Disposal Restriction Universal
Treatment Standard, with excavated soil greater
than 1 ppb requiring off-site incineration.) Target
method detection limit (TMDL) is the lowest value
accepted by Ml that lab can measure.
Target method detection limit, TMDL. is lowest
value accepted by Ml that laboraior/ equipment
can measure; it 20 * DWis
BW*AT
ADC« =ECR/lUR= C.*(103 uQ/ma)«EF,«ED
(PEF + VF)
Jc# = soil concentration (SRV). mg/kg
jSF,.* = 1,400.000 (mg/kg-d)'1
iTR = 10* cancer risk
'ecr = estimated cancer risk, route-specific
AT = 25.550 d
R = soil intake rate. 68 mg/d (age-adj)
CF = correction factor. 10* kg/mg
|FI « fraction from contaminated area. 1.0
|EFaj= oral and inh exp frequency, 350 d/y
[EF« c derm exp frequency, 97 d/y (age- adj)
!eD = exposure duration. 33 y
AE= oral absorption efficiency. 0.55
iSA = skin surface area, 3,609 cm2 (age-adj)
AF = adherence fador. 0.17 mg/cm* (age-adj)
ABS ~ absorption fador, 0.03
IUR = inhalation unit risk. 400 (^ig/m3)*1
VF = volatilization factor, 2.49*10° (m'/kg)
PEF = part, emission fador, 7.7*10* (m'/kg)
3W = body weight. 51 kg (age-adj)
Recreational, chronic incidental soil ingestion,
age-adjusted: IR = 155 mg/d, EF = 92 d/y,
ED= 33 y, BW= 51 kg.
Reflects MPCA (1999) draft guidelines:
working draft guidance remains in place for
'the derivation methodology; updates
'reflected in 2008 documentation indude the
ifoDowing.
New SRVs wero calculated in 2005;
the 1998 WHO TEF values were replaced
with 2005 values in 2006; and
the subchronic child scenario was removed
in 2007.
Note the EPA 2005 cancer dassification
categories are reflected in the footnotes but
various 2008 table entries still contain older
categories (e.g., B2); TCDD is listed as
"human carcinogen."
November 2009
Page B-24
-------
TABLE B.5 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 5
State
Soil
Cone
(ppt)
Dato
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Naturo of Peer
Review
Evaluation Criteria
_ TZ"TTZ,.! Scientific Basis
Public Availability
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
35
Tier 2 industrial wortoer. ELCR of 10"5 (updated from
the 1999 value of 350 per mg/kg-d for the chronic
industrial scenario).
Industrial, chronic incidental soil ingestion:
IR = 60 mg/d, EF = 250 d/y. ED = 25 y.
8W = 70 kg.
75
Tier 2 short-term \Norker scenario; ELCR of 10*
(updated from the 1999 value of 600 per mg/kg-d).
Short-term worker. IR = 330 mg/d, EF = 45 d
(5 d/wfc, 9-wk construction period within 1 y),
BW = 70 kg; ELCR - 10"* (IR changed from
1999 value of 480 per EPA [2002]).
1.000
Sep-C8
n
i
MPCA (2008a). Second Five-Year Review
Report for Ritari Post and Pole Superfund Site,
Sebeka. Wadena County, September 2008
(httc JAvww eDa.aovfsuaet1und/sitesrfivevear/f2
Action level identified in 1994 ROD. sustained
through 1999 and 2008 explanation of significant
difference (ESD) documents, and five-year review
reports in 2003 and 2008. 'Based on calculations by
Adopted tho
ATSDR
residential soil
value available
Basis for using this See information for the ATSDR entry in Table 11
¦ATSDR value as of the report.
'the soil deanup '
level (or the site
The 2008 5-year review considered the
recent WHO 2005 TEFs and determined it
would not change the protediveness of the
site remedy. This Sept. 2008 ieview
008050002503 odf).
trie Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease
in 1994.
>vas available to the
preceded the ATSDR update of Oct.-Nov.
i
i
Registry (ASTDR) and the Centers (or Disease
Control (CDC), a residential cleanup criterion of
1 ppb or microgram/kilogram ing/kg) was
established for TCDDecf." (See context for value in
Tables 11 and 13 of the report.; As of the
September 2008 5-year review, the site is zoned
"Mixed (Agricultural/ Residential/Fore&lr/ District)'
and is assessed as "Agricultural - Non-homestead."
public. (See
subsequent
information in the
ATSDR entry in
Table 11 of the
report.)
2008 (which retained 0.04 ppb as a
screening level and eliminated 1 ppb as an
action level); see information (or the A TSDR
enlry in Table 1 f of the report. Also note
the historical content provided in the earlier
documents regarding A TSDR value of 1 ppb
for residential cleanup that preceded its
1998 documentation of the policy guideline,
excerpted under 'context notes" at left.
November 2009
Page B-25
-------
TABLE B.5 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 5
State
Soil
Cone
(ppt)
Data
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Nature of Peer ! Transparency-
Review Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis Incorporation of Most Recent Science
MN
(cont'd.)
1.000
Sep-99
c
EPA (1999d), ROD AMD; OU01. 03. MacGillis
& Cibbs Co./Bell Lumber & Pole Co.. New
Brighton
(httDSAvww.eoa aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/a0$99U7 odf).
Amendment did not alter cleanup level from the
1994 ROD, with total risk meeting the 1
-------
TABLE B.5 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 5
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer ' Transparency- ! 0 , _ . • ,
Review Public Availability Scientific Basis Incorporation of Most Recent Science
OH
(cont'd.)
1,000
Jun-89
c
156.000 (mg/kg-df'
EPA (1989b), RCD:OU01. LaskifVPoptarOil
Co., Jefferson Township
(httoJtow/ eca cov/suoerfund/siies/rods/fvllte
xt/fOS8909i oon
Wo cleanup action was taken because soil
concentrations ivene below the 1.000 ppt TCDD
equivalent cleanup ievet from tne EPA 1998
OSiVER directive.
ROD displays The KimDrough era/. (198*) evaluation ofKooba
cancer slope (actor et al. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.
d°m-5 iT'/h'*' (Although the ROD also identifies a cancer slope
pabl,c health factor 0/156,000 per mgAg-d from the 1986EPA
fcouciT nfpDA SPH6M. that value was not used to derive a site-
' specific diotin cleanup level because the Site
1986). buiSFjs/fot atj0p(sij extant EPA 1,000 ppt level.)
used to denve any
site-specific dioxin
deanvp level.
Wl
0.5
May-00
n
(eco)
0.0001
(NOAEL)
mgAg-d
Wheat (2000), [USCC] Dioxins and Furans
-------
TABLE B.6 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 6
State
Soil
Cone
(ppt)
Date
End*
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Contoxt Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency* _ . Incorporation of Most
Review Public Availability bciemmc uasis Recent Science
AR
4.5
(1.000)
Mar-09
Nov-08
c
130,000
(SF.)
(mg/k-d)'1
ARDEQ (2009a,b) AR Corrective Action
Strategy
(hrto://1ww#.adeQ.slate.ar.us/hazwaste/branc
h tech/risk assessment.htm).
fhno://'w,ww.adea.state, ar.us/hazwaste/branc
h tech/cas.htmfiCASi:
APEC (2008), Regulation No. 23. Hazardous
Waste Management
(hrtD:/\wAv. adeQ.state.ar.ua/reas/files/rea23
final 080526.odfY
ARDEQ website links to the EPA (Region 6)
Corrective Action Strategy
fhtto/fwww eoa aovtearth1rfi/6Dd/rcra c/od-
o/riskman.htm).
For 2.3.7,8-TCDO. the screening level for
residential soil: AR Dept. of Environmental
Quality (ARDEQ) uses EPA Region 6 medium-
specific screening levels (MSSLs) as a point of
departure (these are now harmonized with
Regions 3 ar>d 9 as regional screening levels,
see Table 13 of the report). These generic
screening levels are used early in the process,
before the development of actual cleanup levels
based on site-specific risk evaluations.
"Arkansas has not implemented a single set of
soil dean-up levels for general usage. Instead,
the State uses standards set in Regulation
No. 23 .... usually arriving at a site-specific
standard for each dean-up.' (Note Regulation
No. 23 identifies a treatment standard of
1,000 ppt for TCDDs in nonwastewater
hazardous waste.)
*
Regional screening
levels are available
online from EPA
Region 6 (and
Regions 3 and 9).
For deanup levels (which are distinct from screening levels):
'Site-specific dean-up standards established through site
speafic. risk-based minimized threat variances should be within
the range of values that ARDEQ and EPA generally find
acceptable tor risk-based deanup levels ... total excess risk to
an individual exposed over a lifetime generally fading within a
range from 10s4 to 10~*, using l04as a point of departure ... For
non-cardnogenic effects, ensure constituent concentrations that
an individual could be exposed to on a daily basis without
appreciable risk of deleterious effect during a lifetime: in
general, the hazard index should not exceed one (1).
Constituent concentrations that achieve these levels should be
calculated based on a reasonable maximum exposure scenario
- that is, based on an analysis of both the current and
reasonable expected future land uses, with exposure
parameters chosen based on a reasonable assessment of the
maximum exposure that might occur."
1.000
35.000
5.000
Sep-96
c
EPA (1996e). ROD, OU 02, Venae. Inc.
Jacksonville
(httD//www.eoa.aov/suoer1und/sites/ivds/fultt
ext/r0696102.odf):
EPA (19$8b). ESD. OU 02. Vertoc. Inc..
Jacksonville
(h'to'y^www.eoa.aov/suoertund/sites/rods/fullt
ext/e0698160 odf)'
CH2MHILL {2003). Second Five-Year
Review for the Venae Incorporated
Superfund Site. Jacksonville (prepared tor
EPA Region 6)
(httoJ/wvnv.eoa oov/suoerlurrti/sites/flvevear/
104-06002odf).
For TCDD. the remedial objective for offsite
areas OU, residential and agricultural soil. 1 ppb
(also identified as the residential action level):
prevent direct public contact to soil above this
level, and assure risks meet 10* to 10* range.
The ESD sustains this cleanup level and
indicates further excavation was warranted (to
12 inches) where new samples exceeded 1 ppb.
The five-year review stated no reassessment
was needed as 1 ppb ivas still accepted:
2.3.7,8- TCDD was still present.
For TCDD. the cleanup goal for ons/te soils,
based on a site-specific determination that
TCDD accounted for 70% of the TCDD TEQ
(thus scaled from 5 ppb remedial objective for
industrial use).
For TCDD TEQs. remedial objective for OU 2
(soils, foundations, curbs, and underground
utilities, onsite). 5 ppb based on industrial use.
LA
LDEQ (2003a), Recap Table 1 Screening
Option: Screening Standards for Soil and
Groundwater
rhttoi/toww.deo.louisiana.aov/Doilal/linkClick
.asD*?fileticket=blPYm4lCf9a%3d&tabid=293
0).
The list was checked for TCDD and diown, and
no standards were found.
i
1.000
Mar-03
LDEQ (2003b). Title 33 Part V. Hazardous
Waste and Hazardous Materials, Subpart 1.
Table 2 Treatment Standards tor Hazardous
Wastes (Final Rule)
^hnD;/^•l>ww.dea.louisiana.GOv/Dortal/DOrtals/0
/Dlannino/reas/Ddl/HV\G83fin.DdfY
For all TCDBs. the treatment standard
(acceptable level) for "non-waste waters" is
0.001 mg/kg.
J i
; |
November 2009
Page B-28
-------
TABLE B.6 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 6
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Oate
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Valuo
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency- • c _ , Incorporation of Most
_ , _ i_i, . Scientific Baals _ .
Review . Public Availability Recent Science
LA
(cont'd.)
1.000
Jun-02
c
150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1
ISF)
EPA (2002), ROD, OU01, Marion Pressure
Treating
fhtto //www eoa aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/futlt
ext/r060?009. odf):
ATSDR (2006). Health Consultation: A
Review of Soil Data. Marion Pressure
Treating Co.. Marion. Union Parish, LA
(httoJAvww atsdr.cdc oo v/HA C/PHA/Marion%
20Pressuie%20Treatina%20Comoanv/Mario
nPressureTreatinoCoHCO 13i06.Ddf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD total TEO (note 2,3.7.8-TCDD
had not been detected). Dioxin screening value
is 'based on the OSWER residential preliminary
remediation goal of 0.001 m&kg, and therefore
is not directly based on a l(r cancer risk."
From the health consultation, the health-based
assessment comparison value (environmental
medium evaluation guide) is 5* 1
-------
TABLE B.6 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 6
Soil
Cone
(PPO
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Nature of Peer ' Transparency-
Review . Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
150.000 (mg/kg-cJ)*1
(SF.)
16
38
OKDEO (2004). Site Cleanup Using Risk-
Based Decision Making
(http://www.deo.state.oK.us/lpdnew/FactShee
ts/RiskbasedDedsionGuidanceFinal.odfl:
EPA (Region 6) (2003), Medium-Specific
Screening Levels
(http://www.deo, state, ok,us/LPDnew/HW/02s
creeniable.pdf):
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD. screening level, residential
scenario; this OK website links to the earlier
table of Region 6 medium-specific screening
levels (now represented by joint regional
screening levels, see Table 13 of the report).
OKDEQ represents the target risk level of 10*
as a policy; calculations also follow EPA (1989).
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD, screening level, industrial
scenario, outdoor worker.
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD, screening level, industrial
scenario, indoor worker.
Intk = CS»IR«CF*F1*EF*ED
BW* AT
where:
tntk c Intake, mg/kg-d (multiplied by slope factor. 150.000
(mg/kg-d)' )
,CS = chemical concentration in soil, mg/kg
-IR = ingestion rate. 200 mg^d for child (1-6 y), 100 mg^d for
over 6 y old
CF n conversion factor, 10"* kg/mg
Fl = fraction ingested from contaminated source
EF = exposure frequency. 365d/y
EO = exposure duration. 70 y by convention, 9 y is national
median time at one residence
BW = body weight. 70 kg adult, 16 kg child
AT = averaging time = ED*365 d/y
[Source of slope factor from
' the earlier Region 6 table is
indicated as HEAST (which
i3 not a current resource).
(Note the 2008/2009
harmonized screening level
-table identifies CalEPA as
the source of the value
[reflected there).
1,000
5.000
Sep-06
Sep-06
TCEQ (2009). TRRP Protective
Concentration Levels. Tables 1-5
(http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/trTP/tr
ropds.htmh: TXCEQ (2005), TXCEQ
Regulatory Guidance RG-356/TRRP-22:
Tiered Development of Human Health PCLs
(http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/comm exec/form
s pubs/pub5/rQ/ro»366 tm> 22-htmll.
Tier 1 residential soil PCL for 2.3.7.&-TCDD for
both a 0.5-acre and 30-acre source area, total
and combined; includes ingestion, dermal,
inhalation, and vegetable consumption. "The
TRRP Tier 1 protective concentration levels
(PCLs) are the default cleanup standards in the
TX Risk Reduction Program." A level of
1 ng TEQ/kg was cited by Paustenbach et at.
(2006) as the promulgated TX value. Note the
2005 guidance indicates 2.3.7.B-TCDD TEQs,'
but the TX 2009 tables re flea TCDD alone.
Tier 1 commercial/industrial scenario for 2.3.7,8-
TCDD for both a 0.5-acre and 30-acre source
area, total and combined, as above.
Paustenbach et -TXCEQ documents
al. (2006) was jare available online.
peer reviewed asj
part of the ;
journal !
publication •
process.
•Toxicity value not found in toxicity tables provided. TCEO
.documentation indicates the PCL is based on the noncancer
endpoint.
EPA (2006e), ROD, OU 1. Jasper Creosoting
Company, Inc.
(httpJ/wwweoa Qov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullt
ext/r2006G60001482 odf).
Industrial scenario for 2.3,7,8-TCDO to*icily
equivalents, worker. The /owe/ values of the $oil
dired contact PRGs (or protection of both human
health and tne ecological receptors were
selected as the final soil direct contact PRGs;
iff6 risk level. (No 2,3.7.8-TCDD was detected.)
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalents,
represents the Region 6 medium-specific
screening level (note these are now harmonized
as joint regional screening levels, see Table 11
of the report).
TXRCC (2000), Proposed Remedial Action
Document: Toups State Superfund Site: Sour
Lake, Hardin County
(http://www.tceq. stale. t*.us/assets/public/rem
Residential scenario for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; cleanup
goal based on soil-to-groundwater pathway or
soil ingestionfmhalation/dermal contact,
whichever is lower.
ediation/superfund/reoister/pdfOIOO.pdf).
iROD indicates: Value developed by taking the ratio of the
toxicologies! reference value (TRV) known to cause adverse
,effects lo the total dose from the sne-$petific risk estimates
i(HQs) and factoring out the site-specific soH exposure
'¦concentrations used in those estimates. The resulting value is
¦the soil concentration that would represent an excessive risk. A
]lower range PRG was established by using a no-effect level TR.
Un upper-range PRG ivas established by using a lowest-effeci
/eve/ TRV. The final PRG ivas the average of the no-effect and
'lowest-effect level PRGs as allowed in EPA guidance and
'recommended in TXCEQ guidance document.
November 2009
Page B-30
-------
TABLE B.6 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Regions
Stato
Soil
Cone
(PPO
Da to
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer • Transparency- • « i tin ft i Incorporation of Most
Roview : Public Availability bcientmc Basis Recent Science
TX
(cont'd.)
1,000
20.000
Oct-93
c
EPA (1993d). ROD AMD. OU 02, United
Cieosoting Co.. Conroe
thtto //www eoa aov/suoerfund/sites/rcdstfullt
ext/a0699032 odf):
CH2MHILL (2005b). Second Five-year
Review tor the United Creosoting Company
Superfund Site
(hUoJAvw-veoa aov/suoerfund/sites/fivevsar/
(05-06008 Ddf):
TDH under cooperative agreement ivitb
ATSDR (2003) Health Consultation:
Sediments in Stewans Creek. Conroe
Creosoting Co.
ihfto//www.dshs state tx us/eoitox/consults/c
ccsed he frti pdf)
Residential soil target action level for 2.3,7.B-
TCDD equivalents. Based on the EPA OSWER
directive. Cleanup values (or sediment were the
same as those (or soil. (2.3.7.8- TCDD itself was
not detected) The AMD states no changes
were necessary from the 1989 ROD. Both five-
year reviews found the same, no changes
needed to the cleanup level
Industrial soil target action level (or 2.3.7,0-
TCDD equivalents..
Cancer risk comparisons based on EPA values:
Cancer risk ~ iff*
Exposure period - 70 y
TX Department of Health (TDH) also identifies these values:
Body weight ~ 15 kg for child. 70 kg tor adult
Soil incidental ingestion rate = 200 mg/d for a child,
100 mg/day for an adult
November 2009
Page 8-31
-------
TABLE B.7 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxiri in Soil: Region 7
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Valuo
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency-
Rovlew Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Roccnt Science
19
~72
150.000
(SF.)
10*
(RfD)
i May-06
(mgAg-d)'
mg/Vg-d
IADNR (undated), Statewide Soil Standards.
IA Land Recycling Program (LRP). personal
communication from Orvistmp (2009): based
on risk calculation in:
IA General Assembly (1998). Environmental
Protection [567]. Chapter 137. Iowa Land
Recycling Program and Response Action
Standards
fhttp://www.iowadnr.qov/land/consites/docume
rtts/chapl 37.pdf)
Residential cleanup level lor TCDD based on
cancer risk.
Residential deanup level (or TCDD where it is
the only contaminant of concern; field review
feedback indicated basis is noncancer endpoint
Nonresidential deanup level for TCDD: field
review feedback indicated basis is noncancer
endpoint
Easlhope (2006), A TSDR 1.000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(httpJAvww trwneurs.neVDocuments/TRW/ReQ
Basis no! provided.
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20darifv%201000
oot.odf): lists same values identified in:
EC(2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in Other
States, cited in table available via TRW Neivs
(httpJAvww.trwnews net/imaaes/StateCleanuD
2006.PDF).
.Residential
•deanup value
Ibased on cancer
risk found online.
!noncancer values
.provided from the
field via personal
communication
during the field
review phase.
[SFo is from 1997 HEAST; RfD is from an earlier
; value (field feedback during review phase
indicated it was from EPA IRIS (this basis is
undear): note the value is the same as the 199B
'ATSDR chronic MRL. which is the source of the
.same value indicated in the EPA RSL table, and
also noted by selected other states).
Standards are based on a cancer TR of 5* 10"6.
CL = 1
where:
C^awm = RF»AT
Abs*CF"(A+B)
and
b = !er!«ef!«ed.v BW,
Limited information
is available via the
weblinks at left,
with neither the
derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values
CL =
ED, =
ED< =
EF. =
EFC =
ER. =
ER« =
BW. =
BWe =
CF =
•Abs =
AT =
RF =
TR =
SF =
Basis
deanup level (mg/kg)
exposure duration for adult, 24 y
exposure duration for child, 6 y
exposure frequency for adult. 350 d/y
exposure frequency for child, 350 d/y
exposure rate for adult, 100 mg/d oral.
400 mg/d dermal
exposure rate for child, 200 mg/d oral,
560 mg/d dermal
body weight adult. 70 kg
body weight child. 15 kg
conversion fador, 10* kg/mg
absorption fador, 1 oral. 0.03 dermal
averaging time. 25,550 d
TR/SF
target risk, 5*10"®
slope fador, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1
not provided.
November 2009
Page B-32
-------
TABLE B.7 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 7
Sol!
Cone
(PPt)
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Valuo
Information Source
Context Notos
Nature of Peer Transparency-
Review Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
14
MIDEQ (2004). Dioxin Contamination in the
Midland Area
(httD:/A*ww.michiQan.oov/documents/deQ/deQ-
whm-hwp-Dow-FactsFinal 251769 7.pdf).
For dioxin TEO. residential scenario. No deanup
level was found from online searches of IA
Agency websites or the RODS database, but this
was found in the Ml document; "Of the other
states thai have derived safe levels for dioxin in
soil, seven are lower than Michigan ... Iowa [is]
at 14 ppt.* No specific reference for IA was cited
or located, thus no other information was found
(induding for toxjaty value and basis).
EPA (1996f),Des Moines TCE. OU 02.04
IhnoJA'/ww epa aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fuUte
xt/i0797030 Ddf).
For2.3.7,d-TCDO, industrial scenario.
'Risk calculations were based upon the OU4
Focused Risk Assessment Memorandum
(1995).'' Toxicity value not found.
Available online
(RODS database)
•Specific derivation
approach not
found.
150.000
(SF.=
SFj =
SFd)
(mgAg-d)'1
KDHE (2007). Risk-Based Standards for KS
RSK Manual - 4th Version
(http://www.Kdhek5.Qov/remediat/downtoad/RS
K Manual 07.pdf): Nightingale (2009)
(personal communication).
I
For 2,3.7,8 TCDD. residential scenario.
Chemical-spedfic and media-spedfic risk-based
deanup goals were calculated using guidance
and directives from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency and various
other technical resources.*
For 2.3.7.8 TCDD, industrial (non-resident)
scenario.
Cleanup levels and
RBC equations
with soil exposure
factors are
available online;
1997 Health
Effects
Assessment
Summary Tables
(HEAST). are no
longer maintained.
Source of slope factors and other toxicological
information is given as EPA 1997 HEAST. "The
soil exposure pathways evaluated in the human
health risk-based calculations indude inddental
ingestion of soil, inhalation of airborne particulates
(dusts), inhalation of chemicals volatilizing from the
soil (volatile compounds only), and dermal contact
with soil (organic compounds only)." RBC
calculation for residential scenario:
= TR»BW»AT*365 d/v
EFkED*((ING»*CF*SF0)+(INH*SF1x{1A/F1
References are from 1979-1998. induding
the 1996 EPA Region 9 PRGs
+
1/PEF)HSF.*CF*SA*AFxABS)]
where:
RBC s
risk based concentration (mg/kg)
TR =
target cancer risk. 10"4
BW =
body weight 70 kg
AT =
averaging time. 70 y
EF =
exposure frequency, 350 d/y
ED =
exposure duration. 30 y
ING,=
soil ingestion rate. 100 mg/d
CF =
conversion factor. 10"* kg/mg
SF.=
oral cancer slope factor.
150.000 {mg/kg-d)''
INH =
soil inhalation rate, 20 m3/d
SFi =
inhalation cancer slope factor.
150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1
VF, =
soil volatilization factor. mVkg
PEF =
paniculate emission factor.
1.l8*105m'/kg
SA =
surface area of skin. 5000 cm7/d
AF =
adherence factor, 0.2 mg/cm2
Garoutte (2009) (personal communication).
Feedback during field review indicated that MO
has not established or adopted any spedfic
deanup level for dioxin in soil. The MO
Department of Health and Senior Services
(MDHSS) had been involved with the EPA and
MDNR in establishing 1 ppb as a surface soil
deanup level for contaminated sites in MO.
November 2009
Page B-33
-------
TABLE B.7 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 7
State
Soil
Cone
(PP<)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Contort Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency- _ , _ .
Roviow Public Availability Scientific Basl* Incorporation of Most Roccnt Science
1,000
1997
Hirschhom (1997), Cleanup Levels (or Dioxin-
Contaminated Soil
fhttDJAw.v3.intersaence. wilev.com/cai-
birrtulliext/113513227/PDFSTART).
Indicated lor 2.3.7.8 TCDD, residential scenario:
1 ppb tor residential land use from EPA 1988
decision for Superfund cleanup at Times Boach.
MO, set the stage for the policy-based /eve/.
Article peer
revieived as part of
journal publication
process
Apr-06
MDNR (2006). MR8CA Technical Guidance
(Appendices)
fhtto://www.dnr.mo.aov/env/hwD/mrt>ca/docs/
m rto ca-a ope n d6-Q6, pd f).
MDNR MR8CA Technical Guidance document
(updated June 2008) contains guidelines for
surface soil. This document was searched for
TCDD and dioxin, but r>o information was found.
MDNR document is
available online. j
i
1,000
Sep-05
c
;
EPA (2005c), Missouri Electric Works Sites.
OU 02. Cape Girardeau
(htiDJ/www.eoa aov/suoeriund/site&rods/fullte
xt/r070505? odf)
For 2,3,7.8-TCDD TEQ, residential scenario.
TCDD was a combustion byproduct of concern
during theimal treatment of PCB-contaminated
sou. TCDD soil concentrations were monitored
to ensure levels below 1 ppb.
Available online Concentration appears to reflect the OSWER
.(RODS database), directive. The Kimbrough et el. (1984) evaluation
of Kociba etal. (1978) underlies the OSWER
| \ value. |
MO
(cont'd.)
20,000
May-93
c
j
EPA (1993b), Ground Water OU 02. Syntex
Agribusiness. Inc., Verona
(http:/Avww.eoa.oov/suoer1und/sites/rods/fulite
xt/r079307l.odf)
For 2,3.7,8-TCDD. residential scenario. Toxicity
value not found. Action level provided for
excavation and treatment of surface soils (with
maintenance of a vegetative cover over soils
containing between f and 20 ppb dioxin).
Available online Concentration appears to reflect the OSWER '
(RODS database), directive. The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation >
, of Kociba et al. (1978) underlies the OSWER <
i \vaiue.
< i 1
1.000
Sep-36
c
EPA (1986) Ellisville Site. OU02, Ellisville
fhttoJ/www.eDa aov/suoeriund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0786006 odf).
For 2.3,7,8-TCDD. residential scenario. Toxicity
value not found. (Document updates the 1985
ROD and 1991 ROD Amendment.) Toxicity value
not found.
Available online Concentration appears to reflect the OSWER
(RODS database), directive. The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation ¦
of Kociba et al. (1978) underlies the OSWER
value.
November 2009
Page B-34
-------
TABLE B.7 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 7
Stato
Soil
Cone
(PPf)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Rofercnco
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peor Transparency- Scientific Basis Incorporation of Most Recent Science
Review Public Availability
NE
Jul-09
Borovich (2009) (personal communication).
-eedback during field reuew indicates that the
remediation goals here are both screening levels
and preliminary deanup goals. The NDEQ
Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) does allow a
site to develop different risk-based deanup
evels based on site characterization and NDEQ
approval. For sites not under VCP regulations,
the NDEQ may use EPA RGs or medium-
speafic screening levels as deanup levels, given
proper documentation.
Slope factor from the EPA1997 HEAST. The NDEQ indicates a plan to update the VCP
NDEQ documentation indicates a slope factor Remediation Goals Lookup Table based on
other than HEAST would be used if (a) the source the most recent review of toxicological data,
was considered "higher* in the EPA's toxitily
hierarchy and (b) the saence behind the level was
well-documented and available for review.
3.9
Oct-08
C
c
150.000 (mg/kg-d)'1
(SF„) ,
f
NDEQ (2008), NE Voluntary Cleanup
Guidance
{httD://www.deQ.state.no.us/Publico.nsf/23e5e
39594c064eeB5?564ae004(a010/rt?43c?b56e
For 2.3,7,8-TCDD, residential soil; based on
direct contact.
Cleanup levels and 'Slope factors and other toxicological information >
RG equations with ^are taken from EPA 1997 HEAST. Equation for
soil exposure 'calculating the residential soil concentration for
[factors available to 'inddental ingestion of carcinogenic compounds is:
public- EPA CL = 1
160
34ea8486256f27O06S8997/SFILEA/CP%20Gu
For 2,3,7.8-TCDD. industrial soil: based on direct
contact
idance%200ct%202008.pd0.
NDEO (2006), Protocol for VCP Remediation
Goals Lookup Tables
(http://www.deo.state.ne.us/PijDlica.nst/23e5e
39594c064ee852564ae004fa010/d243c2b56e
34ea848S256f?700698997/SFILE/ATTEBI5L/
(1997a) Health [(1/C„M!/C«.™M1/C«,)]
Effects
Assessment .
Summary Tables ere"
(HEAST) values for Cm -« TRf*ATt
norvradionudides , EF,*IFS,^*SF.*10'< mg/kg
.have not been J 1
.found via open TR,*AT,
access online. ; EF,«SFS.d1*ABS,1»{SF./ABSai)MO< mg/kg ;
Cram = TR,*AT,
EF.*ED.*I(URF*1000 uo/mo)l
,CL= deanup level, (mg/kg) <
I |TR = target risk, 10*
1 'SF, = oral slope fador.150.000 (mg/kg-d)"' 1
; iAT« = averaging time. 25.550 d
EF,= exposure frequency. 350 d/y
ED. = exposure duration. 30 y
IFS.di = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor.
114 (mg-y/kg-d)"
SFS.dj= age-adjusted soil dermal factor.
361 mg-y/kg-d
A8Sd = dermal absorption fraction, 0.03
'ABSa= gastrointestinal absorption eff., 1.0
I URF = unit risk factor. 3.3*10° (pg/m3)"1
PEF - particulate emission factor.
1.2*10® m3/kg
November 2009
Page 8-35
-------
TABLE B.8 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 8
State
Soil
Cone
(Ppt)
Dato
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency- «. , 41_ _ , .
Review Public Availability Scientific Basis Incorporation of Most Recent Science
CO
Oec-07
CODPHE (2007). CO Soil Evaluation Values
(CSEV)
fhtto://www.cdDhe. state.co.u$/hm/csev.odfl
The CODPHE has developed CO soil evaluation
values (CSEVs). but no dioxin value was found in
the table.
CODPHE (2007)
document is
available online.
MT
4.5
18
Nov-08
c
130,000 I (mg/kg-d)"1
tSF.) !
i
i
. \
i
MTDEQ (2008b), Soil Screening Process
(Attachment C)
(httD://www.dea. state. mt.u^StaieSuDerfund/V
CRA Guide/SotlScreeninoProcessI 1-08.odft.
State-specific risk-based screening levels
(RBSLs) are listed on the MTDEQ website; none
were found for diO)dn or dioxin congeners.
Instead, the MTDEQ flow chart directs users to
screen soil dioxin concentrations based on 2008
EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs).
(Regional EPA values were recently harmonized,
see related entry in Table 13 of the report.)
Note the supporting documentation indudes an
RfDo of 1.0* 10"* mg/kgd; however, cancer was
the limiting endpoint for the screening levels.
(Note this RfD is the same as the ATSDR chronic
MRL finalized in 1998.)
Intra-agency |MTDEO document ISee Tables 11 and 13 of the report for information
review. (2008b) and the underlying the regional screening levels, induding
EPA RSL TaWo and the toxidty value.
User's Guide (EPA
2009e.f)with
equations are
available online.
62.5
103
Jun-08
MTDEQ (2008a), Final Feasibility Study
Report, KRY Site
(hltoy/www.deo. state, mt. us/StaieSuoerfund/K
PT/FinalFSJutv2008/FinolF$reDOrtComDlied.D
df}.
Residential scenario, dioxin.
Industrial scenario, dioxin. Limited information;
the document states that the deanup levels are
based on risk analysis and soil modeling in
Appendix C, which cannot be found online.
¦MTDEQ (2008a) is -MTDEQ used the earlier World HcaHh
'available online, but'Organization (WHO) (1998) Toxicity Equivalence
not the appendix >Factors (TEFs) for TCDD and dioxin-iike
with the key data. compounds (DLCs) to determine cleanup levels.
WHO TEFs were recently updated, as
captured in 2005 and 2006 publications
(see Van den Berg et a1. [2006]).
736
Residential subsurface scenario for
dioxins/furans
i :
¦ i i i
736
Industrial subsurface scenario for dioxins/furans
ND
I
I
No state-specific guidelines for dioxin soil
deanup levels were identified from the ND
Department of Health. Division of Waste
Management website.
; | i
: t
SO
Apr-09
SDDENR (2009), Lookup Table For Surface
Soil (0-3.2 feet)
(hrtD.7/denr.sd.oov/des/aw/LookUDTables/Look
uo Tables.asox).
No soil screening or deanup values for dioxin
were identified on the SDDENR website. The
SDDENR has developed look-up tables with Tier
1 action levels calculated for contaminated soil
leaching into ground water based on 10*® cancer
risk, but no value was identified for dioxin.
SDDENR (2009)
! website and lookup
tables are available
online.
1,000
Jun-96
c
USAF (1996), ROD. Ellswortrt Air Fo/ce Base.
OU 08, Ellsworth AFB
fMo/Arvvw. eoa.oov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0896124 odf).
For dioxin TEQ, international toxic equivalents
corresponding to dioxin concentrations were
belowthe 1.000 ppt level of concern (or
residential soil; risk associated with dioxins in
surface soil is in the 10$ range.
'Available online. ] Site-specific risk assessment results for exposure
to surface soil are within EPA target range for
; incremental risk, and TCDD TEQ are below
i 1.000 ppt: the specific source of this value was
| not provided (but could be the 1998 OSWER
I directive, which is based on an evaluation by
! Kimbrough et al. [1984] of Kociba et al. [1978]
1 data).
November 2009
Page B-36
-------
TABLE B.8 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 8
State
Soil
Cone
(ppt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer . Transparency- Scientific Basis Incorporation of Most Recent Science
Review Public Availability K
UT
May-06
UT (2006), UT LUST Program Screening
Levels for Soil and Groundwater
fhttD://www.underaroundtanks.utah.aov/docsrt
ank news sum06.pdf).
UTDEQ has developed initial screening levels
(ISLs). for leaking underground storage tanks
(LUSTs). No screening level was found for
dioxin.
LUST table (2006)
is available online
at the UTDEQ
website.
1,000
Aug-00
US ACE (2000), Final OU 4 Hotspot, ROD
Amendment forOU 4. Ogden Hill
(httoJ/www eoaoov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/a0800533 odf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD where future land use is
commercial/industrial.
Available online
(RODS database).
37
370
Dec-97
c
c
150.000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)'1
EPA (I997d), Explanation of Significant
Difference. Petrochem Recycling Corp/Ekotek
Plant, Salt Lake City. OU 01
(httoSAwnv eoa.aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/e0BS8175 odf).
For 2.3,7.8-TCDD TEF. derived from the soil
performance standard, based on a combination
of soil preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) and
applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). Value is (or a cancer risk
of 1 (J6 (site wide) for the commercial worker (or
exposure to soil via ingestion and dermal
absorption. These performance standards
'represent the levels of protection that must be
achieved through containment of the low-level
contaminated soils'.
For 2.3,7.8-TCDD TEF, derived from the soil hot
spot periormance standard based on a
combination of soil PRGs and applicable or
relevant and appropnate iequirements (ARARs)
Value is (or localized areas uith elevated cancer
risk above i<74 (hot spots) for the industrial
worker for exposure to soil via ingestion and
derma/ obscrption. These performance
standards 'establish the levels of soils that must
be excavated and shipped for offsite disposal'.
¦Available online i Values were calculated based on the same
i(RODS database), '.equations and assumptions as in the Augusi 2,
i ! 1994 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
\ [for the Petrochem Site The equation for the soil
; performance standard (SPS) is not available, but
j ' the parameter values are given as:
j j TR ~ target risk, 106
i '8W = body weight. 70 kg
'¦ '.AT = averaging time. 70 y
\EF = exposure frequency 250 dfy
1 ED - exposure duration, 25 y
j \SF<, = siope factor oral, 15&000 (rug/kg-d)'*
[CF = conversion factor, Mr kg/mg
! //? = ingestion rate for soil. 50 mg/d
1.000
Sep-92
EPA (1992b), ROD, Ogden Defense Depot
(DLA), 0U04. Ogden
(htto/Avww eoa QOv/suDerfund/sites/rodsfluiite
xt/r0892061 odf).
Value derived from the Dioxin Disposal Advisory
Group as the recommended total equivalency
value of less than 1 ppb of dioxin in contaminated
soil. (Note this document preceded the 1998
OSWER directive.)
Available online
(RODS database).
1,000
RMCOEH-UT DFPM (undated, 200x), A
Comparison of Dioxin Levels Found in
Residential Soils of Davis County Utah with
Those Found in Residential Soils in the Denver
Front Range
thttn-lAvwvv wasatchintearateri om/PDF/Davis
%20Dioxin%20Studv odf).
Davis County study sampied soil for dioxin, using
the ATSDR screening and action levels as a
point of reference, based on De Rosa et. a1.
(1997).
Available online
November 2009
Page B-37
-------
TABLE B.8 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 8
State
Soil
Cone
(PPO
Dato
End-
point
Basic
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Contort Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency- - , _ , . ... _ ...
Review >uDllc Availability Scientific Basis . Incorporation of Most Recent Science
WY
4.5
0.15
(Jul-09)
c
Griffin (2009) (personal communication).
Field feedback indcated this was the cleanup
level for dioxin (unrestricted/residential scenario).
Field feedback indcated this was the value for the
residential scenario based on migration to
groundwater.
3.9
Jan-08
Jun-04
150,000
(SF.)
(mg/kg-d)"1
WYDEQ (2008). Fad Sheet #12: Soil Cleanup
Level Lookup Table
(httDV/deo. state.wv.us/volremedi/downloadx/C
urrent%20Fact%20Sheets/FS 12.odfY
For 2,3.7,8-TCDD. residential scenario, based on
direct contact Value reflects the Oct. 2004
Region 9 PRG table. (Regional EPA values were
recently harmonized, see related entry in
Table 13 of the report)
The WYDEQ (2008) From EPA (2004), oral exposures to carcinogenic Screening levels from Regions 3.6. and 9
document and the contaminants in residential soil can be calculated were harmonized in 2008 (see related entry
EPA (2004) by: in Table 13), and updated in faD 2009; these
document on which c_ TRxAT include an updated SF of 130.000 per
Die values ate A "" mgAg-d. Note thai WYDEQ indicated an
based are both EFr*IFS*4*CSF.*l0 kg/mg intent to update its table whenever the
available online. where: Region 9 PRGs are updated.
C - (mgAg)
TR = target cancer risk. 104
ATC = averaging time-carcinogens. 2S5S0 d
EF, = exposure frequency-residential. 350 d/y
IFS.<* = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor for
carcinogens. 114 (mg-y)/(kg-d)
CSFo - cancer slope factor oral,
150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1
4.3
38
150,000
(SFJ
(mg/kg-d)''
(JSAF (2004b). ROD. OU 10. Landfill 7 and
Fire Protection Area T. F.E. Warren Air Forte
Base
(hnoSAwvw. eDa.aov/suocrfund/sitesJrods/fultie
xt/r0804104.Ddf).
For 2.3,7,8- TCDD; used 2001 EPA Region III
Residential (4.2 ppt) and Industrial (38 ppt) RBCs
for dioxin as initial screening levels. Levels of
2.3,7.8¦ TCDD did not exceed RBCs. One dioxin
and one furan did exceed RBC levels and further
evaluation is provided in the baseline risk
assessment (BRA) (Landfill 7/FPTA 1 Rl [USAF
2002dJ) (which could not be found online)). The
ROD indicates the SF• is from IRIS.
""
[wo/e that the EPA 2001 Region 3 tables were |
updated May 2009 to EPA RSLs; see Table 13 of
Ihe report (orRSL values and derivation
November 2009
Page B-38
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
Soil
Cone
(PPV
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency.
Reviow Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
4.5
(Amer.
Samoa)
130.000 (mg/kg-d)'1
(SFJ
1.400.000
(SF.)
GEPA (2008>/HDOH (2008a), Evaluation of
Environmental Hazards at Sites with
Contaminated Soil and Groundwater - Pacific
Basin Edition
(http://hawaii.qov/freaHh/environmentat/hazard/
pd'/pbvohjme 1mar2009.pdf);
Volume 2. Appendix 1
(http://hawa».oov/health/en>.nronmental/hazard/
pdf/pbvolume2app1 mar2009.odfl:
Volume 2, Appendices 2-9
3 m bgs) for unrestricted (residential) use.
commercial/industrial use. and construction/trench
worker.
For dioxin TEQs. Tier 2 action levels, direct
contact, 10"* risk; especially intended for
redevelopment of former agricultural fields but
apply to any site. Guidelines rather than strict,
regulatory, deanup requirements; alternate values
can be proposed in site-specific assessments.
Unrestricted (residential) land use:
<42 ppt: No action required.
42-450 ppt: "Within USEPA range of acceptable
health risk.' Removal and offsite disposal of small,
easily identifiable hot spots is recommended.
Consider other measures to reduce daily soil
exposure. For large areas, notify future
homeowners of elevated levels.
>450 ppt: Unrestricted (residential) land use is not
recommended in the absence of remedial action to
reduce exposure.
<170 ppt: Commercial/industrial use, no action.
170-1,800 ppt: Within USEPA range of acceptable
health risk. Remedial actions vary depending on
site-specific factors, inducing current and planned
use. available options for onsite isolation or offsite
disposal, and technical/economical constraints.
>1.800 ppt Commercial/Industrial use noi
recommended in absence of remedial actions to
reduce potential exposure.
[The equations and 1
;oxicity value used to i
derive Tier 1
environmental
screening levels for
different exposure
scenarios are
available online.
Equations provided in!
Appendix 2, adopted
from 2008 EPA RSL
documentation.
["The Tier 1
environmental
screening levels were
updated in October
2008 to incorporate
updates to the
USEPA Region
Screening Levels
(USEPA 2008).* |
This information is
available online.
Equations for calculating Tier 1 ESLs and the toxicity value were
•taken from 2008 EPA RSLs. See Guam entry for specific
environmental screening level equations. Regarding direct
exposure: text indicates dioxins are not considered significantly
mobile in soil due to their strong sorption to organic carbon and
iday particles, so consideration of soil leaching hazards was not
•needed. Also notes: "The 2008 U.S. Environmental Protection
!Agency (USEPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs: USEPA
•2008a) replace Preliminary /Remediation Goals (PRGs)
previously published by individual regions. This indudes PRGs
published by USEPA Region IX (USEPA 2004) and referenced
;in pre-2008 editions of the CNMI and HDOH guidance
.documents."
.The slope factor of 130.000 (mg/kg-d)'' was taken from the 2008
EPA RSL table, which is based on a CalEPA maximum
ilikelihood estimate (MLE) and linearized 95% upper confidence
¦value (UCL): using animal data (NTP 1980a, 1982a) converted
'.to equivalent human exposures per scaling factors.
|Assumptions indude: oral and inhalation routes are equivalent.
Jair concentration assumed to be daily oral dose, route of
exposure does not affect absorption, and no difference in
'metabolism/ pharmacokinetics betv^en animals and humans.
Total weekly dose levels were averaged over the week to get a
daily dose level; this assumes daily dosing in NTP studies would
have given the same results as the actual twic« weekly dosing
• schedule (because the TCDD halMife is relatively long, both
schedules should give similar tissue concentrations).
42 ppt was derived using the basic calculation in the HDOH
(2008b) spreadsheet, with the target risk level updated from 10*
to 10".
The SF of 1,400.000 (mg/kg-d)"'. tapped the SF.from MNDOH
(2003), which is the upper bound from animal bioassay data
given in the EPA reassessment; this value was derived from
Koaba et al. (1978) and is higher than the value recommended
in the draft reassessment, which is based on human data; this
higher SF was used to generate a lower bound. See Guam
entry in this table for equations used to calculate action levels.
As above, using the SF. from the recently harmonized 2008
EPA RSL. updates the previous Tier 2 action level of 390 ppt,
which had used the previous RSL SF. of 150.000 (mg/kg-d)"'.
Values derived in a manner
similar to the 2008 EPA
RSLs. Toxicity value was
adopted from the 2008 EPA
RSL (which is more recent
than others, but does not
reflect most recent scientific
data such as the 2004 NTP
study); see notes for parallel
entries for GM. NMI, TT.
Document cites the recent
2005 WHO TEFs
documented in Van den
Berg et al. (2006). Note
however that Table L of
Volume 2, Appendix 1
reflects the old (pre-2005)
cancer dassification
scheme, indicating "B1?" for
TCDD. The cancer slope
factor was revised in
October 2007 from previous
guidance (this affected the
action levels).
Same approach as described above for the action level of
42 ppt; the upper-bound animal-based SF of 1,400,000
(mg/kg-d)'1 was used to generate a lower bound for deanup
consideration.
As above, using SF. of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)*1 from the recently
harmonized 2008 EPA RSL: updates the previous Tier 2 level of
1.600 ppt, which reflected the previous SF..150.000 (mg/kg-d)"'.
November 2009
Page B-39
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
State
Soli
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
¦ Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer ; Transparency- c _ ; Incorporation of Most
Review Public Availability • acienimc basis Recent Science
A2
4.5
45
160
May-07
c
c
i
AZDEQ (2007), Title 18. Environmental Quality
Chapter 7. Remedial Action
(htto7Aiivww.azsos.oov/Dublic services/Title 18
/1 WJ7.htm):
ADHS (1999). Deterministic Risk Assessment
Guidance
(htto:/Awww.azdhs.aov/Dhs/oeh/odf/auidance.o
dfl.
Easthope (2006). AT SDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter trom concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(httoJ/www. trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20ctarifvK20l 000
DDt Ddf): lists same values identified in: EC
(2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in Other
States, cited in table available via
Tittabawassee River Watch News
(htto//wmv.trwnews.netAmaoes/StateCleanuo
2006.PDF).
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD. residential use, 10"* risk level.
The 2007 soil remediation levels (SRL) update the
1997 values and apply unless the site was
characterized before May 5. 2007 and remediated
or a risk assessment completed before May 5,
2010 (in which case the 1997 values apply). The
target risk of 10"8 must be used if current or
intended future use of a contaminated site is a
child care facility or school where children < 18 are
reasonably expected to be in frequent, repeated
contact with soil.
For2,3.7.8-TCDD. residential use. 10* risk level.
This updates the 1997 residential SRL of 38 ppt
(provided here as context for entries below). A risk
level of 10*5 may be used for any carcinogen other
than a known human carcinogen.
For 2,3,7.8-TCDD. nonresidential use; this updates
the 1997 SRL of 240 ppt (provided here as context
for the entry below).
The AZDEQ Equations and default parameter values for SRL derivation are The toxicity value is the
documentation and indicated in ADHS (1999). although the link appears to be islope factor used in the EPA
ADHS guidance damaged as the equations were not visible. Equations were 'regional screening level
document are adopted from 1996 Region IX PRG document. The toxicity value ;table from that time, which
available online. was not found in the AZDEQ or ADHS document. (Note that ,does reflect the most recent
However, specific ADHS (1999] mentions slope factors were taken from IRIS. scientific literature, such as
'toxicity values used HEAST, or NCEA.) Follow-on input from the field indicates the 'the 2004 NTP study),
to derive the SRLs toxicity values are based on PRGs or RSls from that time,
are not provided in
either document.
i i i
ii. i
i | j
! ' 1
38
2006
(2004)
Basis not provided, but appears to reflect the
AZDEQ 1997 residential SRL (which was updated
to 45 ppt in 2007).
Limited information is Basis not provided, but see entry for AZDEQ (2007) above. ;
available via the i
weblinks at left, with \ :
inerther the derivation [ ;
•methodology nor ] i
• basis of underlying j {
'¦toxicity values. i :
' ; i
; t
38
Apt-01
c
I
EPA (2001), ESD, Tucson International Airport
-Area. OU 02
(httDyAvww.eoa.aov/suoer1und/sites/rods/Jullte
xt/e0901612.odf).
For 2,3.7.8-TCDD, residential scenario; shown in
table excerpted from AZ Administrative Code
Title 18, Chapter 7. Article 2. Appendix A. Soil
Remediation Levels (listed as current through
December 31, 1999).
Available online (via jSee entry for AZDEQ (2007) above. Excerpted table identifies
RODS database). )TCDDas: Group B2 carcinogen. (Probable human carcinogen,
j with inadequate or no evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.
Sufficient evidence (or carcinogenicity in laboratory animals.)
Reflects the older EPA
cancer classification
scheme (updated by EPA in
2005).
240
For 2.3,7,8-TCDD, nonresidential scenario
•
November 2009
Page B-40
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
Slate
Soil
Cone
(ppt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency- « i tin r i Incorporation of Most
Review • Public Availability sclenting Basis Recent Science
CA
4.6
19
Jarv-05
c
130.000 (mg/kg-d)'1
where:
TR = target risk. 10"*
AT, = averaging time, 25,550 d
CSFe = 130,000 per mg/kg-d
EF, = exposure frequency, 350 d
IFS.* = res. soil ingestion rate. 114 mg-y/kg-d
j *HHSl_«, = TR*ATr*BW.
; | EF0*ED.*(IRS.*CSF.*iO'AT, = averaging time, 25,550 d
| |BWa = adult body weight, 70 kg
j 'EF, = occupational exp. frequency. 250 dAy
i jED, = occupational exp. duration, 25 y
| CSF. = 130.000 per mg/kg-d
j ;|RS. = occupational soil ingestion rate. 100 mg/d
4
2006
(2004)
:
Basis not provided.
'Limited information is ' Basis not provided,
available via the
weblinks at left, with
neither the derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
t :
November 2009
Page B-41
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
State
SoU
Cone
(Ppt)
Date
End-
point
8asls
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency- _ . Incorporation of Most
Review Public Availability bclertllic Basis Rocent Science
CA
(cont'd.)
3.9
44
Mar-08
c
eco
130,000 (mg/kg-d)''
(SFJ
NAVFAC (2008), ESD (orOU 3 ROD. Camp
Pendleton
(htto*/www. eoa oov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/e?00809000?747 ndf)
Original remediation goal of 4.7 ng/kg (from
2/21/08 POD for OU 5) was revised to 3.9 ng/kg.
based on EPA Region 9 PRC-residential tor
2,3.7,8-TCDD. The basts of the original 4.1 ng/kg
was identified as the EPA-derived mean rural soil
TCDD TEQ concentration (EPA 2000).
Site*specific ecological PRG: ESD. original ROD
was written in 1996: a remediation goal was
developed for 2.3.7.8 TCDD at Site 1A, bum ash
Site. "The value (or both Tier J and Tier 2 exposure
estimates tor mammalian receptor was 0.000044.
The upper-bound limit tor an acceptable exposure-
point concentration for the dioxins (the eco PRC) is
approximately 4.4'l0'i mg/kg (44 pg/g) or less"
¦Available online (via Denvation o( NOAEL-based toxicity reference value tor
RODS database). mammals in Sample et a/., 1996 (which summarizes several
toxicity studies, including the study by Murray et al (1979)).
Three-generation dietary sludy in rats, NOAEL of
0.000001 mg/kg-d for the reproductive endpoml. Total
uncertainty factor (UF) of 1 produced a toxicity reference value
(TRV) of 0.000001 mg/kg-d. Tier-1 average daily dose was
estimated as follows:
Tier-i ADD = (Cmj'T1-IRf)*(C^"IRi*Tl-IRe) where
C.oj ~ soil EPC (mg CO PC/kg soil dry weight)
TI-IRf = Tier-1 food ingestion rate (kg food dry weight/kg body
weight-d)
IRS = incidenial-ingestion rate for soil (% of food ingestion rate)
COPC = chemical of potential concern
3.9
May-08
c
c
130,000 '(mg/kg-d)'1
(SF„) .
i
AFRL (2008). ROD AFRL Soil and Debris
Sites OUs 4 and 9, Edwards AFB
(httbJ/www. eoa aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/futlte
xt/r2008090002438 odf).
USAF (2008), this ROD adopted the EPA Region 9
PRC-residential value of 3.9 ng/kg as the
remediation goal for dioxin. but indicated (hat
detected levels were not of concern.
^Available online (via !
jRODS database). j
1.2
300
Apr-95
Feb-01
Mor-99
Sep-03
i
i
i
i
i
DoA (1995), Fort Ord. QU 05. Marino
(httD://www.eoa.aov/suocrfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/rQ99Sl38.Ddf).
DOE (2001), Interim Site-Wide ROD for LLNL,
Site 300
fhttoJ/www. eoa aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fuflte
xt/rG901606.odf).
For 2.3.7.8- TCDD. adult residential scenano; PRG
taken from the Draft Final Technical Memorandum,
Preliminary Remediation Goals. Fori Ord. CA
(June 24. 1994). PRCs were developed per
procedures in the EPA Risk Assessment Guidance
for Supertund, Vols 1-2.
For2.3,7,0-TCDD, PRG for construction worker
scenario.
'.Available online (via Refers to PRGs derived in the Draft Final Technical :
JRODS database). 'Memorandum.Preliminary Remediation Goals, Fort Ord.
[However, the ^California (dated June 24, 19Q4), and Indicates they were f
'technical ^developed according to procedures in the EPA Risk I
memorandum was |Assessment. Guidelines for Superfund, Vols. 1 and 2. The I
mot found online. j specific equations and tO'icity value weie not found in the ROD j
27
c
For 2,3,7.8-TCDD TEQs, deanup standard at
building Q50 Firing Table area. The Region 9
industrial PRG was adopted as the cleanup
standard.
,AvaitabJe online (via See toxicity value basis information in the body of this report. ,
{RODS database). .
JNote Region 9 PRGs ,
,have since been ,
harmonized with
Regions 3 and 6
.screening levels.)
1,000
1.000
c
c
i
EPA (1999b). ROD. McCormick & Baxter
Creosoting Co., OU 01 and 03, Stockton
(hnoJ/www.eoa.oov/suoerfund/sites/rods/funte
xt/r0999044 pdf).
EPA 1998 OSWER directive (Approach for
Addressing Dioxin in Soil at CERCLA and RCRA
Sites) taken into account in deriving the cfeanup
standard.
^Available online (via [Concentration reflects OSWER directive (which is based on an }
!RODS database). evaluation by Kimbrough et al [1984) of a study by Kociba etal. '
I r, ;
i
i
i
EPA (2003g) ROD AMD. Selma Treating Co.
OU 1. Setma
fhtto/Avww eoa aov/sunertund/sites/mds/ft/llte
xt/a09030l6 odf).
For dioxin TEO. the actual concentration is unclear
because of a units/symbol issue. The 2003 ROD
amendment identifies a value for dioxins/furans
TEQ from the original (1988) ROD as '1 microgram
per kilogram (pg/kg)" - and then adjacent to this
entry identifies me value from the 2003 ESD as '1
pg/kg.' It is not clear if the more recent value is
intended lo also be 1 microgram/kg, or 1.000 ppt
(which seems more likety than 0.001 ppt). (Note
the 2003 update did change concentrations (or two
other contaminants)
^Available online (via .Concentration appears to reflect OSWER directive (which is
1 RODS database). \based on an evaluation by Kimbrough et al. [1964) of a study by .
[ Kociba et al. [1978]). '
November 2009
Page B-42
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
Soil
Cone
(PP<)
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Nature of Peer Transparency-
Rovlow Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
GM
(Guam)
4.5
Oct-08
130.000 (mg/kg-d)'
(SF.)
GEPA (2008)/HOOH (20003), Evaluation of
Environmental Hazards at Sites with
Contaminated Soil and Groundwater - Pacific
Basin Edition
(http //hawaii.qov/heaUh/environmental/hazard/
pdf/pbvotumelmar2009,pdfl;
Volume 2. Appendix t
(htipy/hawaii.QOv/healUVenvironmental/hazard/
pdt/pbvolume2app1 mar2009.pdf):
Volume 2. Appendices 2-9
(http://hawaii.Q0v/health/envir0nmentat/ha2ard/
odf/pbvolume2app2to9mar2Q09 odfl.
Calculations supported by spreadsheet at
HDOH (2008b). Evaluation of Environmental
Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater - Hawai i Edition
(http://www.hawa iidoh,orQ/references/HDOH%
2Q2008.pdf).
For dio»n TEQs, environmental screening levels
based on direct soil contact, 10* risk (except
construction/ trench worker. 10*4 risk per lower
exposure frequency and duration).
"Although prepared specifically For Guam EPA. the
use of well-accepted, US Environmental AQency
(USEPA) standards, models and protocols should
permit flexible use of the guidance throughout
tropical and subtropical areas of the Pacific Basin
region with little or no modification.' The
screening levels are based on slight modifications
to the USEPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation
Goals and more recent Regional Screening Levels
(USEPA 2004. 2008). The modifications as used in
Hawai'i have been discussed in detail with USEPA
Region IX. No adjustment of the HDOH Tier 2
screening levels is necessary for use in Guam and
other areas of the Pacific Basin.' (This updated
earlier guidance prepared for the Commonwealth
of the Mariana Islands DEO.
(See the AS entry where these values are first
discussed for further details, across all columns)
Unrestricted land use: 4.5 is the Tier 1
environmental screening level for shallow soil
(S3 m bgs).
Commercial/industrial land use, Tier 1
environmental screening level, for shallow soil
(£3 m bgs).
(See the AS entry where these values are first
discussed for further details.)
Construction/trench worker scenario. Tier 1
environmental screening level for deep soil (>3 m
bgs).
(See the AS entry where these values are first
discussed for further details.)
Equations are
provided in HDOH
(2008) Appendix 2.
adopted from the
2008 EPA RSL
documentation. The
slope factor was
taken from the EPA
RSL table. This
information is
available online.
Equations for calculating Tier 1 environmental screening levels
were taken from 2008 EPA RSL documentation, as was the
toxicity value. (For the basis, see the AS entry and discussion in
the body of this report)
Environmental screening level/RSL equations for the residential,
industrial, and trench worker scenarios consider ingestion,
dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. To simplify this
presentation, only the ingestion component is reflected below
because this pathway is the dominant contributor to (he total.
Unrestricted land use:
C,.» = IE*AI,
Reflects the slope factor
from the recently
harmonized EPA RSL table!
as a note, this value does
not reflect the most recent
scientific literature (e.g.. the
2004 NTP study).
See notes for parallel
entries for AS. NMI, and TT.
EF,x(CSF.»IFS.,» 1
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
Soil
Cone
(PPI)
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
NaturoofPcor Transparency*
Review Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
GM
(con! a)
42
1.400.000
(SF.)
(mg/kg-d)"
GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2003a) (cont'd.)
130.000
(SF.)
1.400.000
(SF.)
(mg/kg-d)*
(mg/kg-d)'
170-
1.800
130.000
450 ppt: Residential use not recommended in the
absence of remedial actions to reduce potential
exposure.
(See parallel AS entry for SF/update context.) .
For TCDD (TEQs). Tier 2 action levels for
commercial/industrial scenario:
<170 ppt: No action required.
(See parallel AS entry for lower bound context.)
170-1,800 ppt: "Vtfthin USEPA range of
acceptable health risk. Remedial actions vary
depending on site-specific factors, induding
current and planned use, available options for
onsite isolation or offsite disposal, and technical
and economical constraints."
>1,800 ppt: Commercial/industrial use not
recommended in the absence of remedial actions
to reduce potential exposure.
(See parallel AS entry for SF/update context.)
USAF (2007a). ROD for Sites 7, 16, 17. 37.
and 36, Northwest Field. Andersen AFB
(htto/Avww. eM.aov/suDerfurKl/sites/rods/fullte
>t/r2008090002420.odf)
For dioxin TEQ, cleanup /eve/, unrestricted use.
Cleanup level for removal action at Site 36; Value
reflects PRG for industrial use.
Document states "The cleanup level for dioxins in
surface soil ivas equivalent to Iff4 resident child
cancer risk ... Although the cleanup level for
TCDD- TEO tvas initially established to be
equivalent to 10* cancer risk, confirmation sample
results were below the residential PRG and were
therefore protective of iff* cancer risk. Risks to
human receptors (future resident adults and
children - the most conservative receptor
population) were reduced to acceptable risk levels,
allowing for unlimited use and unrestricted access
to the land. *
Equations are
provided in HDOH
(2008) Appendix 2,
adopted from the
2008 EPA RSL
documentation. Slope
i factors were taken
from EPA RSL tables
'and MNDOH (2003).
This information is
available online.
The SF of 1.400,000 (mg/kg-dj 'was used to generate a lower
bound, as described for AS.
The SF factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)'1 was taken from the 2008
EPA RSL table, lo derive the standard cleanup level.
As for Tier 1. Tier 2 equations for residential and industrial
scenarios consider ingestion, dermal, and inhalation routes of
exposure. To simplify this presentation, only the ingestion
component is reflected below because this pathway is the
dominant contributor.
Unrestricted (residential) land use:
C„. = I£»ATj
The standard cleanup level
reflects the slope factor from
the recently harmonized
EPA RSL table (2008.
updated in 2009).
EF,*(CSF0»'IFS*4* 10 kg/mg)
where:
TR = target risk. 10*
AT, = averaging time. 25.550 d
CSF. = 130,000 or 1,400,000 (mg/kfi-d)"'
EF, = exposure frequency, 350 d
IFSmi = res. soil ingestion rate, 114 mg-y/kg-d
i
Commercial/industrial land use:
Cr- = TR«AT.«BW.
EF.*ED.*(IRS8*CSF.* 10"* kg/mg)
.where:
jTR = target risk. 10"*
AT, = averaging time. 25.550 d
BW. = adult body weight, 70 kg
;EF. - occupational exp. frequency. 250 d/y
ED, = occupational exp. duration, 25 y
CSF. = 130.000 or 1.400,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
IRS. = occupational soil ing. rate, 100 mg/d
Available online (via '^Document refers to the 2007 risk assessment update to reflect
RODS database). imore recent values, including for the exposure calculation and
islope (actor, but specific information was not found. The ROD
[>discussion includes some more specific context (e.g., the child
[soil ingestion rate, which was considered to overestimate intake,
jkvas based on studies by Binder et al. f1986} and Clausing et al.
ill 987)j but the specific calculations with values were not
i included.
November 2009
Page B-44
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
Soil
Cone
(ppt>
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Nature of Peer Transparency-
Review Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
GM
(cont'd)
9 13
150,000 (mg/kg-d)''
USAF [2004}, ROD for Urunao Dumpsites 1
and 2. Urunao OU, Andersen AFB
(htto /Ayy/tv epa gov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
TCDD TEQ. For resident child, surface soil,
remedial goal objective (RGO) corresponding to
10* nsk level; considered 3.9 . based on .
xt/r0904002 Ddf)
For resident child, subsurface soil. RGO
corresponding to Iff* risk level.
The evaluation used this screening toxicity value
taken from USEPA Region IX Preliminary
Remediation Goals (PRGs) Table, USEPA.
November 2000'as a comparison value in
screening site soil concentrations.
Aug-07
USAF (2007a), ROD for Sites 7. 16, 17. 31,
end 36, Northwest Field, Andersen AFB
(htlp //www, epa Qov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2008090002420 odf).
For dioxin TEQ, cleanup level, unrestricted use.
Cleanup level for removal action at Site 36: Value
reflects PRG for industrial use. Document states
The cleanup level (ordioxins in surface soil was
equivalent to 104 resident child cancer risk ...
Although the cleanup level for TCDD-TEQ was
initially established to be equivalent to 10-4 cancer
risk, confirmation sample results were below the
residential PRG and were therefore protective of
10-6 cancer risk. Risks to human receptors (future
resident adults and children - the most
conservative receptor population) were reduced to
acceptable risk levels, allowing for unlimited use
and unrestricted access to the land"
Indicates cancer s/ope factor of) 50.000 per mg/kg-d: weight of
evidence cancer guideline description B2/respiratory and liver,
from HEAST (5/1/95). (Reflects earlier carcinogen classification.)
Ingestion intake = Conc*CR*EF*ED*CF
BW*AT
ivhere.
Intake- mg/kg-d •
,Conc = chemical concentration, mg/kg '
'EF - exposure frequency, 350 d/y
ED = exposure duration, 30 y
CR = ingestion rate. 100 mg/d
CF = conversion factor, 10' kg/rrrg
BW= body weight, 70 kg
AT = averaging time. 25.550 d
Available online (via \Document refers to the 2007 risk assessment update to reflect
RODS database). \more recent values, inciuding tor the exposure calculation and
Is/ope factor, but specific information was not found. The ROD
\discussion includes some more speafic context (e.g.. the child
soil ingestion rate, which was considered to overestimate intake,
! «ras based on studies by Binder et el. (1986} and Clausing et al.
*[1987}) but the specific calculations v/ith values were not
j;included.
I
Juty-02
J50.000 ! (mg/kg-d)'
(SF0)
USAF {2002a). Final ROD for Harmon Annex
OU, Andersen AFB
Ihtto/Zvosemite epa Qov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw nsf/
3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/1dca9
93480c9ecd788257205002bf8 le/SFILE/ander
sen%20RQD%20hormon%20annex Ddf).
Considered lor soil at IRP Site 39/Harmon
Substation. 1.000 ppt reflects OSWER directive;
Region 9 PRGs were also considered, 'Subsurface
soil exceeded the Region IX residential PRG
(0.003S vg/kg), but ivas /ess than the industrial
PRG (0.03 yg/kg). This TEQ concentration is
considerably lower than the subsurface dioxin
cleanup standard of 1.0 pg/kg established by the
USAF. GEPA, end the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) directive
(IT/OHM, 1999c), and no further action is required
Therefore, the area on the southwest comer of
Parcel A tvas not recommended (or remediation.'
I The sources cited lor the specific information thai would inform
this entry (e.g.. IT/OHM reports) have not been found online.
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
Soil
Cone
CppV
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Nature of Peer Transparency-
Review Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Rocent Science
HI
(cont'd.)
42
1/00.000 (mg/kg-d)''
(SF»)
HDOH (2008b), Evaluation of Environmental
Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater - Hawai'i Edition
(httpy/www.hawaiidoh.orQ/references/HDOH%
202008-PdQ:
HDOH (2006). Proposed dioxin action levels
for East Kapolei Brownfield Site
(httpV/hawaii Qov/health/environmental/hazard/
odf/dioxi nactionlevelsmarch2005.pdf):
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
42- 390 ppt
Residential/recreational, high risk. >390 ppt:
residential use not recommended absent remedial
actions to reduce potential exposure,
Process: determine area-wide background total
dioxins (e.g., across the 400-acre site as a whole).
If background is <42 ng/Vg, identify *hot spots* as
areas that exceed 42 ng/kg TEO dioxins. Evaluate
the feasibility of removing or capping soil to reduce
long-term exposure (see below). If background is
>42 but <390. identify 'hot spots* as areas that
exceed background and similarly evaluate the
feasibility of remove or capping soil. For areas that
exceed 42 ng/kg dioxins (2,3.7.8e-TCDD TEQ) but
are within background, recommended (but not
required) are exposure minimization measures and
notice to future homeowners of potential health
risks (e.g., include in CC&Rs, notice to deeds).
Industrial/commercial, low risk. <170 ppt; see
residential/recreational, low risk.
Industrial/commercial, intermediate risk.
170-1,600 ppt; see.residential/recreational,
intermediate risk.
Industrial/commercial, high risk. >1.600 ppt; see
residential/recreational, high risk.
Equations are
provided in HDOH
(2008) Appendix 2.
adopted from the
2008 EPA RSL
documentation.
rSlope factor* were
liaken from EPA RSL
;tables and MNDOH
;(2003). This
'information is
'available online.
The SF factor of 150,000 (mg/Vg-d)"' was taken from the Reflects slope factor
previous Region 9 PRGs (subsequently updated). The SF of undertyingfor previous PRG.
1.400.000 (mg/kg-d)'1. was used to generate a lower bound, as
described for AS.
As for the Tier 1 equations. Tier 2 equations for residential and
industrial scenarios consider ingestion, dermal, and inhalation
'routes of exposure. To simplify this presentation, the equation
for the dominant route, ingestion of carcinogenic contaminants in
residential soil, is provided below.
C,M = TR«ATr
(EF,*(CSF.*IFS«^»'10"a kg/mg)]
where:
TR = target risk. 10"*
ATr = averaging lime. 25,550 d
CSF, = 150.000 or 1,400.000 (mg/kg-
-------
TABLE B. 9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Regions
State
Soil
Cone
(Ppt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency- * i 4-n n i ' Incorporation of Most
_ , Scientific Basis _
Review Public Availability . Recent Science
HI
(cont'd.)
4
2006
(2004)
Easthope {2006), AT SDR 1.000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(htto/Avww tnvnews neVDccumenis/TRW/Rea
uest%20t0%20atsdr%?0io%20darifv%20l000
pot odf): lists same values identified in: EC
(2004). Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in Other
States, cited in table available via
Tittabawassee River Watch News
(hnoSAvww tnvnews netAmaaes/StateCleanuD
2006 PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information is Basis not provided.
available via the
webltnks of left, with
neither the derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
NMI
(North'n
Mariana
Islands)
4.5
18
1,500
Oct-08
c
130,000 (mg/kg-d)'1
3 m
bgs). (See AS where these values are first
discussed for further details.) (Field input indicatec
this update from the previous value of 2.000 ppt
identified from HDOH (2005).)
Equations are Based on recent Guam EPA guidance; as described for AS. See notes for parallel
provided in HDOH Equations for calculating Tier 1 ESLs and the toxicity value were entries for AS, GM. and TT.
j(2008) Appendix 2, Jtaken from 200B EPA RSL documentation. See GM entty for
[adopted from the ispedfic environmental screening level equations. Regarding
[2008 EPA RSL Idirect exposure: text indicates dioxins are not considered
'documentation. The (significantly mobile in soil due to their strong sorption to organic
Islope factor was 'carbon and day partides. so consideration of soil leaching
Itaken from the EPA 'hazards was not needed. Also notes: "The 2008 U.S. j
jRSL table. This , Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Regional Screening j
'information is } Levels (RSLs; USEPA 2008a) replace Preliminary Remediation i
available online. JGoa/s (PRGs) previously published by individual regions. This |
I jindudes PRGs published by USEPA Region IX (USEPA 2004)
! 'and referenced in pre-2008 editions of the CNMI and HDOH
! guidance documents.'
;The slope factor of 130.000 (mg/kg-d)"1 was taken from the 2008j
! EPA RSL table, based on the CalEPA value, maximum '
likelihood estimate (MLE) and linearized 95% upper confidence
value (UCL) using animal data (NTP 1980a. 1982a) converted to
equivalent human exposures per scaling factors. Assumptions I
from CalEPA indude: oral and inhalation routes are equivalent. '
air concentration assumed to be daily oral dose, route of
exposure does not affed absorption, and no difference in
metabolism/ pharmacokinetics between animals and humans.
Total weekly dose levels were averaged over the week to get a
daily dose level; this assumes daily dosing in NTP studies would
have given the same results as the actual twice weekly dosing
schedule (because the TCDD halMife is relatively long, both
schedules should give similar tissue concentrations).
| I
November 2009
Page B-47
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Oioxin in Soil: Region 9
Soil
End-
Toxicity Reference
Value
Evaluation Criteria
Stato
Cone
(ppV
Date
point
Basis
Information Source
Context Notes
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis I Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
NMI
(cont'd.)
42
Oct-08
c
1,400.000 ; (mg/kg-d)'1
(SF.) ,
GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008a) (cont'd.)
Dioxin TEOs. Tier 2 action levels, direct contact.
10"4 risk; especially intended for redevelopment of
former agricultural fields but apply to any site.
These are guidelines rattier than strict, regulatory,
cleanup requirements, and alternate values can be
proposed in site-specific assessments. (See AS
where these values are first discussed for further
details.) Unrestricted (residential) use: <42 ppt:
No action required.
(See parallel AS entry for lower bound context.)
42-450 ppt: "Within USEPA range of acceptable
health risk. Consider removal and offsite disposal
of localized spill areas when possible in order to
reduce potential exposure (not required lor large,
former field areas).*
The action level of 42 ppt was derived using the basic i
calculation in the HDOH (2008b) spreadsheet, with the target 1
risk level updated from 10"* to 10"*.
The SF of 1.400.000 (mg/kg-d)'1 was used to generate a lower
bound, as described for AS (and GM). See Guam entry in this
table for the equations used to calculate action levels.
1 (
i !
i 1
450
130,000 ((mg/kg-d)"1
(SF.)
>450 ppt: Residential uso not recommended in the
absence of remedial actions to reduce potential
exposure. (See AS for SF context.)
iAs above, using the SF. from the recently harmonized 2008 1
1EPA RSL; updates the previous Tier 2 action level of 390 ppt,
iper the previous RSL SF, . 150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1. J
170
1.400,000 '(mg/kg-d)"'
(SF.) ;
I
For TCDD (TEQs), Tier 2 action levels,
commercial/industrial scenario:
'Same approach as (or the 42 ppt action level above: the SF of
*1.400,000 (mg/kg-d)'1 was used to generate a lower bound. '
<170 ppt: No action required.
(See parallel AS entry for lower bound context.)
J
170-
1,800
i
170-1.800 ppt: "\Mthin USEPA range of
acceptable health risk. Remedial actions vary
depending on site-specific factors, including
current and planned use, available options for
onsite isolation or offsite disposal, and technical
and economical constraints.*
i !
i I
i i
1,800
130.000 | (mgAg-d)*'
(SF.) j
>1.800 ppt: Commercial/industrial use not
recommended in absence of remedial actions to
reduce potential exposure.
(See parallel AS entry for SF/update context)
'As above, using SF. of 130.000 (mg/kg-d)'1 from the recently 1
harmonized 2008 EPA RSL: updates the previous Tier 2 level of >
! 1,600 ppt. which reflected the previous SF,. 150.000 (mg/kg-d) j
November 2009
Page B-48
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
Soil
Cone
(ppt)
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Rcforence
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Nature of Peer . Transparency-
Review Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
3.9
150.000 (mgJkg-d)'1
-
2,3.7.8-TCDD. residential soil. (Values designed
for use at the BMI Complex and Common Areas in
Henderson, NV.) Identifies HEAST as the source
of the toxicity value.
2.3.7.&-TCDD, for industrial/commercial worker
(outdoor).
2.3.7,8-TCDD. for industrial indoor worker without
dermal exposure.
Former HEAST
tables not available;
equations used to
identify comparison
levels for residential
and industrial
scenarios are
available online.
Toxicity value cites (former) EPA HEAST. no date indicated.
Residential scenario: ingestion of carcinogenic contaminants in
soil (driving pathway):
CL = TR»AT
CSFo>10<»EF«IFS.,
where:
CL = comparison level, mg/kg
TR = target risk. 10"®
AT = averaging time, 25,550 d
CSF, = 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"'
EF = exposure frequency, 350 d
IFS.d, = adjusted soil ingestion, 114 mg-y/kg-d
Industrial/commercial scenario, outdoor worker ingestion of
carcinogenic contaminants in soil:
CL = TR*AT»BW,
EF„»ED.*(IRS.*CSF.*10"'kg/mg)
where:
TR = target risk, 10"8
AT = averaging time. 25,550 d
BW, = adult body weight, 70 kg
EF. = occupational exp. frequency. 250 d/y
ED. = occupational exp. duration. 25 y
CSF0 = 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
IRS* = industrial outdoor worker soil ingestion
rate. 100 mg/d
Industrial scenario, indoor worker: ingestion of carcinogenic
contaminants:
CL = TR»AT»BW.
! EFo«ED„*(IRS.*CSF.*10"akg/mg)
where:
TR = target risk, 10"*
AT = averaging time, 25.550 d
8W» = adult body weight. 70 kg
EF0 = occupational exp. frequency. 250 d/y
ED, = occupational exp. duration, 25 y
CSF. = 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
IRSo = indoor worker soil ingestion rate. 50 mg/d
November 2009
Page B-49
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Oioxln in Soil: Region 9
Soil
Cone
(PPl)
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Nature of Peer Transparency-
Review Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
NV
(cont'd.)
2006
(2004)
Easihope (2006), ATSDR 1.000pptdioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(hRpJAvwn.trwnevrs net/Documents/TRW/Rea
Basis not provided.
ue$t%20to%20atsdr%20to%20darifv%201000
ppt.odf): lists same values identified in: EC
(2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in Other
States, cited in table available via
Tittabaw-assee River Watch News
(httoVAwAv.trwnev/s net/imaaes/StateCleanup
2006.PDF).
Limited information is Basis not provided.
available via the
webtinks at left, ivith
neither the derivation
methodology nor
basis cf underlying
toxicity values
TT
(Trust
Terri-
tories)
130,000
(SF0)
(mg/>cg-d)"
GEPA (2008VHDOH (2008a), Evaluation of
Environmental Hazards at Sites with
Contaminated Soil and Groundwater - Pacific
Basin Edition
(http://hawaii.QQv/health/environmental/hazard/
pdf/pbvolume1mar2009.pd0:
(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmentat/hazard/
pdf/pbvolume2aoDlmar2009.pdfl:
(http://hawaii.QQv/health/environmentat/hazard/
pdf/pbvolume2app2to9mar2009.pdn:
18
1,500
(Field feedback for TT during the review phase
indicated soil deanup levels are determined on a
site-specific basis. Other online information
suggests the context summarized for AS may be
considered, so that information is offered here for
context.)
The environmental screening levels (ESLs) are
based on slight modifications to the USEPA
Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goats and
more recent Regional Screening Levels (USEPA
2004. 2008). The modifications as used in Hawai'i
have been discussed in detail with USEPA Region
IX No adjustment of the HDOH Tier 2 screening
levels is necessary for use in Guam and other
areas of the Pacific Basin.'
Guam EPA (2008) updated the earlier guidance
prepared for the Commonwealth of the Mariana
Islands, OEQ. Although not specifically prepared
for TT. the document states, 'Although prepared
specifically for Guam EPA, the use of weO-
accepted. US Environmental Agency (USEPA)
standards, models and protocols should permit
flexible use of the guidance throughout tropical and
subtropical areas of the Pacific Basin region with
little or no modification.*
For 2.3.7,8-TCDD. Tier 1 ESL, residential scenario
for shallow soil (S3 m, below ground surface, bgs)
is 4.5 ppt.
For 2.3,7,8-TCDD, Tier 1 ESL, industrial scenario.
shaDow soil (£3 m bgs).
Toxicity values, and
equations used to
derive Tier 1
environmental
screening levels for
different exposure
scenarios are
available online in the
HDOH document
Equations for calculating Tier 1 ESLs were taken from 2008 EPA As a note, the AS. GM. HI,
RSLs. as was the toxicity value.
See parallel entries for AS and GM for further details.
NMI. and TT values appear
to reflect a similar approach
as that for the EPA 2008
RSLs. As for many relatively
recent values, the toxicity
value reflected is more
[current than others; it is
'adopted from the 2006 EPA
iRSLs, which reflects more
.recent data than Kociba et
al. (1978) but not even more
recent scientific data (such
as the 2004 NTP study):
Tier 2 levels incorporate the
drafl slope factor from
MNDOH (2003), which
'reflects the upper bound
'from bioassay data based
ion the earlier study by
;Kociba et al. (1978) (taken
;from the range of values
given in the EPA 2003
reassessment, rather than
the recommended value
(upper bound from
epidemiological data).
For 2.3,7.8-TCDD. Tier 1 ESL. construction/trench
worker scenarios, deep soil (>3 m bgs).
November 2009
Page fl-50
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
State
Soil
Cone
(PP*)
Oate
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Roforonco
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency- « . ._ _ . Incorporation of Most
Review Public Availability bcientilic Basis Recent Science
TT
(cont'd.)
42
450
170
170-
1,800
1,800
Oct-08
c
1,400.000 (mg/kg-d)'1
(SF 0)
130,000 (mg/kg-d)''
(SF.)
1,400.000 (mg/kg-d)'1
(SF.)
130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
(SF 0)
GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008a), Evaluation of
Environmental Hazards at Sites with
Contaminated Soil and Groundwater - Pacific
Basin Edition
fhtiD'/Aiawaii.aov/health/environmental/hazard/
odf/obvofume 1 mar2009.od0:
fhttD://hawaii.aov/health/environmental/hazard/
Ddf/Dbvolume?aoo?to9mar2009.Ddfl see
Appendix 8:
HDOH (2006). Proposed dioxin action levels
for East Kapolei Brownfield Site
rhttD7/hawaii.oov/healih/environmental/hazard/
odf/dioxinactionleve!smarch2005.Ddfl.
(See the AS entry where these values are first
discussed for further details, across atl columns.)
In addition to the Tier 1 ESU values, HDOH
established Tier 2 action levels primarily to guide
remedial actions for former agricultural fields. They
do not serve as stria regulatory deanup
requirements. Values were initially proposed in
2006 document but updated in 2008 to reflect most
recent (oncological data from EPA RSLs.
Tier 2 action levels for TCOO (TEQs), residential
scenario:
<42 ppt: No action required.
42-450 ppt; Removal and offsite disposal of small,
easily identifiable hot spots recommended.
Consider other measures to reduce daily exposure
to soil. For new developments, notify future
homeowners of elevated levels of dioxin on the
property.
(See parallel AS entry for lower bound context)
>450 ppt: Residential use not recommended in
absence of remedial actions to reduce potential
exposure.
(See parallel AS entry for SF/update context.)
For TCDD (TEQs), Tier 2 action levels, industrial
scenario: <170 ppt; No action required.
(See parallel AS entry for lower bound context.)
170-1,800 ppt: "Within USEPA range of acceptable
health risk. Remedial actions vary depending on
sita-specific factors, including current and planned
use, available options foronsite isolation or offsite
disposal, and technical and economical
constraints."
>1,800 ppt; Commercial/industrial use not
recommended in absence of remedial actions to
reduce potential exposure.
(See parallel AS entry for SF/update context.)
Equations are • The SF ol 1,400.000 (mg/kg-d)'1, which was proposed several ' As described above, does
provided in years ago by MNDOH (2003) (derived from Kodba et al. nol reflect more recent
Appendix 2 of the ! (1978]). was used to generate a lower bound. scientific data (such as the
2008 document. The factQr Qf 130 qqq (mg/kg_d)-1 jS from the current 2004 NTP stucW'
adopted from the ¦ ERA RSL lab)e
2008 Regional EPA
RSLs. Slope : See the Guam entry for the equations used to calculate
factors were taken intakefdose.
from the EPA RSL '
tables (current
value) and MNDOH ,
(2003) proposed
value. This
information is
available online.
I J See the AS entry where these values are first discussed for '
! further details. I
1 '
' i !
: i i
: !
1 '
! I
j ;
November 2009
Page B-51
-------
TABLE B. 10 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 10
State
Soli
Cone
(PPO
Date
End.
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency- c^uniin* r*«i Incorporation of Most
Review Public Availability bctemmc oasis Recent Science
AK
38
Jun-08
Jan-04
c
150,000
(SF.)
(mg/kg-d)"1
ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response.
Contaminated Sites Program (2008a), Cleanup
Levels Guidance
fhttD://www.dec.state.ak.us/SDar/csD/Quidance/de
anuplevels.pdfl:
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD based on direct contact
with soil, exposure frequency 330 d/y.
Document does jEqualions/taDles for Jused EPA standards for exposure frequency and developed
not mention any {each element of the 'AK-specific soil parameters for equations. Equation used for
intra-agency or 'cleanup level 'dioxin in residential soil:
external review, Equation are given in q, _ TR*AT*365d/v
•the ADEC .
EPA documents referred to
range from 1996-2004.
47
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD based on direct contact
with soil, exposure frequency 270 d/y.
63
ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response.
Contaminated Sites Program (2008b). Cumulative
Risk Guidance
(httD://ddoe.dc.aov/ddoe/lib/ddoe/Riaas Remedv
94.pd0.
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD based on direct contact
with soil, exposure frequency 200 d/y.
documentation, which
is available online.
EFkSF.xIF.01^,-10^ kg/mg
where:
CL = cleanup level, mg/kg
TR = target cancer risk. 10"4
AT = averaging time, 70 y
EF = exposure frequency, Arctic zone 200 d/y. under 40 inch
zone 270 d/y. and over 40 inch zone 330 d/y
SF. = oral slope factor, 150,000 {mg/kg-d)"1
IFm4*4= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor. 114 (mg-y/kg-d)'1
c
ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response
(2004), Dioxin and the Hairtes-Ataska Pipeline
fhtto://www dec.state ak.us/soar/cso/doc&/hfD/hfD
dioxin factsh 1 04.odfl.
Residential scenario, for dioxins; used
Region 9 PRGs.
440
Jun-03
Jul-96
c
EPA (2003d), ESD. OU 01, Ajctic Surplus.
Fairbanks
(htto/Avww.eoa.aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fuUtext/e
1003009. Ddf)-
EPA (2008d) First Five Year Review Report for
Arctic Surplus Salvage Yard Superlund Site.
Fairbanks
tMoJ/vosemite eoa oov/nO/CLEANJP.NSF/sites/
rivevrfSFll.£/Arctic%20SurDtus%20First%20l2180
dpdf).
Industrial scenario (or dioxins. Did not alter
1995 ROD: value reflects risk-based
concentration (RBC) lor I0"5 risk level.
Available online
(PODS datat>ase).
0.4
c
EPA (I996d), ROD, OU 01. Standard Steel and
Metal Salvage Yard (USDOT). Anchorage
fhtto //www.eoa.aov/suoerfund/sites/rod$flullte*t/r
1096141 nOD-
USACE, (2008) Second Five-Year Revien Report
for Standard Steel and Metal Salvage Yard
(USDOT). Anchorage
IhttoJ/www.eoa oov/suoerfund/sites/fivevear/f200
8100002158 odf).
Residential scenario screening value for
2,3.7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalent (TEQ), 10*
risk level. Five-year reviews have not
indicated any change to the cleanup level.
'Available online !
(RODS database). \
November 2009
Page B-52
-------
TABLE B.10 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 10
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Valuo
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency* . . _ . Incorporation of Most
Review Public Availability oerentmc oasis Rocent Science
ID
1.000
Mar-03
Aug-02
c
EPA (2003c). ESD, OU 03. Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory (USDOE), Idaho Falls
(httDJ/wvnv eoaaov/suDertund/sites/rods/tuilteKt/e
1003133 Ddf):
USDOE (2007). Five Year Review of CERCLA
Response Actions at the INL
(httoJ/vosemite.eoa aov/rl O/CLEANUP.NSF/sites/
INEEUiFILE/DOE-NE-ID-1120l-R3.odO.
Fordioxins. based on EPA 1998 OSWER
directrve.
Available online The Kimbrough el al. (1984) evaluation of Kociba et al. (1978)
(RODS database). underlies the OSWER value.
1.000
5,000-
20.000
c
EPA (2006), Poles, Incorporated Integrated
Assessment
(htto //vosemite eoa.oovAR10/CLEANUP.NSF/9f3c
2l896330b4898825687b007a0f33/434a255cbae5
?17d88?56b560065cb04 ?OoenDocument).
EPA (2002), Poles Incorporated Dioxin/Furan
Sampling, Surface Soil Samples Analytical
Results Summary, Oldtown
(hUD-J/vosemite eoa aov/R10/CLEANUPNSF/9f3c
21896330t>4898825687b007a0f33/434o255cbae5
217dB8256b560065cb04/SFlLE/Soil%20Resulls.P
QD
Residential scenario, lor 2,3,7,8-TCDD 750;
EPA OSWER PRGs: based on dioxin
screening of surface soil samples from a
residential area nearby Poles Inc. and Idaho
Hill Elementary School in Oldtown
Industrial scenano. for 2.3,7.8-TCDD TEQ:
per EPA OSWER PRCs based on dioxin
screening of surface soil samples taken from
Poles Inc. in Oldtown.
Available online The Kimbrough ei al. (1984) evaluation of Kociba etal. (1978)
(RODS database) underlies the OSWER value.
November 2009
Page B-53
-------
TABLE B.10 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 10
Soil
Cone
(P&)
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Nature of Peer Transparency-
Revlow Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
May-05
3.9
10
Se|>-03
130
3,700
17
29
ORDEQ (2005). Pre-Calculated Hot Spot Look-Up
Tables
(http://www.deq. state, or. us/lq/pubs/docs/cu/PreCa
ICulatedHolSpotLooKupT aMes.pdn.
RBC for 2.3.7.8-TCDD. residential scenario
for exposure by ingestion, inhalation of
vapors/particulates, and dermal contact
RBC for 2.3.7.8-TCDD; industrial scenario for
exposure by ingestion, inhalation of
vapors/particulates. and dermal contact
Acceptable risk level calculated using EPA Region 9 PRG
equation:
,PRG =
' TR«AT
EF((IFS^*SF,>'CF)+(SFS^*ABS*SF.*CF)+(lnhF^*SF4)/PEF]
TR = target cancer risk. 10"*
AT, = averaging time. 25.550 d
EF, e exposure frequency, 350 d/y
IFS«4= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,
114 (mg-y/kg-d)'1
SF.j3 oral and inhalation slope factor. 150.000 (mg/kg-d)'1
CF = 10"* kg/mg
SFS»d) - soil dermal contact factor. 361 mg-y/kg-d
ABS = dermal absorption fraction. 0.03
InhF,^ = 11 (m3-y/kg-d)
PEF = particulate emission factor, 1.316*10*
ORDEQ (2003), Risk-Based Decision Making for
the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites
(http://www.deq. siate.or.us/lQfoubs/docs/RBDMG
RBC for 2.3.7.8-TCDD; residential: direct
contact via ingestion, dermal, or inhalation.
uidance.pdf): values from ORDEQ (2008). Risk
Based Concentrations
(hnp://www.deq.siate.or.us/lQ/pubs/docs/RBOMTa
ble.odf).
RBC for 2.3.7.8-TCDD; urban residential;
direct contact via ingestion, dermal, or
inhalation.
RBC for 2.3.7.8-TCDD; occupational; direct
contact via ingestion, dermal, or inhalation.
RBC for 2.3.7,8-TCDD; construction; direct
contact via ingestion, dermal, or inhalation.
Substantial
revisions made
in 2003 with
input from TPH
Generic Remedy
Work Group
along with DEQ
employees.
Equations used for
the derivation can be
found online in the
ORDEO (2003)
document for the
remediation of
petroleum-
contaminated sites
(Appendix B).
Equations are from 1995-2000; revisions made in 2003.
Calculations are based on cancer risk of 10"*.
Document cites (DEQ. 2000);
(EPA. 1996a); (ASTM 1995);
jMott (1995); Mariner et al.
(1997); and Park and San
jjuan (2000) as the basis for
I the equations provided.
RBC for 2.3.7.8-TCDD; excavation; direct
contact via ingestion, dermal, or inhalation.
RBC for 2.3,7,8-TCDD; residential; leaching
to groundwater.
RBC for 2.3.7.8-TCDD; urban residential:
leaching to groundwater. •
RBC for 2,3.7.8-TCDD; occupational;
leaching to groundwater.
Apr-01
130.000 (mg/kg-d)"'
(SF0) .
ORDEQ (2001). Quality Assurance Policy
(http://www.deQ.state.or.us/lQ/pubs/docs/cu/Clean
upProQramQualitYAssurancePolicv.pdfl:
values from; EPA (2009), Regional Screening
Level Table
(http://www.epa.QQv/reQion09/suDerfund/prg/pdf/m
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD. residential scenario; used
Region 9 PRGs.
For 2.3.7.8-TCDD. industrial scenario; used
Region 9 PRGs.
aster si table run APRIL2009.Pdn.
November 2009
Page B-S4
-------
TABLE B. 10 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 10
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Nature of Peer Transparency-
Review Public Availability
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1.000 ppt dioxin soil
standard• Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(httoJAvww tnvnews iiet/Documents/TRW/ReQues
Basis not provided.
t%20to%20atSdr%20to%20clarifv%2Q1000oot.Ddf
); lists same values identified in: EC (2004),
Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in Other States, citetJ
in table available via Tittabawa&see River Watch
(TRW) News.
(htlo'Jtoww.tn.vnei.vs i)et/irnaae$/StateClean(JD20Q
6 PDF).
Limited information is Basis not provided
available via the
weblinks at left, with
neither the denvation ;
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1
(SF.)
WADEC (2009). Cleanup Levels and Risk
Calculations
(https//fortress, wa.QQv/ecY/clarc/ReportinQ/CLAR
CReporiinq.aspx).
Unrestricted scenario, for 2,3,7.8-TCDD;
Method B. Carcinogen, Standard Formula
Value, Direct Contact (ingestion only);
Cleanup Levels and Risk Calculation
(CLARC) tool, a searchable database
developed and maintained by the WA
Department of Ecology.
Industrial scenario, for2,3.7.8-TCDD:
Method C, Carcinogen, Standard Formula
Value, Direct Contact (ingestion only);
CLARC tool, a searchable database
developed and maintained by the WA
Department of Ecology.
"Although "CLARC includes
CLARC has technical information
undergone related to the
review to ensure establishment of
the quality of the cleanup levels under
information the Model Toxics
provided, there is Control Act Cleanup
no assurance jRegulation,
that CLARC is ^chapter 173-340
free from errors." lWAC."
t
SCL = (RISK*ABW»AT»UCF)
(CPF*SlR*ABj*ED*EF)
where:
SCL = soil deanup level, mg/kg
RISK - acceptable cancer risk level. 1 in 1.000.000
ABW = average body weight over the exposure duration. 16kg
AT = averaging time, 75 y
~UCF = unit conversion factor. 1.000,000 mg/Xg •
|CPF =cardnogenic potency factor as defined in WAC 173-340-J
i 708(8) I
ISIR - soil ingestion rate, 200mg/d I
•ABi = gastrointestinal absorption fraction, 1.0 !
'ED » exposure duration, 6 y )
,EF = exposure frequency, 1.0 !
2006
(2004)
WADEC (1998). Fact Sheet: Controlling Metals
and Dioxins in Fertilizers
fhlto://www.ecv.wa.QQv/news/1998news/fert.html).
Used as a final deanup level for dioxins but it
is possible that a higher deanup level could
be used if there are no exposure pathways or
the existing pathways have been mitigated.
This level was established by Model Toxics
Control Act (MTCA) Method B Residential
Soil Standard from the MTCA.
Residential scenario for direct exposure via
ingestion of dioxins; screening level, adopted
per ATSDR (these levels are used as screens
to trigger a more comprehensive, sito-spcafic
evaluation of potential human exposure).
i
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1.000ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(hnp/Avww tnvnews net/Documents/TRW/Reaues
Basis not provided.
(%20to%20atsdr%20to%20ctarifv%201000DDt pdf
); lists same values identified in: EC (2004),
Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in Other States, cited
in table available via Tittabawassee Rjver Watch
(TRW) News.
fhtto /Aviwy tnvnews netfmaaes/StateCleanuo200
6 PDF)
Limited information is Basis not provided.
available via the
weblinks at left, with .
neither the derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Sep-03
EPA (2003f), Final ROD, OU 10, Oeser Company
Superfund Site Remedial Action. Belbngham,
(httoVAvmv eoa aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte>t/r
1003135pdf).
Site-spear/c cleanup level for 2,3.7,8-TCDD
TEQ. derived from WA Dept. of Ecology.
MTCA Method C for industrial scenario, Iff*
risk level
Available online
(RODS database).
November 2009
Page B-55
-------
TABLE B.10 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 10
State
Soil
Cone
(ppt)
Date
End-
point
Basts
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency- _ Incorporation of Most
Review Public Availability c en c s s Recent Science
107.7
6.67
Feb-00
c
[
EPA (2000). Wyckoff CoJEagte Harbor Superfund
Site. Soil ana Groundwater Operable Units,
Bainbndge Island. OU 02.04
(httoJA,i'ww.eDa.oov/suoerfund/sites/rods/(ulltext/r
100004 7 odf):
USACE (2007). Second Five-Year Review Report
for the WyckoffJEagle Hartor Superfund Site.
Bainbndge Island. Kitasp County
(htto /fwww ena CMv/suMirfimri/*utf!'rfivevear/f?0O
7100001727 odf).
Residential scenario lor 2,3.7,8-TCDD toxicity
equivalency (actor (TEF), reasonable
maximum exposure (RME), 2.52 x lCf*cancer
risk from EPA (1994b).
Soil deanup levels in the ROD were based on
MTCA method B TEO calculations The
second five-year report concludes that the
minor changes in the basis (or TEO
calculations ivouW not significantly change
the level of protectiveness. The only changes
made were for other dioxin compounds (not
2.3,7.8-TCDD).
Soil deanup level for 2,3.7,6- TCDD TEO.
Available online Equation for ingestion for RME exposure:
(RODS database). tF^adj (mg-y/kg-d) = )
(l.nSaoe 1-6 x D—1-6) * (1^ 7-31 x D.^7-31)
(W^.1-6) (Wtgt7-31)
where:
IF^Jadj = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor (114 mg-y/kg-d)
W^,1-6 s average body vieight from ages (rvm 1-6 (15 kg)
Wt9,7-31 = average body weight from ages from 7-31 (70 kg) ]
O.p.t-6 = exposure duration during ages 1-6 (6 y)
Dtg*7-3l = exposuiv duration during ages 7-31 (24 y)
¦.It+Zage 1-6 = ingestion rate of soil ages 1-6 (200 mgfd) .
i 7-31 = ingestion rate of soil all overages (100 mg/d) {
! |Equation based on data from EPA (1987) and Van den 8erg el |
! 'a/. (1998 & 2005). |
WA
(cont'd)
A
270
Sep-97
c
i
j
EPA (1997b), ROD. OU 01. Old Navy
Dump/Manchester Laboratory (USEPA/NOAA),
Manchester
(httoJ/www eoaaov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r
1097201 odf):
USACE (2004). First Five-Year Review Report tor
Manchester Annex Superfund Site, Kitsap County
fhtto://www eoa aov/suoerfund/sites/rivev6arrt04-
10009 odf).
Landfill screening level, for 2,3,7.8-TCDD.
1O* cancer risk. MTCA Method C for
industrial scenario.
Cleanup level for dioxins.
Available online
(RODS database).
Industrial equation for carcinogenic effects of hazardous j
substances due to ingestion:
Soildeanuo level = RISK * ABW * AT * UCF '
CPF • SIR " ABI'x ED - EF |
wftene;
RISK = acceptable cancer risk level, 1 in 100.000
ABW- average body weight over exposure duration. 70 kg
AT - averaging time, 75 y
UCF = unit conversion factor. Iff mg/kg
CPF = carcinogenic potency factor !
SIR = soil ingestion rate. 50 mg/d ;
ABI - gastrointestinal absorption fraction, 0.1
i
ED = exposure duration. 20 y ;
EF = exposure frequency. 0.4 !
6.7
Jul-94
i
EPA (1994c). ROD. OU 02, Naval Air Station.
Whidbey Island (Ault Field)
(httoV/v.'ww.eoa.Qov/suDerfijnd/sites/rods/fulltext/r
1094077 odf):
DoN (2004). Final Five-Year Review Operable
Units 1 through 5 Naval Air Station. Whidbey
Island. Oak Harbor
fhtto:/fwww.eoa.aovfsuoerfund/sites/fivevearff04'
10003 odf).
Residential scenario (or dioxin: 10* risk level.
Neither five-year review mention any changes
in dioxin levels.
Available online
(RODS database).
i
400
200
May-93
,
EPA (1993c), ROD. OU 01, EPA Superfund
Record of Decision: American Crossarm 4
Conduit Co.. Chehalis
thttoJAvww.eoa.oov/suDerlijrtd/sites/rods/fulltext/r
1093060. odf):
EPA (2004g). Second Five-Year Review Report
for American Crossarm A Conduit Co. Superfund
Site. Chehalis
(httoJ/www eoa aov/svoerfund/sites/hvevearflOt*
Residential scenario (or incidental soil
ingestion for dioxin. RME, calculated over a
lifetime (75 y). upper-bound 95" percentile,
Region 10 assumptions.
Neither five-year review mention any changes
in dioxirxontaminated soil.
Industrial scenario for dioxin: RME (or landfill.
' Available online
(RODS database). ',
| j |
' > i
• i
; !
2.000
industrial scenario for dioxin: RME (or mill,
industrial scenario for dioxin: RME (or
treatment areas.
50,000
10004 odf).
November 2009
Page B-56
-------
B.2 REFERENCES
ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation), 2004, Dioxin and the Haines-
Alaska Pipeline, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Contaminated Sites
Program (Jan.); http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/docs/hfp/hfpdioxin factsh 1 04.pdf.
ADEC, 2008a, Cleanup Levels Guidance, Division of Spill Prevention and Response,
Contaminated Sites Program (June 9);
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/quidance/cleanuplevels.pdf.
ADEC, 2008b, Cumulative Risk Guidance, Division of Spill Prevention and Response,
Contaminated Sites Program (June 9);
http://ddoe.dc.gov/ddoe/lib/ddoe/Riqas Remedy 94.pdf.
ADEM (Alabama Department of Environmental Management), 2008, Alabama Risk Based
Corrective Action Guidance Manual', weblink from summer 2009 compilation effort:
http://www.adem.state.al.us/landDivision/Guidance/ARBCAFinalJune07.pdf: November
2009: that link is no longer viable; see
http://www.adem.state.al.us/LandDivision/Guidance/ARBCAApril2008final.pdf.
. ADHS (Arizona Department of Heaith Sciences), 1999, Deterministic Risk Assessment
Guidance, (March 15); http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/oeh/pdf/quidance.pdf.
AFRL (Air Force Research Laboratory), 2008, Record of Decision Air Force Research
Laboratory Soil and Debris Sites Operable Units 4 and 9, Edwards Air Force Base,
CA1570024504, Kern and San Bernardino Counties, CA, (May);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008090002438.pdf.
Anderson, M., (2009), Dioxin Clean-up Goal in Soil-State of Indiana, personal communication
from M. Anderson (IDEM, Indianapolis, IN) to M. Mangino (EPA Region 5, Chicago, IL)
(June 19).
APEC (Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission), 2008, Regulation No. 23,
Hazardous Waste Management (April 25);
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/regs/files/req23 final 080526.pdf.
ARDEQ (Arkansas Department, of Environmental Quality), 2009a, Arkansas Corrective Action
Strategy, Hazardous Waste Division-Technical Branch;
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/hazwaste/branch tech/risk assessment.htm.
ARDEQ, 2009b, Hazardous Waste Division-Technical Branch;
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/hazwaste/branch tech/cas.htm#CAS.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), 1995, Standard Guide for Risk-Based
Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI:
10.1520/E1739-95R02.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 1998 (2008b), Toxicological
Profile for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS), Atlanta, GA (Dec.) http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp104.pdf;
Appendix B (policy guideline) updated Sept. 2008.
ATSDR, 2005, Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual, DHHS, Atlanta, GA;
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHAmanual/index.html.
ATSDR, 2008a, Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs), DHHS, Atlanta, GA (Dec.);
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls (identifies 1998 as date of final (extant) dioxin MRL)
ATSDR, 2008b, Update to the ATSDR Policy Guideline for Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds
in Residential Soil, DHHS, Atlanta, GA (Oct. 15, 73 Federal Register [FR] 61:133; with
minor editorial update Nov. 28, 73 FR 72:484);
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/dioxin/policv/Dioxin Policy Guidelines.pdf.
November 2009
Page B-57
-------
AZDEQ (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality), 2007, Title 18. Environmental Quality
Chapter 7. Remedial Action, (May 5); http://www.azsos.qov/public services/Title 18/18-
07.htm.
Bates, E., Akindele, F., Sprinkle, D., 2002, American Creosote Site Case Study:
Solidification/Stabilization of Dioxins, PCP and Creosote for $64 per Cubic Yard\
http://www3.interscience.wilev.com/cqi-bin/fulltext/108067265/PDFSTART.
Binder, S., D. Sokal, and D. Maughan, 1986, Estimating Soil Ingestion: The Use of Tracer
Elements in Estimating the Amount of Soil Ingested by Young Children, Archives of
Environmental Health. 41:341-345.
Borovich, J., 2009, Dioxin Clean-up Goal in Soil—Nebraska, personal communication from J.
Borovich (Remediation Section, NDEQ) to M. Beringer(EPA Region 7, Kansas City, KS)
(July 13).
CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency), 2002 (2003), Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program, Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part II, Technical Support Document for
Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors, Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA), Sacramento, CA (Dec.; Appendix A was updated April 2003)
http://www.oehha.ca.qov/air/hot spots/pdf/TSDNov2002.pdf.
CalEPA, 2004, Proposition 65 Status Report, Safe Harbor Levels: No Significant Risk Levels for
Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive
Toxicity, OEHHA, Sacramento and Oakland, CA (June).
CalEPA, 2005a, Human-Exposure-Based Screening Numbers Developed to Aid Estimation of
Cleanup Costs for Contaminated Soil, OEHHA, Sacramento, CA (Nov. 2004, Jan. 2005
revision); http://oehha.ca.qov/risk/pdf/screenreport010405.pdf.
CalEPA, 2005b, Use of California Human Health Screening Levels in Evaluation of
Contaminated Properties (Jan.);
http://www.calepa.ca.qov/Brownfields/documents/2005/CHHSLsGuide.pdf.
CalEPA, 2005c, Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors,
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, OEHHA, prepared by Air
Toxicology and Epidemiology Section, and Reproductive and Cancer Hazard
Assessment Section, Sacramento and Oakland, CA (May);
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/pdf/Mav2005Hotspots.pdf.
CalEPA, 2007, Public Health Goal for TCDD in Drinking Water, OEHHA, Pesticide and
Environmental Toxicology Branch (June) (review draft for second public comment
period); http://www.oehha.ca.qov/water/phq/pdf/PHGDioxin062907.pdf.
CalEPA, 2009a, Air Toxics Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines Part II: Technical Support
Document for Cancer Potency Factors, OEHHA, Air Toxicology and Epidemiology
Branch (May) (http://www.oehha.ca.qov/air/hot spots/2009/TSDCancerPotencv.pdf).
CalEPA, 2009b, Proposition 65 Status Report, Safe Harbor Levels: No Significant Risk Levels
for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing
Reproductive Toxicity, OEHHA, CA (Feb.);
(http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/2009FebruarvStat.pdf).
CalEPA, 2009c, Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Values, Appendix H, OEHHA,
CA (July); http://www.oehha.ca.qov/air/hot spots/2009/AppendixHexposure.pdf.
CalEPA, 2009d, Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note 2, Interim, Remedial Goals for
Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compunds for Consideration at California Hazardous Waste
Sites, D.L. Berry and K. Klein, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (May);
http://www.dtsc.ca.qov/AssessinqRisk/upload/HHRA Note2 dioxin-2.pdf.
CDHS (California Department of Health Services), 1986, Report on Chlorinated Dioxins and
Dibenzofurans, Part B, Health Effects of Chlorinated Dioxins and Dibenzofurans (as
cited in CalEPA 2002 [2003]).
November 2009
Page B-58
-------
CEHTUF (Center for Environmental and Human Toxicology at the Univesity of Florida), 2005,
Technical Report: Development of Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs), preparedby University
of Florida, Gainseville, FL, for Division of Waste Management, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (Feb.);
http://toxicoloqy.ufl.edu/documents/TechnicalFeb05.pdf.
CH2M HILL, 2003, Second Five-Year Review Report for the Vertac Incorporated Superfund
Site, EPA ID: 000023440, Jacksonville, Pulaski County, Arkansas, prepared for
U.S. EPA Region 6; http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f04-06002.pdf.
CH2M HILL, 2005a, Second Five-Year Review for American Creosote Works, EPA ID:
LAD000239814, Winnfield, Louisiana, prepared for U.S. EPA Region 6;
http://www.epa.aov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f05-06003.pdf.
CH2M HILL, 2005b, Second Five-Year Review for the United Creosoting Company Superfund
Site, EPA ID: TXD980745574, Conroe, Montgomery County, Texas, prepared for
U.S. EPA Region 6 (Aug. 29); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f05-
06008.pdf.
Clausing P., Brunekreef B., and van Wijnen, J.J., 1987, A Method for Estimating Soil Ingestion
by Children, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 59:73-82.
CODPHE (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment), 2007, Table 1: Colorado
Soil Evaluation Values, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (Dec.);
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/csev.pdf.
CWLP (City Water, Light & Power), 2005, Supplement to Part 7 of PSD Permit Application,
Additional Impact Analysis for Metals, Springfield, IL;
http://vosemite.epa.gov/r5/r5ard.nsf/c408a2009710018f8625716f004d9038/df97027430f
55b6d862571a3005a188e/$FILE/CWLP%20Metals%20Analvsis 3 14 06.pdf.
DoA(U.S. Department of the Army), 1995, No Action Plug-In Record of Decision, Sacramento
Corps of Engineers (Feb.), with cover page, EPA Superfund Record of Decision, FORT
ORD, EPA ID: CA7210020676, OU 05, Marina, CA, 04/13/1995, EPA/ROD/R09-95/138;
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0995138.pdf.
DoA, 2005, Decision Document, EBS-13 Parcel, Operable Unit 6, prepared by Tetra Tech Inc.,
Oak Ridge, TN for The Fork Pickett Base Realignment and Closure Office, Blackstone,
VA (May); with cover page EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Fork Pickett, EPA ID:
VA2210020705, OU 06, Blackstone, VA, 05/18/2005, EPA/ROD/R03-05/061 (May);
http://www.epa.oov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0305061.pdf.
DoA, 2007a, Canal Creek Study Area, Record of Decision for Remedial Action - G-Street
Salvage Yard, Final, U.S. Army Garrison Aberdeen Proving Ground, Environmental
Conservation and Restoration Division, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland (Sept.);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2007030001944.pdf.
DoA, 2007b, Record of Decision: Site 180 (PICA 093) Waste Burial Area, Final, Picatinny, NJ,
(Sept.); http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2007020002538.pdf.
DeCaprio A.P., McMartin D.N., O'Keefe P.W., Rej R., Silkworth J.B., and Kaminsky L.S., 1986,
Subchronic Oral Toxicity of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin in the Guinea Pig:
Comparisons with a PCB-Containing Transformer Fluid Pyrolysate, Fundamental and
Applied Toxicology. 6:454-463.
DEDNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control), 1999,
Remediation Standards Guidance under the Delaware Hazardous Substance Cleanup
Act (Dec );
http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/divisions/awm/sirb/docs/pdfs/misc/remstnd.pdf.
De Rosa CT, Brown D, Dhara R, Garrett W, Hansen H, Holler J, Jones D, Jordan-lzaguirre D,
O'Conner R, Pohl H, Xintaras C, 1997, Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds in Soil, Part
1: ATSDR Interim Policy Guideline, Toxicology and Industrial Health, 13:759- 768;
http://permanent.access.qpo.gov/lps21/dioxindt.html.
November 2009
Page B-59
-------
DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services), 2003, Residential Dioxin Contamination,
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Health Assessment and
Consultation, Atlanta GA (Sept. 19); http://health.state.tn.us/Environmental/PDFs/hc-e-
easyqoer.pdf.
DoD (U.S. Department of Defense), 2006, Final Record of Decision, Operable Unite 6, Site 12,
Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC, September 2006] with cover sheet EPA
Superfund Record of Decision: Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station, EPA ID:
NC1170027261, OU 06, Havelock, NC, 09/28/2006 EPA/ROD/R2006040001306
(Sept. 28); http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001306.pdf.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2001, Interim Site-Wide Record of Decision for Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Site 300, February, 2001; with cover sheet EPA
Superfund Record of Decision, Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab (Site 300) (USDOE), EPA
ID: CA2890090002, OU 08, Tracy, CA, 02/23/2001, EPA/ROD/R09-01/606, (Feb. 23);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0901606.pdf.
DOE, 2004, Record of Decision, Remedial Alternative Selection for the R-Area Burning/Rubble
Pits (131-R and 131-1R) and Rubble Pile (631-25G) Operable Unit (U), CERCLIS
Number 43, WSRC-RP-2004-4004, Revision 1, May 2004, Prepared by Westinghouse
Savannah River Company LLC, Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC, 29808, prepared for
USDOE under Contract No. DE-AC090-96SR18500; with cover sheet EPA Superfund
Record of Decision: Savannah River Site (USDOE), EPA ID: SC1890008989, OU 43,
Aiken, SC, 08/20/2004 EPA/ROD/R04-04/088 (Aug. 20);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0404088.pdf.
DOE, 2007, Five Year Review of CERCLA Response Actions at the Idaho National Laboratory,
DOE/NE-ID-11201, DOE-NE Idaho Operations Office
(Feb.); http://vosemite.epa.gov/r10/CLEANUP.NSF/sites/INEEL/$FILE/DOE-NE-ID-
11201R3.pdf.
DoN (U.S. Department of the Navy), 1997, Final Record of Decision, Site 09—Allen Harbor
' Landfill, Naval Construction Battalion Center, Davisville, Rhode Island, prepared by EA
Engineering, Science, and Technology, Bedford, MA for DoN Northern Division, Lester
PA (September); with cover page, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Davisville Naval
Construction Battalion Center, EPA ID: RI6170022036, OU 01, North Kingstown, Rl
09/29/1997, EPA/ROD/R01 -97/157 (Sept.);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0197157.pdf.
DoN, 2004, Five-Year Review, Operable Units 1 through 5, Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island,
Oak Harbor, Washington, prepared by The Environmental Company, Inc., Bellevue, WA,
prepared for the DoN Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Engineering Field Activity,
Northwest; http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f04-10003.pdf.
Drustrup, B., 2009, Clean-up Goal in Soil- State of Iowa, personal communication from B.
Drustrup (IADNR, Des Moines, IA) to D. Easley (EPA Region 7, Kansas City, KS)
(July 13).
Easthope T., 2006, ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups (subject), email from T. Easthope (Director, Environmental Health
Project, Ecology Center, Ann Arbor, Ml), et al., to H. Frumkin (ATSDR/OD) with cc to
A. Yarbrough (ATSDR/OD/HAC), May 2; available via Tittabawassee River Watch
http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201
000ppt.pdf (accessed June 24, 2009).
EC (Ecology Center), 2004, Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in Other States, Ecology Center (Ann
Arbor, Ml) source cited in table image available from Tittabawassee River Watch (TRW)
News; http://www.trwnews.net/imaqes/StateCleanup2006.PDF.
FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection), 2005, Technical Report: Development
of Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs) (Feb.);
November 2009 Page B-60
-------
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick topics/rules/documents/62-777/TablellSoilCTLs4-
17-05.pdf.
GADNR (Georgia Department of Natural Resources), 1992, Hazardous Site Response Act,
Chapter 391 -3-19-Appendix 1: Regulated Substances and Soil Concentrations that
Trigger Notification-, http://rules.sos.state.qa.us/docs/391/3/19/AP.pdf.
Garoutte, J., 2009, Dioxin Clean-up Goal in Soil - State of Missouri, personal communication
from J. Garoutte (MDHSS, Jefferson City, MO) to M. Beringer (EPA Region 7, Kansas
City, KS) (July 17).
GEPA (Guam EPA)/HDOH (Hawaii Department of Health), 2008, Evaluation of Environmental
Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, (Oct.);
http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume1 mar2009.pdf.
Goodman D. and Sauer R., 1992, Hepatotoxicity and Carcinogenicity in Female Sprague-
Dawley Rats Treated with 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlordibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD): A Pathology
Working Group Reevaluation, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 15:245-52.
Griffin, S., 2009, Dioxin Clean-up Goal in Soil—State of Wyoming, personal communication
from S. Griffin (EPA Region 8, Denver, CO) to K. Deener (US EPA, Washington D.C.)
(July 16).
HDOH (Hawaii Department of Health), 2005, Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites
with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Volume I: Summary Tier 1 Lookup Tables,
prepared by R. Brewer, HI Dept. of Health, Hazard Evaluation and Emergency
Response, Honolulu, HI, for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Division of
Environmental Quality, Saipan, CNMI (Oct.);
http://www.deg.qov.mp/artdoc/Sec8art133ID453.pdf.
HDOH, 2006, Proposed Dioxin Action Levels for East Kapolei Brownfield Site (subject),
memorandum from Roger Brewer (Environmental Risk Assessment HEER Office) to
Davis Bernstein (Brownfields Coordinator HEER Office) through Barbara Brooks
(Toxicologist, HEER), East Kapolei, O'ahu, HI (March 23);
http://hawaii.qov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/dioxinactionlevelsmarch2005.pdf.
HDOH, 2008, Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater - Hawaii Edition, Volume 1: User's Guide, Environmental Management
Division, Honolulu, Hawai'l; http://www.hawaiidoh.org/references/HDQH%202008.pdf.
Heltman J., 2008, EPA Requires Limited Dioxin Cleanup at Dow Site Absent Final Risk Levels,
Risk Policy Report (July 29); Source: Tittabawassee River Watch (TRW) News;
http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/EPA/epa072908.htm.
Hirschhorn, 1997a, Cleanup Levels for Dioxin Contaminated Soils
http://www3.interscience.wilev.eom/cgi-bin/fulltext/113513227/PDFSTART.
Hirschhorn, 1997b, Two Superfund Environmental Justice Case Studies',
http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/Cleanup/two superfund environmental iust.htm.
HSOH (2008), see GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008): Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites
with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater;
http://www.hawaiidoh.org/references/HDOH%202008.pdf:
http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume2app1mar2009.pdf;
http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume2app2to9mar2009.pdf.
IADNR (Iowa Department of Natural Resources), undated, Statewide Soil Standards for
Contaminants in Soil and Groundwater, IA Land Recycling Program;
http://proqrams.iowadnr.gov/riskcalc/paqes/standards.aspx.
IA General Assembly, 1998, Iowa Administrative Code, Environmental Protection [567], Chapter
137, Iowa Land Recycling Program and Response Action Standards (Nov. 18)
http://www.iowadnr.gov/land/consites/documents/chap137.pdf.
IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management), 2001, RISC Technical Guide
(Feb. 15); http://www.in.gov/idem/files/risctechouidance.pdf.
November 2009
Page B-61
-------
IDEM, 2006, Risk Integrated System of Closure, RISC, Provisional 2006 Default Closure Levels
(data sheet), provided in personal communication from Anderson (2009).
IDEM, 2009, RISC Technical Guide, Appendix 1, Default Closure Tables (May 1);
http://www.in.qoWidem/files/risctech appendixl 2006 r1.pdf.
Ingersoll C., MacDonald D., Wang N., Crane J., Field L., Haverland P., Kemble N., Lindskoog
R., Severn C., Smorong D., 2001, Predictions of Sediment Toxicity Using Consensus
Based Freshwater Sediment Quality Guidelines, Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology, 41:8-21.
IT/OHM (IT/OHM Remediation Services Corp.), 1999a, Remediation Activities at Areas of
Concern 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, and 22. Public Law Parcels 103-339, Harmon Annexes,
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam (Sept.).
IT/OHM, 1999b, Remediation Verification Report for IRP Site 19/Landfill 24, Andersen Air Force
Base, Guam (June).
IT/OHM, 1999c, Remediation Verification Report for Harmon Substation, Andersen Air Force,
Guam (June).
KDHE (Kansas Department of Health and Environment), 2007, Risk-Based Standards for
Kansas Risk Manual B 4th Version;
http://www.kdheks.gov/remedial/download/RSK Manual 07.pdf.
Kimbrough R.D., Falk H., Stehr PI, Fries G., 1984, Health Implications of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) Contamination of Residential Soil, Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health. 14(1):47-93.
Kociba R.J., Keyes D.G., Beyer J.E., Cerreon R.M., Wade C.E., Dittenber D.A., Kalnins R.P.,
Frauson L.E., Park C.N., Barnard S.D., Hummel R.A., Humiston C.G., 1978, Results of a
Two-Year Chronic Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
Dioxin in Rats, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 46(2):279-303.
KY Legislature, 2009, Kentucky Administrative Regulation;
http://www.lrc.state.kv.us/kar/401/100/030.htm.
LDEQ (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality), 2003a, Recap Table 1 Screening
Option: Screening Standards for Soil and Groundwater,
http://www.deg. louisiana.gov/portal/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=blPYm4ICf9g%3d&tabid=2
930.
LDEQ, 2003b, Title 33 Part V. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, Subpart 1, Table 2
Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes',
http://www.deq. louisiana.qov/portal/portals/0/planninq/reqs/pdf/HW083fin.pdf.
MacDonald D., Smith S., Wong M., Murdoch P., 1992, The Development of Canadian Marine
Environmental Quality Guidelines, prepared for Interdepartmental Working Group on
Marine Environmental Quality Guidelines and CCME, Environment Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario (121 pp.).
MacDonald D., Ingersoll C., BergerT., 2000, Development and Evaluation of Consensus-Based
Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems, Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology, 39:20-31.
MADEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection), 2007, The Massachusetts
Contingency Plan, 310, CMR 40\
http://www.mass.gov/dep/service/requlations/310cmr40.pdf.
MADEP, undated A, Documentation for the S-1 Standards;
http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/prop s1 .htm.
MADEP, undated B, Documentation for the S-2 Standards;
http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/prop s2.htm.
MADEP, undated C, Documentation for the S-3 Standard;
http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/prop s3.htm.
November 2009
Page B-62
-------
MADEP, undated D, UCLs (Upper Concentration Limits)\
http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/ucls.htm.
Mariner et al. 1997, An Algorithm for the Estimation of NAPL Saturation and Composition from
Typical Soil Chemical Analysis, Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 17(2):
122-129.
Martin, J., 2009, Dioxin Clean-up Goal in Soil—Kentucky, personal communication from J.
Martin (Superfund Branch, KYDEP) to G. Taylor (EPA Region 4, Atlanta GA) (Aug 5).
MDNR (Missouri Department of Natural Resources), 2006, MRBCA Technical Guidance
(Appendices); http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/hwp/mrbca/docs/mrbca-append6-06.pdf.
MEDEP (Maine Department of Environmental Protection), 1997a, Implementation of Remedial
Action Guidelines, Bureau of Remediation & Waste Management, Voluntary Response
Action Program (May 20); http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/rem/documents/fed-
dod/raqs.pdf.
MEDEP, 1997b, Technical Basis and Background for Soil Cleanup Guidelines Based on Direct
Contact, Bureau of Remediation & Waste Management, Voluntary Response Program
(May 28); http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/federalfacilities/pdf/techbasis.pdf.
MEDEP, 2001, Regulating Agricultural Utilization of Solid Wastes in Maine (March);
http://www.maine.gov/spo/ceo/documents/landuse2006/06i.pdf.
MEDEP, 2009a, Maine Remedial Action Guidelines for all Scenarios',
http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/publications/quidance/raqs/MERAGS%20APPENDIX%2
01 2 3%20Numbers Public Rev Draft 7-17-09.xls.
MEDEP, 2009b, Technical Basis and Background for the Maine Remedial Action Guidelines,
Draft for Public Review (July 17);
http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/publications/guidance/rags/MERAG Basis Draft For P
ublic Comment 2009 iuly 14 V2-rhd.DOC.
MIDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality), 1998, More Details on Dioxin 90 ppt
value, Excerpt from Part 201, Generic Soil Direct Contact Criteria, Technical Support
Document', http://www.michiqan.gov/documents/deg/deq-whm-hwp-dow-
excerpt of dec tsd 251913 7.pdf.
MIDEQ, 2001, Part 201 Generic soil direct contact critena technical support document, Lansing,
Ml; http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-whm-hwp-excerpt of dec tsd.pdf
(accessed July 2009; in August 2009, the weblink does not appear to be functional).
MIDEQ, 2004, Department of Environmental Quality: Dioxin Contamination in the Midland Area
July 2, 2004; http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deg/deo-whm-hwp-Dow-
FactsFinal 251769 7.pdf
MIDEQ, 2005, Attachment 6, from Technical Support Document, Part 201 Generic Cleanup
Criteria and Screening Levels, Part 213 Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels (RBSLs),
Remediation and Redevelopment Division (RRD) (April);
http://www.dea.state.mi.us/documents/deq-rrd-OpMemo 1-Attachment6.pdf (accessed
July 2009; in August 2009, the weblink does not appear to be functional).
MIDEQ, 2006, Attachment 1, Table 2, Soil: Residential and Commercial, from Technical
Support Document, Part 201 Generic Cleanup Criteria and Screening Levels, Part 213
Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels (RBSLs), Remediation and Redevelopment Division
(RRD) (Jan.23); http://www.michiqan.gov/documents/deg/deg-rrd-OpMemo 1-
Attachment1Table2SoilResidential 283553 7.pdf.
MNDOH (Minnesota Department of Health), 2003, Cancer Risk Assessment forDioxins,
prepared by MDOH at the request of the Risk Evaluation/Air Modeling Unit,
Environmental Standards and Analysis Section, of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (March 17); www.canceractionnv.org/cancerriskassessment.htm.
Mott, 1995, A Model for the Determination of the Phase Distribution of Petroleum Hydrocarbons
at Release Sites. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, 15(3): 157-167.
November 2009
Page B-63
-------
MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency), 2008a, Risk-Based Guidance for the Soil - Human
Health Pathway, Tier 1. and Tier 2 SRV Spreadsheets (Dec. 10);
http://www.pca. state. mn.us/cleanup/riskbasedoc.html#pathwav.
MPCA 2008b, Second Five-Year Review Report forRitari Post and Pole Superfund Site,
Sebeka, Wadena County, Minnesota, September 2008, prepared by MPCA, St. Paul,
MN (Sep. 26); http://www.epa.qov/R5Super/npl/minnesota/NMD980904064.htm.
MSDEQ (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality), 2002, Final Regulations Governing
Brownfield Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment in Mississippi (Feb. 28);
http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/pdf/Main HW-2/$File/HW-2.pdf?OpenElement.
MTDEQ (Montana Department of Environmental Quality), 2007, Table 1: Tier 1 Surface Soil (0-
2ft) RBSLs (mg/kg) (Oct.); http://deg.mt.gov/rem/hwc/rbca/NewRBCA7-
2007/revSurfSoilRBSLs10-07.pdf.
MTDEQ, 2008a, Final Feasibility Study Report, KRY Site, (June), prepared by Tetra Tech EM
Inc., Helena MT (July 2007);
http://www.deq.state.mt.us/StateSuperfund/KPT/FinalFSJulv2008/FinalFSreportComplie
d.pdf.
MTDEQ, 2008b, Attachment C, Soil Screening Process, (Nov.);
http://www.deq.state.mt.us/StateSuperfund/VCRA Guide/SoilScreeninqProcess11-
08.pdf.
Murray et al., 1979, Three-Generation Reproduction Study of Rats Given 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) in the Diet, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology.
. 50:241-252.
NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command) Mid-Atlantic, 2007a, Record of Decision, Site
5 Soil, Operable Unit 4 (OU 4), Naval Air Station, Joint Reserve Base, Willow Grove,
Pennsylvania, (Sept.);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2007030001999.pdf.
NAVFAC Washington, 2007b, Record of Decision for Sites 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, and 13, Washington
Navy Yard, Washington D.C., (Sept.);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r20080300021Q3.pdf.
NAVFAC,-2008, Explanation of Significant Difference for Operable Unit 3 Record of Decision,
NAVFAC Southwest, CA2170023533, San Diego, CA, (March 17);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e20080900Q2747.pdf.
NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources), 2005,
Guidelines for Establishing Remediation Goals at RCRA Hazardous Waste Sites,
Division of Waste Management, Hazardous Waste Section, (May);
http://wastenot.enr.state.nc.us/hwhome/guidance/pdf/HWScleanup5-05draft.pdf.
NCDENR, 2008, Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites Branch Health-Based Soil Remediation Goals
(Oct.); http://www.wastenotnc.org/soiltable.pdf.
NCI/NTP (National Cancer Institute/National Toxicology Program), 1980, Bioassayof a Mixture
of 1,2,3,6,7,8- and 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins for Possible Carcinogenicity
(Gavage Study), TR 198, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public
Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD;
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/LT rpts/tr198.pdf.
NDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection), 2008, Basic Comparison Levels,
(Feb. 12); http://ndep.nv.gov/bmi/docs/bcl calculations table09.pdf.
NDEP, 2009, User's Guide and Background Technical Document for NDEP Basic Comparison
Levels (BCLs) for Human Health for the BMI Complex and Common Areas;
http://ndep.nv.gov/bmi/docs/bcl guidance09.pdf.
NDEQ (Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality), 2006, Protocol for VCP Remediation
Goals Lookup Tables',
http://www.deg.state.ne.us/Publica.nsf/23e5e39594c064ee852564ae004fa010/d243c2b
November 2009
Page B-64
-------
56e34ea8486256f2700698997/$FILE/ATTEBI5L/RG%20Protocol%20Auaust%202006.p
df.
NDEQ, 2008, Nebraska Voluntary Cleanup Program Guidance;
http://www.dea.state.ne.us/Publica.nsf/23e5e39594c064ee852564ae004fa010/d243c2b
56e34ea8486256f2700698997/$FILE/VCP%20Guidance%20Qct%202008.pdf.
NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services), 2007, Risk Characterization
and Management Policy, Groundwater Quality Table 2, Appendix A-E with Soil Values,
Hazardous Waste Remediation Bureau (May);
http://des.nh.gov/orqanization/divisions/waste/hwrb/documents/rcmp.pdf.
Nightingale, S, 2009, Dioxin Clean-up Goal in Soil-State of Kansas, personal communication
from S. Nightingale (KDHE, Topeka, KS) to M. Beringer (EPA Region 7, Kansas City,
KS) (July 17).
NJDHSS (New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services), 2001, Public Health
Assessment: Franklin Burn Site\ http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/assess/fb pc.pdf.
NMED (New Mexico Environment Department), 2006, Technical Background Document For
Development of Soil Screening Levels, Revision 4.0 Volume 1 Tier 1: Soil Screening
Guidance Technical Background Document, Table A-1, Hazardous Waste Bureau and
Ground Water Quality Bureau Voluntary Remediation Program (June);
ftp://ftp.nmenv.state.nm.us/hwbdocs/HWB/auidance docs/NMED June 2006 SSG.pdf.
Nosek et al., 1992, Toxicity and Reproductive Effects of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin in
Ring-Necked Pheasant Hens, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health,
35:187-198.
NTP (National Toxicology Program), 1982, Carcinogenesis Bioassay of 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (CAS no. 1746-01-6) in Osborne-Mendel Rats and B6C3F1
Mice (Gavage Study), DHHS Publication No. (NIH) 82-1765, Carcinogenesis Testing
Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; National
Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC.
NTP, 2004, Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin
(TCDD) in Female Harlan Sprague-Dawley Rats (Gavage Study), NIH publication No.
04-4455, NTP TR 521, DHHS, PHS, NIH, Research Triangle Park, NC;
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/LT rpts/tr201 .pdf.
NYDEC (New York Department of Conservation), 2009, TAGM 4046, Table 3;
http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/30582.html.
OHEPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency), 2008, Closure Plan Review Guidance for
RCRA Facilities; Table A-3, Residential Risk Based Generic Cleanup Numbers (GCNs)
for Ohio Hazardous Waste Closures;
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dhwm/cprg/2008CPRG.pdf;
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dhwm/cprq/GCNTablesExcel.xls.
OKDEQ (Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality), Land Protection Division, 2004, Site
Cleanup using Risk-Based Decision Making;
http://www.deq.state.ok.us/lpdnew/FactSheets/RiskbasedDecisionGuidanceFinal.pdf.
Olsen, M., 2009, Dioxin Clean-up Goal in Soil—New York, personal communication from M.
Olsen (EPA Region 2, New York, NY) to K. Deener (US EPA, Washington D.C.) (July
16).
ORDEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality), 2000, Guidance for Conduct of
Deterministic Human Health Risk Assessments, Waste Management and Cleanup
Division (May Revision); http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/RBDMGuidance.pdf.
ORDEQ, 2001, Quality Assurance Policy, Policy 760.00, Environmental Cleanup Division
(April 3);
http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/cu/CleanupProqramQualityAssurancePolicv.pdf.
November 2009
Page B-65
-------
ORDEQ, 2003, Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated
Sites, Land Quality Division, Environmental Cleanup and Tanks Program, Portland, OR
(Sept. 22); http://www.deg.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/RBDMGuidance.pdf.
ORDEQ, 2005, Pre-Calculated Hot Spot Look-Up Tables, Waste Management and Cleanup
Division, Portland, OR (May. 31, updates the previous methodology from Oct. 20, 1998);
http://www.dea.state.or.us/la/pubs/docs/cu/PreCalculatedHotSpotLookupTables.pdf.
ORDEQ, 2008, Risk Based Concentrations, Land Quality Division, Portland, OR (Oct. 3);
http://www.deg.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/RBDMTable.pdf.
ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), 1997, Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for
Ecological Endpoints. as cited in USACE (2003).
ORNL, 1998, A Guide to the ORNL Ecotoxicological Screening Benchmarks: Background,
Development, and Application, (May);
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/whtppr21.pdf, as cited in
DEDNREC, 1999, Remediation Standards Guidance under the Delaware Hazardous
Substance Cleanup Act.
PA (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania), 1997, Pennsylvania Bulletin, Environmental Quality
Board Administration of the Land Recycling Program (Act 2), Ingestion Numeric Values,
27:33 (Aug. 16); http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter250/s250.3Q6.html.
PADEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection), 2002, Land Recycling
Program Technical Guidance Manual, 253-0300-100, (June 8);
http://www.depweb.state, pa.us/ocrlqs/cwp/view.asp?a=1459&q=518850.
Park H.S, San Juan, C., 2000, A Method for Assessing Leaching Potential for Petroleum
Hydrocarbon Release Sites: Multiphase and Multisubstance Equilibrium Partitioning,
Soil and Sediment Contamination. 9(6): 611-632.
Paustenbach D.J., Fehling K., Scott P., Harris M., B.D. Kerger, 2006, Identifying Soil Cleanup
Criteria forDioxins In Urban Residential Soils: How Have 20 Years of Research and '
Risk Assessment Experience Affected the Analysis?, Journal of Toxicology and
Environmental Health. Part B, 9:87-145;
http://ndep.nv.qov/bmi/docs/060406 dioxin%20paper.pdf.
PWG (Pathology Working Group), 1990, as reported by Sauer (1990).
RIDEM (Rhode Island and Providence Plantation Department of Environmental Management),
2004, Rules and Regulations for the Investigation and Remediation of Hazardous
Material Releases, Office of Waste Management (Feb.);
http://www.dem.ri.qov/pubs/reqs/reqs/waste/remreq04.pdf.
Rios Jafolla, N., 2009a, Dioxin Clean-up Goal in Soil—District of Columbia, personal
communication from N. Rios Jafolla (EPA Region 3, Philadelphia PA) to K. Deener (US
EPA, Washington D.C.) (July 27).
Rios Jafolla, N., 2009b, Dioxin Clean-up Goal in Soil—State of Maryland, personal
communication from N. Rios Jafolla (EPA Region 3, Philadelphia PA) to K. Deener (US
EPA, Washington D.C.) (July 27).
RMCOEH, UDFPM (Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health,
Department of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of Utah), undated (200x), A
Comparison of Dioxin Levels Found in Residential Soils of Davis County Utah with
Those Found in Residential Soils in the Denver Front Range (most recent internal
citation is 2001); http://www.wasatchinteqrated.org/PDF/Davis%20Dioxin%20Studv.pdf.
Sample et al., 1996, Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revisions, ES/ER/TM-86/R3,
Health Sciences Research Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN, for U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management (June).
Sauer, M., 1990, Pathology Working Group: 2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin in Sprague-
Dawley Rats, PATHCO Inc., submitted to the Maine Scientific Advisory Panel (as cited in
TSG 1990).
November 2009
Page B-66
-------
SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control), 1999,
Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination;
http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/pubs/eipdfs/Koppers%20CA725.%20dated%20
Auaust%2019.%202004.pdf.
SCDHEC, 2008, Removal Activities Fact Sheet (May);
http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/pubs/superfund docs/NvtronicsFact%20Sheet-
050108FINAL.pdf.
Schantz S.L., Ferguson S.A., Bowman R.E., 1992, Effects of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
Dioxin on Behavior of Monkeys in Peer Groups, Neurotoxicology and Teratology.
14:433-446.
SDDENR (South Dakota Department of the^Environment and Natural Resources), 2009, Lookup
Table for Surface Soil (0-3.2 feet) (April 8);
http://denr.sd.gov/des/gw/LookUpTables/Lookup Tables.aspx.
Stralka, D., 2009, Dioxin Clean-up Goal in Soil - Region 9,, personal communication from D.
Stralka (EPA Region 9, San Francisco, CA) to K. Deener (US EPA, Washington DC)
(July 31).
TDH (Texas Department, of Health), 2003, Health Consultation: Sediments in Stewarts Creek,
Conroe Creosoting Co., prepared under cooperative agreement with ATSDR;
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/epitox/consults/cccsed he fnl.pdf.
Thiel D., Martin S., Goodman B., Sullivan J., 1995, Use of Loading Rates to Establish Dioxin
Criteria for Land Application of Sludge, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,
14(8): 1443-1450.
Toth K., Somfai-Relle S., Sugar J. et al., 1979, Carcinogenicity Testing of Herbicide 2,4,5-
Tnchlorophenoxyethanol Containing Dioxin and of Pure Dioxin in Swiss Mice, Nature,
278:548-9.
TRRP (Texas Risk Reduction Program), 2009, Protective Concentration Levels; Tables 7-5;
http://www.tceo.state.tx.us/remediation/trrp/trrppcls.html.
TSG (Toxic Steering Group, linked from Ml DEQ 1998), 1990, Carcinogenicity Slope Factor for
2,3,7.8-TCDD: Overview and Recent Developments, Toxic Steering Group Meeting (July
10); http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deo/deg-whm-hwp-dow-
slope factor 251918 7.pdf.
TXCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality), Remediation Division, 2005, TCEQ
Regulatory Guidance RG-366/TRRP-22: Tiered Development of Human Health PLCs ;
http://www.tceg.state.tx.us/comm exec/forms pubs/pubs/rq/rq-366 trrp 22.html.
TXRCC (Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission), Superfund Cleanup Section
Remediation Division, 2000. Proposed Remedial Action Document: Toups State
Superfund Site: Sour Lake, Hardin County, Texas;
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/remediation/superfund/reqister/pdf0100.pdf.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 2000, Defense Distribution Depot Hill, Utah, Ogden
Site 1, Final Operable Unit 4 Hotspot, Record of Decision: Amendment for Operable
Unit 4, prepared by Montgomery Watson for the USACE, Sacramento District (June);
with cover page EPA Superfund Record of Decision Amendment: Ogden Defense Depot
(DLA), EPA ID: UT9210020922, OU 04, Ogden, UT, 08/09/2000, EPA/AMD/R08-00/533
(Aug. 9); http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0800533.pdf.
USACE, 2003, Record of Decision for Phase III Parcels, Letterkenny Army Depot,
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, prepared by Weston Solutions, Inc., West Chester, PA,
for USACE Baltimore District, Baltimore, MD (Aug.); with cover page EPA Superfund
Record of Decision: Letterkenny Army Depot (Se Area), EPA ID: PA6213820503, OU
14, Chambersburg, PA, 08/14/2003, EPA/ROD/R03-03/065 (Aug.);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0303065.pdf.
November 2009
Page B-67
-------
USACE, 2004, First Five-Year Review Report for Manchester Annex Superfund Site, Kitsap
County (Sept. 30); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f04-10009.pdf.
USACE, 2006, Phase IV BRAC Parcels, Groundwater Southeastern (SE) Area, Operable Unit
(OU) 3B and Part of Soil Operable Unit SE OU 8, AEDBR Sites LEAD-016, -114, -115,
Letterkenny Army Depot, Final, 05P-0886-2, prepared by Weston Solutions, Inc., West
Chester, PA, for USACE Baltimore District, Baltimore, MD (Apr.); with cover page, EPA
Superfund Record of Decision: Letterkenny Army Depot (SE Area), EPA ID:
PA6213820503, OU 15, Chambersburg, PA, 06/07/2006, EPA/ROD/R2006030001362
(July); http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006030001362.pdf.
USACE, 2007, Second Five-Year Review Report for the Wyckoff./Eagle Harbor Superfund Site,
Bainbridge Island, prepared for EPA Region 10 (Sept. 26);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f2007100001727.pdf.
USACE, 2008, Second Five-Year Review Report for Standard Steel and Metal Salvage Yard
(USDOT), Anchorage, prepared for EPA Region 10 (March);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f2008100002158.pdf.
USAF (U.S. Air Force), 2002a, Final Record of Decision for Harmon Annex Operable Unit,
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp.,
Lakewood, Co, and EA ES&T, Inc., Yigo, Guam, for AF Center for Environmental
Excellence, Brooks AFB, TX (July 2002); with cover page EPA Superfund Record of
Decision, Andersen Air Force Base, EPA ID: GU6571999519, OU 04, YIGO, GU,
07/02/2002, EPA/ROD/R09-02/635 (July 2);
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/1d
ca993480c9ecd788257205002bf81e/$FILE/andersen%20ROD%20harmon%20annex.p
df.
USAF, 2003a, Site SS-026 Explosive Ordinance Disposal Range: Record of Decision,
Pittsburgh Air Force Base, Installation Restoration Program, Pittsburgh, NY, March
2003; with cover page EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Pittsburgh Air Force Base,
EPA ID: NY4571924774, OU 18, Pittsburgh, NY, 6/20/2003, EPA/ROD/R02-03/022
(June 20); http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0203022.pdf.
USAF, 2003b, Final Record of Decision for Urunao Dumpsites 1 and 2, Urunao Operable Unit,
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp.,
Lakewood, Co, and EA ES&T, Inc., Yigo, Guam, for AF Center for Environmental
Excellence, Brooks AFB, TX (Dec.); with cover page EPA Superfund Record of
Decision, Andersen Air Force Base, EPA ID: GU6571999519, OU 07, YIGO, GU,
12/01/2003, E PA/ROD/R09-04/002;
http://vosemite.epa.oov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/f3
c792ccee07835888257205002bf6aa/$FILE/andersen%20RQD%20urunao.pdf.
USAF, 2004a, Final Record of Decision for the Electrical Power Substation Area of Concern
(SS-44) at the Former Griffiss Air Force Base, Air Force Real Property Agency, Rome,
NY, (Nov.); with cover sheet EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Griffiss Air Force Base
(11 Areas), EPA ID: NY4571924451, OU 28, Rome, NY, 03/17/2005, EPA/ROD/R02-
05/015 (Mar. 17); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0205015.pdf.
USAF, 2004b, Final Record of Decision, Zone D, Operable Unit 10, Landfill 7 and Fire
Protection Area 1, F.E. Warren Air Force Base (May); with cover sheet EPA Superfund
Record of Decision, F.E. Warren Air Force Base, EPA ID: WY5571924179, OU 10,
Cheyenne, WY 06/21/2004, EPA/ROD/R08-04/104 (June);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0804104.pdf.
USAF, 2006, Final ROD for Remedial Action at OU 8, Ellsworth AFB, SD, Air Combat
Command, Ellsworth AFB (June), with cover page, EPA Superfund Record of Decision,
Ellsworth Air Force Base, EPA ID: SD2571924644, OU 08, Ellsworth AFB, SD,
November 2009
Page B-68
-------
06/07/1996, EPA/ROD/R08-96/124;
http://www.epa.Qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltextyr0896124.pdf.
USAF, 2007a, ROD for Sites 7, 16, 17, 31, and 36, Northwest Field OU, Anderson AFB, Guam,
GU6571999519, prepared by EA ES&T, Inc., Yigo, Guam for AF Center for Engineering
and the Environment, Hickham AFB, HI, (Aug.);
http://www.epa.aov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008090002420.pdf.
USAF, 2007b, Record of Decision to Address Environmental Restoration Program Sites
Operable Unit 34 (Site LF-17), OT-25 Annex Portion of OU-40, and the LTA Cove
Portion of Operable Unit 51 (Site SS-63), Langley Air Force Base, Virginia
(Nov.); http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltextyr2008030002117.pdf.
USAF, 2008a, Record of Decision to Address Surface Water and Sediment at Operable Unit 51
Environmental Restoration Program Site SS-63, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia (Aug.);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltextyr2008030002441 .pdf.
USAF, 2008b, Record of Decision for Operable Units 21, 23, 35, 37, and 44, Langley Air Force
Base, Virginia, (Sept.);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008030002565.pdf.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1985, Health Assessment Document for
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins, EPA/600/8-84/014F, NTIS No. PB86-122546, Office
of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Region 7), 1986, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Ellisville Site, EPA ID:
MOD980633010, Ellisville, MO, 09/29/1986, EPA/ROD/R07-86/006 (Sept. 29);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltextyr0786006.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 1987, Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures
of Chlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs), Risk
Assessment Forum, Washington D C., EPA/625/3-87/012 (updated 1989).
U.S. EPA, 1989a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1, Human Health
Evaluation Manual, Interim Final, Washington D. C., Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. EPA/540/1-89/002;
http://www.epa.qov/oswer/riskassessment/raqsa/pdf/raqs-vol1-pta complete.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 5), 1989b, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Laskin/Poplar Oil Co., EPA
ID: OHD061722211, OU01, Jefferson Township, OH, 06/29/1989, EPAyROD/R05-
89/091 (June 29); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0589091.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 5), 1989c, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Wedzeb Enterprises, Inc.,
EPA ID: IND980794374, OU 01, Lebanon, IN, 06/30/1989, EPA/ROD/R05-89/097 (June
30); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltextyr0589097.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 6), 1990, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Rogers Road Municipal
Landfill, EPA ID: ARD981055809, OU 01, Jacksonville, Arkansas, 09/27/1990,
EPA/ROD/R06-90/063; http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0690063.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 1991a, Calculation of Risk Based Preliminary Remediation Goals, (December);
http://www.epa.qov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsb/pdf/chapt3.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 1991b, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Standard
Default Exposure Factors, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER
Directive 9285.6-03.
U.S. EPA, 1992a, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications, EPA/600/8-
91/011 B, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
U.S. EPA (Region 8), 1992b, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Ogden Defense Depot (DLA),
EPA ID: UT9210020922, OU 04, Ogden, UT, 09/28/1992, EPA/ROD/R08-92/061 (Sept.
28); http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0892061 pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 6), 1993a, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: American Creosote Works,
Inc. (Winnfield Plant), EPA ID: LAD000239814, OU 01, Winnfield, Louisiana,
November 2009
Page B-69
-------
04/28/1993, EPA/ROD/R06t93/086;
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0693086.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 7), 1993b, Record of Decision, Ground Water Operable Unit #2, Syntec
Agribusiness, Inc., Verona, Missouri, prepared by EPA, April 8, 1993; with cover sheet
EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Syntex Facility, EPA ID: MOD007452154, OU 02,
Verona, MO, 05/07/1993, EPA/ROD/R07-93/071 (May);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0793071.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 10), 1993c, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Amen'can Crossarm &
Conduit Co., EPA ID: WAD057311094, OU01, Chehalis, WA, 06/30/1993,
EPA/ROD/R 10-93/060 (May);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1093060.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 1994a, Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development and Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1994b, Superfund Chemical Data Matrix, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, EPA 540-R-94-009.
U.S. EPA (Region 10), 1994c, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Naval Air Station, Whidbey
Island (Ault Field), EPA ID: WA5170090059, OU 02, Whidbey Island, WA, 05/17/1994,
EPA/ROD/R 10-94/077; http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1094077.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 1995a, Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil, Region III, Office of Superfund
Programs, EPA/903-K-95-003 (Dec.);'
http://www.epa.qov/req3hwmd/risk/human/info/solabsq2.htm.
U.S. EPA (Region 3), I995b, Region III Biological Technical Assistance Group Screening
Levels - Draft. (Sept.), as cited in USACE (2003).
U.S. EPA (Region 3), 1995c, Region III Risk-Based Concentration Tables, (Oct. 20).
U.S. EPA (Region 9), 1995d, EPA Superfund Record of Decision, Fort Ord, EPA ID:
CA7210020676; Marina, CA, 04/13/1995, EPA/ROD/R09-95/138, (April 13);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0995138.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 6), 1995e, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Southern Shipbuilding, EPA
ID: LAD008149015, OU01, Slidell, Louisiana, 07/20/1995, EPA/ROD/R06-95/093;
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0695093.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 9), 1996a, Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals, San Francisco CA
(S.J. Smucker, Regional Toxicologist).
U.S. EPA, 1996b, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document,
EPA/540/R-95/128, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (May); http://
U.S. EPA, 1996c, Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide, Publication .9355.4-23, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (July);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/soil/pdfs/ssq496.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 10), 1996d, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Standard Steel & Metal
Salvage Yard (USDOT), EPA ID: AKD980978787, OU01, Anchorage, AK, 07/16/1996,
EPA/ROD/R10-96/141; http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1096141.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 6), 1996e, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Vertac, Inc., EPA ID:
ARD000023440, OU 02, Jacksonville, Arkansas, 09/17/2006, EPA/ROD/R06-96/102;
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0696102.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 7), 1996f, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Des Moines TCE, EPA ID:
IAD980687933, OU 02, 04, Des Moines, IA, 12/13/1996, EPA/ ROD I EPA/ROD/R07-
97/030 (Dec 13) http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0797030.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 1997a, Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST): Annual Update, FY
1997, National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and
Development and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
November 2009
Page B-70
-------
U.S. EPA (Region 10), 1997b, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Old Navy Dump/Manchester
Laboratory (USEPA/NOAA), EPA ID:mWA8680030931, OU 01, Manchester, WA,
09/30/1997, EPA/ROD/R10-97/201;
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1097201.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 6), 1997c, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Lincoln Creosote, EPA ID:
LAD981060429, OU01, Bossier, Louisiana, 11/26/1997, EPA/ROD/R06-98/047;
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0698047.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 8), 1997d, EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Petrochem
Recycling CorpJEkotek Plant, EPA ID: UTD093119196, OU 01, Salt Lake City, UT,
12/09/1997, EPA/ESD/R08-98/175 (Dec. 9);
http://www.epa.oov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e0898175.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 1998a, Approach for Addressing Dioxin in Soil at CERCLA and RCRA Sites. OSWER
Directive 9200.4-26, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC
(Apr. 13); http://www.epa.qov/superfund/resources/remedv/pdf/92-00426-s.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 6), 1998b, EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Vertac,
Inc., EPA ID: ARD000023440, OU 02, Jacksonville, Arkansas, 01/12/1998,
EPA/ESD/R06-98/160; http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e0698160.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 5), 1998c, EPA Superfund Record of Decision Amendment:
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co., EPA ID: MID060174240, OU 03, Dalton Township, Ml,
02/26/1998, EPA/AMD/R05-98/101 (Feb. 26;;
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0598101.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 6), 1998d, EPA Superfund Record of Decision Amendment: United
Creosoting Co., EPA ID: TXD980745574, OU 02, Conroe, Texas, 10/14/1998,
EPA/AMD/R06-99/032; http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0699032.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 3), 1999a, Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination (Feb. 5);
http://www.epa.qov/req3wcmd/ca/md/hhpdf/hh mdd981041601 pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 9), 1999b, EPA Superfund Record of Decision, McCormick & Baxter
Creosoting Co., EPA ID: CAD009106527, OU 01, 03, Stockton, CA 03/31/1999,
EPA/ROD/R09-99/044 (March 31);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0999044.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 8), 1999c, Final Superfund Preliminary Closeout Report, Ellsworth Air Force
Base, Rapid City, South Dakota (Sept. 10);
http://www.regulations.qov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?obiectld=090000648018a0b8&dis
position=attachment&contentType=pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region5), 1999d, EPA Superfund Record of Decision Amendment: MacGillis & Gibbs
Co./Bell Lumber & Pole Co., EPA ID: MND006192694, OU 01,03, New Brighton, MN,
09/30/1999,. EPA/AMD/R05-99/147 (Sept. 30);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0599147.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2000a, Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins, Human
Health Risk Assessment Bulletins, (May);
http.V/www. epa.gov/Reoion4/waste/ots/healtbul. htm.
U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2000b, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Soil and Groundwater
Operable Units, Bainbridge Island, Washington, Record of Decision; with cover sheet
EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor, EPA ID:
WAD009248295, OU 02, 04, Bainbridge Island, WA, 02/14/2000, EPA/ROD/R10-
00/047; http://www.epa.oov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1000047.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 8), 2000c, EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Ogden
Defense Depot (DLA), EPA ID: UT9210020922, OU 01, Ogden, UT, 09/13/2000,
EPA/ESD/R08-00/564 (Sept. 13);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e0800564.pdf.
November 2009
Page B-71
-------
U.S. EPA (Region 9), 2001a, EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Tucson
International Airport Area, AZD980737530, OU 02, Tucson, AZ, 05/04/2001,
EP A/ESD/R09-01/612 (May 4);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e0901612.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2001b, Poles, Incorporated Integrated Assessment, (May 26);
http://vosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/9f3c21896330b4898825687b007a0f33/434
a255cbae5217d88256b560065cb04?QpenDocument.
U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2002a, Surface Soil Samples Analytical Results Summary: Poles
Incorporated Dioxin/Furan Sampling, Oldtown, ID (Aug.);
http://vosemite.epa.aov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/9f3c21896330b4898825687b007a0f33/434
a255cbae5217d88256b560065cb04/$FILE/Soil%20Results.PDF.
U.S. EPA (Region 6), 2002b, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Marion Pressure Treating,
EPA ID: LAD008473142, OU01, Marion, Louisiana, 06/28/2002, EPA/ROD/R06-02/009;
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r06020Q9.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 5), 2002c, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Sangamo Electric Dump/
Crab Orchard National Wildiife Refuge (USDOI), EPA ID: IL8143609487, OU 04,
Carterville, IL, 09/12/2002, EPA/ROD/R05-02/044 (Sept. 12);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0502044.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 5), 2003a, Ecological Screening Levels (Aug. 22);
http://www.epa.gov/req5rcra/ca/ESL.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 6), 2003b, Medium-Specific Screening Levels]
http://www.dea.state.ok.us/LPDnew/HW/02screentable.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2003c, EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory (USDOE), EPA ID: ID4890008952, OU 03, Idaho Falls,
ID, 03/26/2003, EPA/ESD/R10-03/133;
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e1003133.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2003d, EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Arctic
Surplus, EPA ID: AKD980988158, OU01, Fairbanks, AK, 06/17/2003, EPA/ESD/R10-
03/009; http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e1003009.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2003e, Record of Decision-, Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
for the Soil and Groundwater at the Wrigley Charcoal Site, Wrigley, Hickman County,
Tennessee; with cover sheet EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Wrigley Charcoal
Plant, EPA ID: TND980844781, OU 00, Wrigley, TN, 07/18/2003 EPA/ROD/R04-03/576
(July 18); http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0403576.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2003f, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: OeserCo., EPA ID:
WAD008957243, OU 10, Bellingham, WA, 09/18/2003, EPA/ROD/R10-03/135;
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1003135.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 9), 2003g, Selma Pressure Treating Superfund Site, Record of Decision
Amendment, with cover page, EPA Superfund Record of Decision Amendment, Selma
Treating Co., EPA ID: CAD029452141, OU 01, Selma, CA, 09/30/2003, EPA/AMD/R09-
03/016, (Sept. 30); http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0903016.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 2003h Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments, OSWER
Directive 9285.7-53, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC
(Dec. 5); http://www.epa.qov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/hhmemo.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 9), 2004a, Primary Remediation Goal Table, (Oct.);
http://www.epa.qov/reqion09/superfund/prq/files/04prqtable.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 9), 2004b, Users Guide and Background Technical Document for US EPA
Region 9's Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG) Table;
http://www.epa.qov/reqion09/superfund/prq/files/04usersquide.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 2), 2004c, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Vega Baja Solid Waste
Disposal, EPA ID: PRD980512669, OU 01, Rio Abajo Ward, PR, 04/06/2004,
November 2009
Page B-72
-------
EPA/ROD/R2004020001421 (April 6);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2004020001421 .pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 2), 2004d, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Franklin Burn, EPA ID:
NJD986570992, OU 01, Franklin Township, NJ, 05/03/2004,
EPA/ROD/R2004020001417 (May 3);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2004020001417.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2004e, Woolfolk Chemical Works Site, OU #3: Amended Record of
Decision, August 27, 2004\ with cover sheet EPA Superfund Record of Decision
Amendment: Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc., EPA ID: GAD003269578, OU 03, Fort
Valley, GA, 08/30/2004, EPA/AMD/R04-04/664 (Aug. 30);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0404664.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 1), 2004f, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1, Shpack Landfill
. Superfund Site Record of Decision Summary, September 2004; with cover sheet EPA
Superfund Record of Decision: Shpack Landfill, EPA ID: MAD980503973, OU 1,
Norton/Attleboro, MA, 09/30/2004, EPA/ROD/R01-04/694 (Sept. 30);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0104694.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2004g, Second Five-Year Review Report for American Crossarm &
Conduit Co. Superfund Site, Chehalis, Washington (Sept.);
http://www.epa.aov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f04-10004.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 2005a, Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, EPA/630/P-03/001F (March);
http://cfpub.epa.aov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.cfm?deid=116283, as cited in VADEQ,
2008cVoluntary Remediation Program Risk Assessment Guidance.
U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2005b, Amendment to the Record of Decision Carolina Transformer Site,
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina, July 2005; with cover sheet EPA
Superfund Record of Decision Amendment: Carolina Transformer Co., EPA ID:
NCD003188844, OU 1, Fayetteville, NC, 7/22/2005, EPA/AMD/R04-05/038 (July 22);
http://www.epa.aov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0405038.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 7), 2005c, Record of Decision, Missouri Electric Works Site, Cape Girardeau,
Missouri, prepared by USEPA, Region VII, Kansas City, Missouri, September 2005; with
cover sheet EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Missouri Electric Works, EPA ID:
MOD980965982, OU 02, Cape Girardeau, IA, 09/28/2005, EPA/ROD/R07-05/052
(Sept. 28); http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0705052.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 1), 2005d, Record of Decision Summary Service of New England, Inc
(SRSNE) Site, Southington, Connecticut, September 2005\ with cover sheet EPA
Superfund Record of Decision, Solvents Recovery Service of New England, EPA ID:
CTD009717604, OU 03, Southington, Connecticut, 09/30/2005, EPA/ROD/R01-05/008
(Sept. 30); http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0105008.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 6), 2005e, Second Five-Year Review Report: Rogers Road Municipal Landfill
Superfund Site, EPA ID: ARD981055809, Pulaski County, Arkansas (Sept.);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f05-06017.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2006a, Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection:
Escambia Wood Treating Company: Superfund Site, Operable Unit 01 (Soil), Pensacola,
Escambia County, Florida, February 2006; with cover sheet EPA Superfund Record
of Decision: Escambia Wood - Pensacola, EPA ID: FLD008168346, OU 01, Pensacola,
FL, 02/13/2006, EPA/ROD/R2006040001445 (Feb. 13);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001445.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2006b, Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection:
Brown's Dump Site, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, August 2006; with cover sheet
EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Brown's Dump, EPA ID: FLD980847016, OU 00,
Jacksonville, FL, 08/24/2006, EPA/ROD/R2006040001161 (Aug. 24);
http://www.epa.oov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001161.pdf.
November 2009
Page B-73
-------
U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2006c, Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection:
Jacksonville Ash Site, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, August 2006; with cover
sheet EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Jacksonville Ash Site, EPA ID:
FLSFN0407002, OU01, Jacksonville, FL, 08/24/2006, EPA/ROD/R2006040001162
(Aug. 24); http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001162.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2006d, Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection,
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site, Statesville, Iredell County, North Carolina, September 2006;
with cover sheet EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Sigmon's Septic Tank Service,
EPA ID: NCD062555792, OU I, Irdell, NC, 09/19/2006, EPA/ROD/R2006040001281
(Sept. 19); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001281.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 6), 2006e, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Jasper Creosoting Company
Inc., EPA ID: TXD008096240, OU 01, Jasper, Texas, 09/20/2006,
EPA/ROD/R2006060001482, Region 6 (Sept.);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulitext/r2006060001482.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2006f, Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection:
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Company: Superfund Site, Operable Unit 02
(Residual Dioxin in Soil), Whitehouse, Duval County, Florida, September 2006; with
cover sheet EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Co.,
EPA ID: FLD991279894, OU 02, Whitehouse, FL, 09/28/2006,
EPA/ROD/R2006040001242 (Sept. 28);
' http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006Q4Q001242.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 2008a, Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/R-06/096F, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC (dated Sept., released Oct. 30);
http://cfpub.epa.qov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=199243.
U.S. EPA, 2008b, Frequently Asked Questions on the Update to the ATSDR Policy Guideline
forDioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds in Residential Soil, OSWER 9285.7-84FS
(Dec.); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/additions.htm;
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/92-857-84fs.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 9), 2008c, Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants(pre\/\ous PRG
table).
U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2008d, First Five Year Review Report for Arctic Surplus Salvage Yard
Superfund Site, ARCSF 24-6, Fairbanks, Alaska (Dec.);
http://vosemite.epa.gov/r10/CLEANUP.NSF/sites/fivevr/$FILE/Arctic%20Surplus%20Firs
t%20121808.Pdf.
U.S. EPA, 2009a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health
Evaluation Manual, Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment,
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Washington, DC (Jan.)
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/raqsf/pdf/partf 200901 final.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 3), 2009b, Mid-Atlantic Risk Assessment, Human Health Risk Assessment,
Risk-Based Concentration Table; http://www.epa.gov/req3hwmd/risk/human/index.htm
(last updated May 2009, accessed November 2009).
U.S. EPA, 2009c, Record of Decision System (RODS), online database, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, Washington, DC; http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods
(last updated June 3, 2009; accessed November 2009).
U.S. EPA (Region 9), 2009d, Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals;
http://www.epa.gov/reqion09/superfund/prq/ (page last updated May 27, 2009; accessed
November 2009).
U.S. EPA (Region 3), 2009e, Regional Screening Level (RSL) Table Residential Soil, (April);
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-
concentration table/Generic Tables/index.htm;
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-
November 2009
Page B-74
-------
concentration_table/Generic_Tables/pdf/ressoil_sl_table_run_APRIL2009.pdf (page last
updated June 8, 2009; accessed November 2009).
U.S. EPA (Region 3), 2009f, User's Guide (for the Risk-Based Concentration Table), Mid-
Atlantic Risk Assessment; http://www.epa.Qov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-
concentration table/usersauide.htm#parameters (page last updated May 20, 2009;
accessed November 2009,).
U.S. EPA, 2009g, EPA's Science Plan for Activities Related to Dioxins in the Environment,
Washington, DC (May 26); http://www.epa.gov/dioxin/scienceplan;
http://cfpub.epa. qov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfrn?deid=209690.
UT, 2006, Utah LUST Program Screening Levels for Soil and Groundwater (Summer);
http://www.onderqroundtanks.utah.QQv/docs/tank news sum06.pdf.
VADEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality), 2008a, Table 4.2, Cancer Toxicity Data
(Aug. 1); http://www.deq.virqinia.gov/export/sites/default/vrprisk/files/toxicitv/vrp42.xls.
VADEQ, 2008b, Table 2.9, Selection of Contaminants of Concern Soil: Restricted
(Commercial/Industrial), Voluntary Remediation Program (Aug. 21);
http://www deq.virqinia.gov/export/sites/default/vrprisk/files/screen/vrp29.xlS-
VADEQ, 2008c, Voluntary Remediation Program Risk Assessment Guidance, (Sept. 10)
http://www.deq.virqinia.gov/vrprisk/raquide.html.
VADEQ, 2009, Table 2.5, Selection of Contaminants of Concern Soil: Unrestricted
(Residential), Voluntary Remediation Program (Jan. 21);
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/vrprisk/files/screen/vrp25.xls
Van den Berg et al., 1998, Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) forPCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for
Humans and Wildlife, Environmental Health Perspectives, 106(16):775-792;
http://www.ehponline.org/realfiles/docs/1998/106p775-792vandenberg/abstract.html.
Van den Berg et al., 2006, The 2005 World Health Organization Re-evaluation of Human and
Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-iike Compounds,
Toxicoloqical Sciences, 93(2):223-241 (July);
http://toxsci.oxfordiournals.orq/cqi/reprint/93/2/223?iikey=pioOqXG6dqhrndD&kevtvpe-re
f.
VTDEC (Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation), undated, Brownfields Reuse
Initiative, Cleanup Standards and Guidance;
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/SMS/RCPP/Cleanup-Stand-Guid.htm.
WADEC (Washington State Department of Ecology), 1998, Fact Sheet: Controlling Metals and
Dioxins in Fertilizers, Ecology Publication #98-1251-HWTR, Olympia, WA (Jan.)
http://www.ecv.wa.qov/news/1998news/fert.html.
WADEC, 2007, Model Toxics Control Act Statute and Regulation, Publication No. 94-06, Toxics
Cleanup Program, Olympia, WA (Nov. Revision); http./Avww.ecv.wa.gov/pubs/9406.pdf.
WADEC, 2009, Cleanup Levels and Risk Calculations (CLARC Database Search),
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecv/clarc/Reportinq/CLARCReportinq.aspx.
Wheat G., 2000, [USCC] Dioxins and Furans (Wl DNR, May 10 email, identifies concentrations
from Wl Dept. of Health and Family Services, Division of Health, and Dept. of Natural
Resources, Division of Watershed Management;
http://mailman.cloudnet.com/pipermail/compost/2000-Mav/0Q6755.html. cites Thiel et al.
(1995) and Wl Dept. of Health memo (May 4, 1994) from Goldring, Bureau of Public
Health, subject: ' Revision of DOH Guidelines for Dioxin in Landspread Sludge."
White K.L. Jr, Lysy H.H., McCay J.A., et al., 1986, Modulation of Serum Complement Levels
Following Exposure to Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins, Toxicology and Applied
Pharmacology, 94:209-219.
WHO (World Health Organization), 2005, Project for the Re-evaluation of Human and
Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) of Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds,
November 2009
Page 8-75
-------
Interational Programme on Chemical Safety, Chemicals Assessment, with link to Van
den-Berg et al., above); http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/tef update/en/.
WIDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources), 2005, Overview and Composting
Product Approval, WI-613-05 (May)
http://dnr.wi.gov/orq/aw/wm/publications/anewpub/WA613.pdf.
Wright, D., 2009, Dioxin Clean-up Goal in Soil - Maine, personal communication from D. Wright
(Division of Remediation, MEDEP) to M. McDonough (EPA Region 1, Boston, MA)
(July 23).
WVDEP (West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection), 2001, Voluntary Remediation
and Redevelopment Act Guidance Manual, Version 2.1, (March 13);
http://www.wvdep.org/Docs/3200 RemediationGuidanceVersion2-1.pdf.
WYDEQ (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality), 2008, Fact Sheet #12: Soil Cleanup
Level Look-up Table, Voluntary Remediation Program (Jan. 3);.
http://deq.state.wv.us/volremedi/downloads/Current%20Fact%20Sheets/FS 12.pdf.
November 2009
Page B-76
------- |