EPA
December 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, and Boyan Peshlov
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
December 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.
Preferred citation:
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Review of State Soil Cleanup Levels for
Dioxin. December 2009. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
Available from http://www.epa.gov/ncea.
-------
REVIEW OF STATE SOIL CLEANUP LEVELS FOR DIOXIN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTATION iv
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 Values and Target Risks 26
3.3 Derivation Methodology 56
3.4 Evaluation Criteria 80
4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 80
4.1 State Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin 80
4.2 Factors Contributing to Similarities and Differences 84
4.3 Evaluation Context 85
5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 86
6 REFERENCES 87
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 17
December 2009 Page i
-------
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 70
15 Main Factors Leading to Differences in Dioxin Cleanup Levels for the
Unrestricted/Residential Scenario 74
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-27
B.7 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 7 B-31
B.8 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 8 B-34
B.9 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 9 B-37
B.10 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 10 B-50
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
December 2009 Page /'/'
-------
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
December 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
agency 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 (U.S. 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)
December 2009
Page iv
-------
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 (U.S. 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
December 2009
Page v
-------
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
l_A 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
December 2009
Page vi
-------
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 (U.S. EPA)
OU operable unit
p para
PA Pennsylvania
PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
PBT persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic
December 2009
Page vii
-------
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 (U.S. EPA Region 3, AK, OR, 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 (U.S. 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
December 2009
Page viii
-------
NOTATION (Cont'd.)
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TDH Texas Department of Health
TEC toxic equivalency concentration
TEF toxic 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 T exas
TXNRCC Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
UCL upper concentration limit
|jg 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 Wsconsin
WIDNR Wsconsin 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)
December 2009
Page ix
-------
December 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. It 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 interim recommended
preliminary remediation goal (PRG) for dioxin in soil, which is to be developed by the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
As context, the extant OSWER PRG or starting point for setting a cleanup level for residential
scenarios is 1 part per billion (ppb) or 1,000 parts per trillion (ppt) as dioxin toxic equivalents
(TEQ) in surface soil. The TEQ reflects the combined toxicity of the dioxin mixture for which
individual toxicities are weighted relative to the most potent form, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (hereafter referred to as TCDD) using toxic equivalency factors (TEFs). This cleanup
level considers a reasonable maximum exposure that emphasizes a childhood pattern of
incidental soil ingestion, and a TCDD cancer slope factor based on a scientific evaluation of
rodent bioassay data published in 1978. The parallel recommended starting points for
commercial/ industrial scenarios are in the range of 5 to 20 ppb, or 5,000 to 20,000 ppt.
5.2 APPROACH
State 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 territories - American Samoa, Guam, Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territories - were also included in this review, bringing the total
entities checked 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 reviews.
5.3 RESULTS
Nearly half the states and territories (26) have identified a cleanup level or guideline for dioxin in
soil. About 60 percent of these levels are as TCDD, with the rest as dioxin or TCDD TEQ.
The concentrations identified across these states and territories, as well as the scientific bases
in terms of the exposure calculations, 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 scenarios 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 a
representative value per state and land use category, grouped as unrestricted/residential and
commercial/industrial land use. More detailed data are available in Appendix B.
December 2009
Page S-1
-------
S.3.1 Soil Cleanup Levels
Soil cleanup levels have been identified for unrestricted/residential use by 26 states and
territories, ranging from nearly 4 to 1,000 ppt as shown in Figure S-1. Some values are not yet
available online, and parenthetical dates accompany those identified by the field during the
review phase (such as internal and provisional concentrations). Frequency distributions of the
cleanup levels for both unrestricted and restricted scenarios are presented in Figure S-2. The
commercial/industrial cleanup levels range from 18 to 5,000 ppt, differing by a factor of about
270, compared to 250 for the unrestricted/residential cleanup levels.
For unrestricted/residential use, more than 75 percent of the values (20) fall at or below 120 ppt,
and most (15) are less than 40 ppt. While values reported as TEQ may be expected to be
somewhat higher than those based on TCDD, and several are, half of the ten TEQ-based
cleanup levels are in the group below 120 ppt, and 30 percent of those below 36 ppt are TEQs.
At the lowest end of the concentration range are seven states with cleanup levels documented
in the last ten years that are the same as soil concentrations commonly used for preliminary
screening evaluations, i.e., 3.9 to 4.5 ppt. This suggests that nearly a third of the states with
cleanup levels have essentially adopted a value intended for screening purposes (generally
based on a target risk of 10"6 with default residential assumptions).
In the concentration group above 120 ppt are four cleanup levels that are 100 times higher than
the lowest set. These four, which range from 390 to 450 ppt as dioxin TEQ, are for Hawaii and
three Pacific Rim territories (documented in 2006 and 2008, respectively).
Topping the range is the cleanup level of 1,000 ppt identified by two states, Alabama and Texas
(documented in 2007 and 2009, respectively). This is the recommended OSWER concentration
for residential soils, as TEQ. Alabama identifies the basis as TCDD, while Texas indicates
TEQ. The five states that join Texas, Hawaii, and three Pacific island territories in reporting
cleanup levels as TEQs are Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio. (Wyoming adopts
the EPA Regional screening level for TCDD and indicates TEFs may be considered for others.)
All but 5 of the 26 states with unrestricted use levels also identify cleanup levels for commercial/
industrial use. (These five are: Alaska, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, and Wyoming.) For the rest,
levels for restricted use are higher than for residential, as expected. This reflects less extensive
exposures and in some cases less restrictive target risks. As a group, these concentrations are
within a factor of 5 of the residential levels and thus span a wider range. (States use various
terms for these scenarios; for simplicity, they are grouped as "commercial/industrial" here.)
Soil concentrations that are not formal cleanup levels but could offer related insights were found
for nearly half the remaining states and territories (15 of 31). Most were clarified as screening
values during field review; these values are included in the report as potential context for those
cases where standard cleanup levels are unavailable. No generic cleanup levels for dioxin were
identified for the remaining 15 states and the last territory. In fact, these states (including
California and Utah) and the Trust Territories have deferred identifying generic cleanup levels,
calling instead for risk-based determinations that can incorporate site-specific factors. This
same approach is taken by a number of the states that identify screening values but no cleanup
levels. 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 (TEQ) from essentially a screening
approach, both refer to the need for site-specific determinations of an actual cleanup level.
December 2009
Page S-2
-------
1,100
1,000
900
S 800
c
~ 700
L.
1 600
o
O 500
O
ĶI 400
o
° 300
o
w 200
1,000
1,000
450
450
450
390
(60) 60
4.26 3.9
120
^ <$> & rgH' & & & &
^ d5* ^ <5Ū y. ^ V ^ A ^ ^ ~<5 .Ŧ*' S< is
cr c<$>
f ^ ^ ,#' ^ o°" ^ o°" o°" cp ^ 4? ^ ^
^ Ģ>' ^ & <^' °Y c^' ^ o*> ^ #" #' #' ^ o*' cf'
-------
Unrestricted (Residential)
Restricted (Commercial/Industrial)
11
WA
10
ME
9
NH
120
PA
7
FL
90
Ml
4.5
AZ, MD,
OR, WY
80
GA
40
DE
5,000
TX
60
KS (IN)
38.2
MS
5,000
AL
45
IN
35
MN
1,800
AS, GM,
NMI
38
AK
-
450
AS, GM,
NMI
31
ME
530
PA
4.26
MS
35.8
OH
30
FL
160
AZ, NE
360
IA
4
DE
20
MN
1,000
TX
20
OR
300
NH
1,600
HI
m to
19
IA
390
HI
1,000
AL
18
MD
100
KS
180
IN
1,500
WA
vo
Ģ
\*>
vo
vo
vo
Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)
-?>
c?>
cP
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)
December 2009
Page S-4
-------
S.3.2 Exposure Calculations
The exposure calculation is central to the determination of health-based cleanup levels. The
current review of soil cleanup levels for dioxin indicates that states generally follow the standard
EPA approach for deriving such concentrations, tapping the standard equation from the EPA
1989 risk assessment guidance for Superfund or 1996 soil screening guidance. The same
basic equation also underlies the EPA Regional screening levels (RSLs), which have been
adopted as cleanup levels by several states.
In most cases, dioxin is one of many chemicals for which states have derived soil cleanup
levels, so the agencies have identified generic exposure calculations for broad application.
Although individual terms vary, the basic structure and concepts are similar across
organizations. For dioxin, incidental ingestion is the dominant exposure route for unrestricted/
residential use, and four states (Delaware, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Washington) base
their cleanup levels on this pathway alone. Most others incorporate inhalation and/or dermal
exposures, but those contributions tend to be relatively small. However, under certain scenarios
(such as for excavation workers), these additional exposure routes can contribute substantially
to the derived cleanup level.
Regarding the parameter values, most states apply common EPA default assumptions so the
exposure factors are generally similar. However, relatively minor differences exist, with some
reflecting state-specific context. For example, the Washington averaging time and the
Minnesota exposure duration are slightly longer than the traditional EPA default residential
values. The equations and values used by states to derive dioxin cleanup levels are presented
in the body of the report and Appendix B. The combined exposure factors generally produce
differences within a factor of ten. For example, values used for exposure frequency differ by
about 2.4-fold, and those for the age-adjusted soil ingestion factor differ by less than 3-fold.
5.3.3 Target Risks
Target risks used to derive state cleanup levels for both unrestricted and restricted use range
from 10"4 to 10"6 (which is also the EPA target incremental risk range for contaminated sites).
These risks are shown in Table S-1 and Figures S-3 and S-4. Almost half the states that
indicate a target risk for their unrestricted cleanup levels (11 of 24) use a value of 10"6. Eight
use 10"5, and one (Iowa) uses a value halfway between the two, at 5x 10"6. The last four
(Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) use the upper-end value
of 10"4. The same target risks are used for the commercial/industrial cleanup levels, except 2 of
the 11 states that apply 10"6 for residential levels (Nebraska and Washington) use a value ten
times higher for the restricted scenarios.
5.3.4 Toxicity Values
Nearly all states that identify dioxin cleanup levels (24 of 26) indicate the health endpoint, and
all but one are based on cancer. This one level is the Iowa soil standard for nonresidential use,
which applies if dioxin is the only chemical of concern. The reference dose used to derive this
value is 10"9 mg/kg-d (which is the same as the chronic oral minimal risk level [MRL] established
by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] in 1998). For all other state
cleanup levels, including the standard residential level for Iowa, cancer is the limiting effect and
the oral slope factor is the toxicity value of interest.
(As a note, an online file for Texas indicates the cleanup levels are based on a noncancer effect
["n"] but no toxicity value is provided; field followup clarified that the basis is cancer)
December 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)
Terminology for Dioxin Cleanup Level
(as TCDD or Dioxin TEQ)
Unrestricted/Residential
Commercial/Industrial
10'6 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
NE
3.9
(see entry under 10~5)
Remediation goal 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
OR
4.5
20
Risk-based concentration for TCDD
WY
4.5
-
Cleanup level for TCDD
FL
7
30
Soil cleanup target level for TCDD TEQ
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 or TEQ
OH
35.8
-
Generic cleanup number for TCDD TEQ
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 TEQ
PA
120
530
Medium-specific concentration for TCDD
NE
(see entry under 10~6)
160
Remediation goal for TCDD
WA
(see entry under 10~6)
1,500
Cleanup level for TCDD
10~4 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 indicate a target
risk. AL adopted cleanup levels from the 1998 OSWER directive; TX adopted similar values without explicitly stating
they are from the directive. Although the AZ nonresidential remediation level of 160 ppt is not accompanied by an
explicit target risk, but 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 IN draft
provisional value for unrestricted use is in parentheses. The OR value is for the occupational scenario, direct contact.
December 2009
Page S-6
-------
10"6 5x10"6 10"5 10"4
500
450 450 450
390
400
x 200
120
100
(60)
35.8 38
0
NE DE MS OR AZ MD WY FL NH ME WA
IA
MN OH AK IN KS GA Ml PA
HI AS GM NMI
FIGURE S-3 Distribution of States with 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.)
December 2009 Page S-7
-------
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
o 1,200
'M
2
Ģ
8 1,000
c
o
o
c
g 800
o
w 600
400
200
10"
300
18
20
1 1
30
31
Ķ
38.2
m
40
n
MD
OR
FL
ME
MS
DE
10
1,500
530
160 160
180
100
35
10"
1,800 1,800 1,800
1,600
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.)
December 2009
Page S-8
-------
(More information is summarized for toxicity values than for the other topics in this report
because of broad interest, considering the availability of more recent toxicological data and
ongoing evaluations by EPA and other agencies.)
Across the 24 states and territories (hereafter generally referred to as states), four different
slope factors have been used to determine dioxin cleanup levels: 75,000; 130,000; 150,000;
and 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"1. These toxicity values are presented in Figure S-5 and Table S-2,
together with the states that use them. They were derived using toxicity data from one of two
rodent bioassays published 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. Cited sources 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 use a slope factor of either 150,000 or 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1.
Although very similar, each value is based on a different bioassay: the 1978 study by Kociba
and colleagues, and the 1982 National Toxicology Program (NTP) study, respectively. These
original toxicity studies were independently peer reviewed as part of their publication process,
as were the evaluations conducted to derive the slope factors. Three of the four slope factors
listed above are based on the Kociba study, and these three are summarized first below.
The slope factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 is used most often, underlying more than half the state
cleanup levels that include a toxicity value (13 of 24). It is based on the two-year dietary study
of Sprague-Dawley rats by Kociba et al., 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. This slope factor has also been
applied by other states to establish supporting concentrations for dioxin in soil, such as the
Nevada basic comparison levels (which are screening values rather than cleanup levels).
Updated evaluations of these same data were used by Michigan and Minnesota, the two states
with different slope factors than the rest. In 1986, the NTP revised its tumor classification
scheme, and scientists (including Kociba and his colleague Squire, as well as EPA work groups)
used the new method to reevaluate the incidence of female rat liver tumors and other tumors
from the 1978 data. This reevaluation 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. Michigan used the latter (half the older slope factor) to determine 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 the range of values presented in the EPA 2003 draft dioxin
reassessment. This value, derived from the Kociba study, was identified as the upper bound for
animal bioassays. At roughly 10 times the two most commonly applied values (and nearly
20 times the Michigan value), this slope factor was also used in a supporting role by the Pacific
island group (American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands). That is, it
was used to estimate a concentration that could be applied for the lower bound of an
operational cleanup range, as a companion to the standard cleanup levels above which
remedial action should be considered. Those main cleanup levels (which are the representative
concentrations shown in key figures and tables of this report) were derived using the toxicity
value of either 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 (for Hawaii) or 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 (for the three Pacific
island territories).
December 2009
Page S-9
-------
16
14
1
to 1
at
+-ŧ
TO
+Ķŧ
-------
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
13
AK, DE,
FL, HI,
IA, IN,
KS, MS,
NE, NH,
OH, PA,
WA
The source of this value is commonly given as EPA HEAST from 1997, which
lists several citations including the 1985 EPA Health Assessment Document
for Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin. 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 jjg/kg-d, or
estimated dietary amount 2,200 ppt) produced multiple toxicological effects,
with lesser effects reported at 0.01 jjg/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 jjg (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.")
December 2009
Page S-11
-------
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
This value is 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 draft upper bound slope factor in the reassessment
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. |n 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).
(+4,
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 this
Pacific island set. 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 these two other slope factors applied by nearly all other states.
December 2009
Page S-12
-------
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
8
AS, AZ,
GM, MD,
ME, NMI,
OR, 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 jjg/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.
a See the Notation section and report body for acronyms; see the body and references for the documentation indicated in this summary table.
December 2009 Page S-13
-------
The slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 is used by one-third of the states and is being
considered by an additional state. This value was derived from the 1982 chronic NTP study of
rats and mice (Osborne-Mendel, dosed by gavage 3 times/week and B6C3F1, gavaged
2 days/week, respectively). This toxicity value underlies the cleanup levels identified for Arizona
and Oregon, as well as the three Pacific island territories as noted above. This value also
underlies the current EPA Regional screening levels (RSLs) for dioxin, which have been
adopted by Maryland and Wyoming. 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 (including draft values) considering this slope factor to nine.
The following summary of the toxicity basis for this slope factor is taken from the 1998/2008
ATSDR toxicological profile for chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins. About 0.007 jjg/kg-d significantly
increased the incidence of thyroid follicular cell adenoma, and a dose 10 times higher increased
the incidence of neoplastic nodules in the liver and hepatocellular carcinoma in females. Doses
of 0.1 and 0.01 jjg/kg-d resulted in a significant increase in hepatocellular hyperplastic nodules
for females, while the next lower dose (0.001 |jg/kg-d) did not. Total weekly doses were
averaged to estimate a daily dose, which assumes daily dosing would give the same results.
(The TCDD half-life is relatively long so both schedules were expected to give similar tissue
concentrations.) These 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.
5.3.4 Key Differences
Differences among state values used to calculate exposures from incidental ingestion are
illustrated in Table S-3, together with the slope factors and target risks applied. While the
averaging time is generally the same (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. The input from inhalation and/or dermal
exposures also contributes somewhat to the range of cleanup levels across states. Additional
factors include the chemical basis (TCDD only, or dioxin TEQ), as well as whether the state has
derived a soil concentration or adopted an existing (e.g., screening) value as the cleanup level.
5.3.5 Evaluation Criteria
The information compiled for state cleanup levels was considered in terms of four evaluation
criteria commonly used to assess health-based values (including by OSWER). These criteria
are: (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 during the online searches to address these
criteria , and little more was obtained from field review inputs. This was particularly an issue for
transparency and the nature of peer review, but in several cases it also extended to
documentation of the scientific basis, notably for derivation of the underlying toxicity value. The
CalEPA toxicity values tend to address these criteria fairly well because of the extensive peer
review by external experts in accordance with a long-standing process, public availability, and
typical scientific rigor.
December 2009
Page S-14
-------
TABLE S-3 Summary Comparison of State Derivations for Incidental Soil Ingestion (main route for residential cleanup levels)a
Generic equation for residential/unrestricted scenario, (incidental ingestion: Cresjng = TRXAT / SFoxEFxlFSadjxl0"6 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 (IRxED)/BW (mg-y/kg-d)
NE
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
OR
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
5x10-6
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
10-4
25,550
350
114
NMI
450
130,000
10-4
25,550
350
114
a Shading highlights variations within related entries. Note the internal draft provisional value of 60 ppt for Indiana uses a SF value of 130,000.
AL and TX identify a cleanup level of 1,000 ppt, which is the concentration recommended in the OSWER directive for a residential scenario.
December 2009
Page S-15
-------
For dioxin, the CalEPA slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 used by eight states (and being
considered by a ninth) is well documented in terms of scientific basis, methodology, and peer
review. This value was derived using the linearized multistage model with slightly more recent
bioassay data (1982 NTP study) than used for the other slope factors (which are based on the
1978 Kociba data), 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 more than half
the states is limited. It is based on an outdated methodology, and the common 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 is not readily available;
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 1985 EPA health assessment document 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, 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 used by Minnesota, was taken from 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, 75,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 used by Michigan, is a final published value based
on an updated, peer-reviewed evaluation of the Kociba data using the updated NTP tumor
classification. However, documentation of its derivation, independent peer review, and public
availability of supporting information were not found to be as extensive as for the CalEPA value.
S.4 SUMMARY
Information on soil dioxin cleanup levels was pursued for all 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, and four Pacific island territories. Nearly half (26 of 57) have established cleanup
levels, and another quarter have identified screening levels. The rest call for site-specific
determinations (which incorporate relevant conditions) rather than identifying generic values.
For those states, additional insights were pursued from site records of decision.
The state cleanup levels for dioxin span three orders of magnitude, reflecting differences in:
(1) target risk; (2) cancer slope factor; (3) exposure assumptions; (4) reporting basis (TCDD or
TEQ); and (5) whether a value was adopted or derived. More than half the derived cleanup
levels reflect an older slope factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1, which was qualified as provisional and
under review. For unrestricted use, two states use the OSWER value of 1,000 ppt. About half
the site-specific cleanup decisions also reflect this concentration.
Several state cleanup levels fall in the middle range of around 400 ppt, but most are at or below
120 ppt. More than a quarter (7 of 26) are roughly 4 ppt, which indicates a number of states
have essentially adopted values developed for screening purposes (rather than cleanup
decisions) as their cleanup level. These low levels match the U.S. EPA Regional screening
level for unrestricted use. The scientific basis, external peer review, and transparency of these
adopted 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.
December 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 or 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 acknowledges contributors, and Chapter 6 lists references for the main report.
Appendices present supporting information on the approach (Appendix A) and detailed
data for individual states, organized by U.S. EPA Region (Appendix B).
December 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 I and II is highlighted in
Sections 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. Supporting details for the approach are provided in
Appendix A.
Staie 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 was also pursued. That is, the scope extends beyond the
50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico to the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territories (the last four are in EPA Region 9; see Table B.9).
December 2009
Page 2
-------
2.1 DOCUMENT/LITERATURE SEARCH
The scope of the literature survey to identify state soil cleanup levels for dioxin is summarized in
Table 1. The information resources pursued in this search 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), those are also
collected for potential 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:
Soil 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.
The primary searches for state cleanup levels for dioxin were conducted through June 2009, to
allow state agencies an opportunity to review the data compiled during the summer and provide
feedback by early fall, as coordinated by EPA regional counterparts. The intent was to present
information current through summer 2009. However, in finalizing this report, a number of
weblinks were rechecked during October and November 2009, and several recent updates were
discovered. These updates have been added to the report where identified (including one from
early December 2009).
December 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:
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). Such is the case for
dioxin.
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).
December 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 organized in groups based on land use.
The first set 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
s I J
i i
Figure 2a: Representative level per state
~
s
Figure 2b: As for 2a but log scale
~
s
Figure 3: As for 2b, by concentration
s
s
Figure 4: As for 2b, by Region
I -
V
Table 5: Additional values, by state
~
Table 6: States with no soil cleanup level
~
Figure 5:
As for 2b, plus screening values
~
~
Figure 6:
As for 5, by concentration
| s [
~
Figure 7:
As for 5, by Region
V
Figure 8:
Site-specific levels, by state
~
~
Figure 9:
As for 8, by concentration
~
~
Restricted Commercial/Industrial
Table 7: State cleanup levels
~
Figure 10a: Representative level per state
~
s
Figure 10b: As for 10a but log scale
~
~
Figure 11: As for 10b, by concentration
~
~
Figure 12: As for 10b, by Region
V
V
Table 8: Additional values, by state
~
Figure 12
As for 10b, plus screening values
' I I
~
Figure 14
As for 10b, by concentration
s I
V
Figure 1E
As for 10b, by Region
I ^
~
Figure 16
Site-specific levels, by state
~
~
Figure 17
As for 16, by concentration
J ~
a Additional supporting tables and figures, including for toxicity values, follow this set.
December 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, while no published level was found for Maine, the value identified by the state
during field review is shown in the figures. Dark borders indicate a TEQ basis.
The range of cleanup levels across states is considerable. Several concentrations at the
lower end reflect the fact that some states have adopted values established for
screening purposes to serve as cleanup levels. The wide distribution of cleanup levels
makes it difficult to distinguish the smaller values when graphed 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,
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.
December 2009
Page 6
-------
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
Scientific Basis
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
Exposure Toxicity
Risk
AK
38
Jun-08
150,000
Risk-based
concentration for
TCDD, residential
use, direct contact.
General equation for
direct contact,
incidental ingestion
and dermal exposure
considered.
Slope factor
source is given as
HEAST.
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, taken from the
state website.
AL
1,000
Apr-08
Not found;
see note at
right for the
toxicity
basis.
Preliminary
screening or cleanup
value for TCDD,
residential use, direct
contact.
(Adopted value from
OSWER directive.)
Reflects the
OSWER value;
derivation basis is
the evaluation by
Kimbrough et al.
(1984) of data
from Kociba et al.
(1978).
Cleanup value and
toxicological
context are
available online.
Cited in document from the
state website as a value that
can be used for "screening
or cleanup" purposes.
AS
450
Oct-08
130,000
Tier 2 action level for
dioxin 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
(U.S. EPA,
2009b).
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
(Jul-09)
130,000
Soil remediation level
for TCDD, residential
use, direct contact.
(Field review input of
July 2009 indicates
AZ has adopted the
EPA RSL and toxicity
value.)
General equation for
direct contact;
considers ingestion,
inhalation, and dermal
routes of exposure.
Slope factor is
from CalEPA, as
reflected in the
EPA RSL table.
10~6
Adopted equations
and toxicity
information from
Regional EPA
RSLs, for which
documents are
available online.
Current residential SRL from
state website for current or
intended future use of
contaminated site as a child
care facility or school where
children <18 are reasonably
expected to be in frequent,
repeated contact with soil.
December 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
Scientific Basis
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
Exposure
Toxicity | Risk
DE
4
Dec-99
150,000
Uniform risk-based
remediation standard
forTCDD,
unrestricted use,
protection of human
health.
General equation for
direct contact;
incidental ingestion is
primary contributor.
Slope factor
source is given as
HEAST.
10~6
Calculations and
risk-based tables
are available online.
Current residential URS
from state document.
FL
7
Feb-05
150,000
Soil cleanup target
level for TCDD TEQ,
residential use, direct
contact.
General equation for
direct contact;
considers incidental
ingestion, inhalation,
and dermal exposure
routes.
Slope factor | 10 s
source is given as I
HEAST.
Derivation basis
and equations are
available online.
(Default and
chemical-specific
parameter values
are in the FDEP
2005 technical
report.)
Current residential SCTL
from the state website.
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
direct contact;
considers ingestion
and inhalation
exposure pathways
Not found. | 10:
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
state website.
GM
450
Oct-08
130,000
Tier 2 action level for
dioxin 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.
Represents value above
which residential use is not
recommended in absence of
remedial actions to reduce
potential exposure, taken
from the agency website.
December 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
Scientific Basis
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
Exposure Toxicity
Risk
HI
390
Sum-08
150,000
Tier 2 action level for
dioxin TEQ,
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 value above
which residential use is not
recommended in absence of
remedial actions to reduce
potential exposure, taken
from the state website.
IA
19
(Jul-09)
150,000
Cleanup level for
residential land use.
Exposure equation
takes into account
ingestion and dermal
contact.
Slope factor
source is given as
HEAST.
5
x10"6
Formula used for
risk calculations is
available online.
Field review feedback
identified this as the dioxin
residential cleanup level,
statewide soil standard,
within the voluntary cleanup
program, 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 from the state
website.
(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 J 10"5
source is given as I
CalEPA. |
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 ..." (see Tier 2
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.
From the state website,
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.
December 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-d)1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scientific Basis
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
Exposure Toxicity
Risk
MD
4.5
(Jul-09)
130,000
Cleanup level for
TCDD, residential
scenario.
Exposure equation
considers ingestion,
inhalation, and dermal
exposure routes.
Slope factor
source is given as
CalEPA.
10~6
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
incidental ingestion,
dermal contact, and
inhalation of fugitive
dust.
Slope factor
source is given as
CalEPA.
10~6
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
Jan-06
75,000
Direct contact
criterion (DCC) and
risk-based screening
level (RBSL) for
TCDD TEQ.
Exposure equation
considers ingestion
and dermal routes of
exposure.
Slope factor based
on reanalysis of
Kociba et al.
(1978) data using
updated (1986)
NTP methodology.
10~5
DCC derivation
methodology is
available online.
Current direct contact
criterion from the state
website.
MN
20
Jun-09
1,400,000
Soil reference value,
residential scenario,
direct contact for
TCDD (or TCDD
TEQs).
General equation
considers incidental
ingestion, dermal
contact, and
inhalation.
Draft upper-bound
slope factor from
EPA (2003), which
was derived from
Kociba et al.
(1978) data.
10~5
Methodology and
updates to
parameter values
are available online.
Current residential SRV
from the state website.
December 2009
Page 10
-------
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
Scientific Basis
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
Exposure Toxicity
Risk
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
EPA (1996) Soil
Screening Guidance;
incidental ingestion is
the primary
contributor.
Slope factor
source is given as
HEAST (undated;
field review
feedback cited
pg. 3-33 of that
document).
10~6
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;
considers ingestion,
inhalation, and dermal
exposure routes.
Slope factor
source given as
HEAST.
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.
From the state website,
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
dioxin 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, per website;
represents the value above
which residential use is not
recommended absent
remedial action to reduce
potential exposure.
OH
35.8
Oct-09
150,000
Generic cleanup
numbers for TCDD
TEQ, direct contact
with soil.
General equation;
considers ingestion,
inhalation, and dermal
exposure routes.
Slope factor
source is given as
HEAST.
10~5
Derivation
methodology is
available online.
Current generic cleanup
number from the state
website.
December 2009
Page 11
-------
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
Scientific Basis
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
Exposure Toxicity
Risk
OR
4.5
Sep-09
130,000
Risk-based
concentration for
TCDD, residential
scenario, direct
contact.
General equation
adopted from RSLs;
considers ingestion,
inhalation, and dermal
routes of exposure
Slope factor
underlying the
RSL is from
CalEPA.
10~6
Values and
derivation
methodology are
available online.
RBC from recent state
update (of previous term,
"acceptable risk level" above
which action is to be taken
to reduce exposure).
PA
120
Nov-01
150,000
Medium-specific
concentration (MSC)
for TCDD, residential
scenario, direct
contact.
General equation;
considers ingestion
route.
Slope factor
source is given as
HEAST.
10~5
PADEP documents
are available online.
Current residential MSC
from the state website.
TX
1,000
Mar-09
Not found;
see note at
right for the
toxicity
basis.
Protective
concentration level
for dioxin TEQ,
residential scenario.
Exposure equation
accounts for ingestion,
inhalation, dermal
contact, and
vegetable
consumption.
Reflects the
OSWER value, for
which the
derivation basis is
the evaluation by
Kimbrough et al.
(1984) of data
from Kociba et 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.
PCL identified on the state
website; "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;
considers ingestion
exposure route.
Slope factor
source indicated
as HEAST.
10~6
Equations, cleanup
levels, and risk
calculations are
available online.
Current soil cleanup level
from the state website.
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.
a See Notation section and report text for acronym definitions. Field input from the review phase is in italics, and the input date is in parentheses.
December 2009
Page 12
-------
1,000
1,000
38
450
450
450
-80-
4.5 4
rvb cA r&
m
390
(60) 60
4.5 10
120
KJ$P ,3° pVJ # J$P JS° ^ <Ģ>N $3P *3° $S" J?5 <5$° 55° qc
# J9 0&ef * J? # ^ ^ # ? ^
? ^ Q?3 Q? Q?' C?> ^
C?> C?> QN C?> Cv>
FIGURE 2a Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by State
(Standard arithmetic scale; a dark border indicates the basis is TEQ vs. TCDD; a dashed border and lighter shading
indicates a draft value; parenthetical dates reflect field inputs for values not yet found online.)
December 2009
Page 13
-------
10,000
FIGURE 2b Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by State
(Logarithmic scale; a dark border indicates the basis is TEQ vs. TCDD; a dashed border and lighter shading indicates a
draft value; parenthetical dates reflect field inputs for values not yet found online.)
December 2009
Page 14
-------
10,000
§; 1,000
100
10
1,000 1,000
450 450 450
390
120
90
80
45
60 (60)
ĶĶĶĶ 38 35.8
20 19
11
0 9
4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.26 4 3.Ģ
J? & o? Oj o">> $ !>?'' .S?1 J? ^ ,C?J T?
^# d5" cPcf4* -fJ9 # d* # s* # ^ ^
-------
10,000
a 1,000
.o.
c
o
?
(0
c
a)
Ģ 100
X
o
o
(/)
10 r
120
4.5
1,000
80
4.26
45 90
(60)
35.8
20
1,000
60
19
3.9
8
4.5
450 450 3go 450
4.5
10
38
11
4.5
c?\S^ # C?\PN # c§^ & & J? .J? J? 5$ Jp & ^ c?5 5^ 5? <Ģ>
oŪW ^VVV ^ ^ o ^ o°VoV° ^
FIGURE 4 Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by Region
(EPA Regions are numbered across the top; a dark border indicates the basis is TEQ vs. TCDD; a dashed border and
lighter shading indicates a draft value; parenthetical dates reflect field inputs for values not yet found online.)
December 2009
Page 16
-------
TABLE 5 Additional State Concentrations Potentially Relevant to Soil Cleanup3
State
Cone
(PPt)
Context
AR
4.5
18
No cleanup level was found fordioxin, 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
! 9
No cleanup levels were identified for dioxin, but CA has developed human health
screening levels (HHSLs) forTCDD.
KY
oo
^ -
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 fordioxin TEQ 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 EPA RSLs.
NC
1,000
0.64
NC identifies two preliminary soil remediation goals (PSRGs) for TCDD TEQ: a
"preliminary health-based PSRG" (1,000) and "protection of groundwater SRG" (0.64).
NV
3.9
17.7
38.1
NDEP has developed basic comparison levels fordioxin 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) fordioxin TEQ, 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
3.9
16
SCDHEC fact sheet suggests EPA Region 9 PRGs were used for screening purposes.
(The PRGs were recently harmonized as EPA RSLs.)
TN
50
Soil screening level for dioxin TEQ, based on 10"b lifetime cancer risk over a 70-year life
(reflects the recent ATSDR [2008aj guideline).
VA
4.5
18
VADEQ indicates that EPA RSLs are used for screening purposes.
VT
4.5
18
VTDEC indicates that 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 for2,3,7,8-TCDD, for the residential and industrial
scenario, respectively, based on EPA Region 3 risk-based concentrations (screening
values) from July 1996, except industrial value is for 10~5 risk rather than 10~6.
a This table emphasizes levels developed for unrestricted/residential use; values for some other
scenarios are also included; italics indicate information from the field review phase. See Appendix B for
further details. See Notation and text for acronym definitions. Many states consider the EPA Regional
screening values to assess dioxin-contaminated soil (U.S. EPA, 2009b).
December 2009
Page 17
-------
(Page intentionally left blank.)
December 2009 Page 18
-------
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
10
60,000
3,000
1,000
63
47
39 38
385
450
450
212
4.5
80
42
45
4.5
4.5 4.6
390
42
4.5
72
42
3.9
60 60
_ 45
19
14
4.5
1,000
1,000 1,000
20
4.5
90 90 90
20
4.26
4.5
3.9
0.64
450
50
42
4.5
3.9
1,000 1,000
600
120
66
35.8
3.9
19
12
4.5
3.9
50
4.5 4.5
50
11
6.67
4.1
4.5 4.5
0.15
5? <$> <$> <#> & & $ & & 5^ 5? & ^ S? J? J? J? & & p\$$\ $Ģ>.$$> 5? 5^ 5^ J? 5? 5? & 5? 5? ^ J? ^ 5? <&> <&> <Ģ> <&> $Ģ" ^ <Ģ> ^
^ _ Pp , <Ģ> ^ r& ^ ^ .<<> ^0^ '_,Ģ>' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ,$$ >$$ >$$ ^ ^ o o a
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ v' v' -'
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.)
December 2009
Page 19
-------
100,000
60,000
10,000
1,000 1,000 1,000
1,000 1,000 1,000
I I I I
450 450 450
390 385
90 90 90
42 42 42 42
39 38
IJ.I,
20 20 ig ig
4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
4 26 4.1 4 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9
n
1 1 1 1 1 r
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.)
December 2009
Page 20
-------
100,000
10
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.)
December 2009
Page 21
-------
100,000
10,000
Cl
,0.
c
o
C5
+j
c
o
o
c
o
o
o
CO
X
o
1,000
100
10
20,000
1,000 1,0001,000
1,000
1,000
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
0.4
38
3.9 3.9
1.2
200
200
4.3
50
7 7
390
9.13
3.9
1,0001,0001,000
1,0001,0001,000
1,000 1,0001,0001,0001,000
120
62.5
14.5
40
4.3
4.1
3.9
400
107.7
38
6.7 6.67
& cp Jp & & & & c?5 & & ?? 5^ 5^ & -S? & & & S? 5$* J#5 & & -S^ &
of Vs ^ cf ^ ^ cf cfcfcf of ^ ^ <5Ū° <5Ū° V9 ^ V9 ^ V9 ^ ^ <
-------
100,000
20,000
10,000
1,000 1,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,000 1,0001,0001,000 1,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,000
400 390
200 200
120
107.7
62.5
50
40
38 38
14.5
9.13
7 7 6.7 6.67
4.3 4.3 4.1 4 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
1.2
0.4
5? ja*' j? & & 5? $ & .5^ & 5^ 5? <Ģ> & $!P. 5S3 5^ 5^ ^ 5^ . $ . <$>
<' <' rv rv yv rv yv V <' A' <' /V <' . \' jv .V yv yv yv .V' <' yv <' /V V yv X' A' a.' at V v/v yv /v /v <' . V' /V rf /V A' .V v/*v <' a.' a' a.' <' A' rr A' /v va.' V
FIGURE 9 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Unrestricted/Residential Use from Contaminated Site Applications, by Concentration (Reflects site-specific cleanup decisions, so all are shaded.)
December 2009 Page 23
-------
(Page intentionally left blank.)
December 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 identified (per 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.
a Italics indicate information from the field review phase; see tables in Appendix B for further details.
See Notation and text for acronym definitions.
December 2009
Page 25
-------
3.1.2 Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use
Soil Cleanup Levels
The figures and tables outlined 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
the same information organized by EPA Region to facilitate comparisons.
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.
Table 9 and Figure 18 present information for subsurface cleanup levels.
3.2 TOXICITY VALUES AND TARGET RISKS
Table 10 identifies the slope factors used by states to determine cleanup levels. The
distribution of toxicity values is shown in Figure 19. Supporting information on toxicity
values from other agencies is presented in Table 11.
The target risks applied to determine state cleanup levels for dioxin in soil are identified
in Table 12 (states are alphabetized within each risk level). Figure 20 presents the
distribution of states by target risk for the unrestricted/residential scenarios, and
Figure 21 presents this information for the commercial/industrial (restricted) scenarios.
December 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
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
Exposure Toxicity
Risk
AL
5,000
Apr-08
Not found;
see note at
right for the
toxicity
basis.
Preliminary screening or
cleanup value for TCDD,
commercial scenario,
direct contact.
(Adopted value
from OSWER
directive.)
Reflects the
OSWER value;
derivation basis
is the evaluation
by Kimbrough et
al. (1984) of data
from Kociba et
al. (1978).
Cleanup value and
toxicological context
are available online.
Cited in the state
document as a value that
can be used for
"screening or cleanup"
purposes.
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 and 1,800 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
(Jul-09)
Not
identified
Soil remediation level for
TCDD, nonresidential
scenario.
General equation; {Not identified.
considers
ingestion,
inhalation, and
dermal exposure.
Adopted from
Region 9 PRGs.
Remediation levels
and the guidance
document are
available online.
Specific toxicity
value not provided.
Current SRL for
nonresidential use, per
Field input. (Specific
information regarding the
toxicity value or risk
target was not provided.)
DE
40
Dec-99
150,000
Uniform risk-based
remediation standard for
TCDD, restricted use
with protection of human
health.
General equation
for direct contact;
incidental ingestion
is primary
contributor.
Slope factor from
HEAST.
10~6
Calculations and
risk-based tables
are available online.
Current restricted use
URS, from state website.
December 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-d)'1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scientific Basis
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
Exposure Toxicity
Risk
FL
30
Feb-05
150,000
Soil cleanup target level
for dioxin TEQ,
commercial/industrial
use based on direct
contact.
General equation
for direct contact;
considers
incidental
ingestion,
inhalation, and
dermal exposure
routes.
Slope factor from
HEAST.
10~6
Derivation basis and
equations are
available online.
(Default and
chemical-specific
parameter values
are given in the
FDEP 2005
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
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
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
Sum-08
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
for direct contact;
considers
incidental
ingestion,
inhalation, and
dermal exposure
routes.
Slope factor from
HEAST.
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.
IA
360
(Jul-09)
RfD: 1x10"9
mg/kg-d
Cleanup level for
nonresidential land use
based on noncancer
endpoint, if dioxin is the
only chemical of
concern.
Specific source
not identified
(RfD is same as
the ATSDR
chronic MRL;
field input
indicated as an
EPA source).
The formula used
for the risk
calculations is
available online.
Field review feedback
identified as the dioxin
nonresidential cleanup
level, statewide soil
standard, within the
voluntary cleanup
program, Iowa Land
Recycling Program.
December 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
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
Exposure Toxicity
Risk
IN
180
2006
(Jun-09)
150,000
(130,000)
Commercial/industrial
provisional default
closure level forTCDD
in soil, based on direct
contact. (The 2009
internal draft value is the
same.)
General equation Slope factor from
uses incidental HEAST.
ingestion as (More recent
primary contributor. s,ope factor is
{being considered
as part of the
internal update.)
10~5
The extant technical
guide is available
online. (2009
values have not yet
been published and
are pending any
changes in
algorithms or
toxicological data.)
The current online
(published) state value is
180 ppt; this is also the
value identified by IDEM
as an internal draft
update in development,
as part of field input to
this data compilation
effort.
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 I Slope factor from! 10~5
considers [HEAST. |
ingestion, I I
inhalation, and | I
dermal exposure | |
routes. !
The cleanup level
and equation with
soil exposure
factors are available
online.
Tier 2 addresses a single
contaminant and medium,
with standard
conservative default
exposure assumptions; it
does not include soil-to-
air transfer, cumulative
risk from multiple
contaminants or media,
or risk to ecological
receptors
MD
18
(Jul-09)
130,000
Cleanup level for
industrial scenario.
Exposure equation Slope factor from
considers CalEPA.
ingestion,
inhalation, and
dermal exposure
routes.
10~6
EPA RSL equations
are available online.
Field review feedback
identified the EPA RSL
for the industrial scenario
as the soil cleanup level
forMD.
December 2009
Page 29
-------
TABLE 7 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin per State: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use
Soil
Toxicity
Term and Scenario
Scientific Basis
Peer Review and
State
Cone
Date
Value
Selection Rationale
(PPt)
(mg/kg-d)1
Context
Exposure
Toxicity
Risk
Availability
ME
31
Jul-09
130,000
Draft generic soil
Value considers
Slope factor from
10~6
Equations and a
Concentration found via
cleanup level for dioxin
incidental
CalEPA.
summary of
weblinks from field review
TEQ, based on a
ingestion, dermal
j
calculations are
feedback. The
commercial worker
contact, and
available online.
commercial scenario
scenario.
inhalation of
i
value of 31 ppt is
fugitive dust.
considered representative
(with a more conservative
target ILCR, 10~6), as it is
"applicable at sites with
more than one
;
contaminant of concern."
MN
35
Jun-09
1,400,000
Soil reference value for
Exposure equation
Draft slope factor
10~5
Derivation
Current industrial worker
industrial worker, direct
takes into account
from EPA
methodology and
SRV.
contact, for dioxin TEQ.
exposure from
(2003), which
updates to
ingestion,
was derived from
parameter values
inhalation, and
Kociba et al.
are available online.
dermal contact.
(1978).
MS
38.2
Feb-02
150,000
Tier 1, target
General equation
Slope factor
10~6
Equations taken
State document explains,
remediation goal for
uses incidental
source is given
from EPA sources,
"Tier 1 TRGs may either
TCDD, restricted land
ingestion as
as HEAST.
for EPA RAGS are
be used as "default"
use scenario.
primary contributor.
available online.
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
General equation
Slope factor
10~5
Cleanup levels and
Current industrial VCP
established under the
uses incidental
source is given
remediation goals
RG.
NDEQ Voluntary
ingestion as
as HEAST.
are available online.
Cleanup Program
primary contributor.
guidance for TCDD,
based on direct contact.
December 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
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
Exposure Toxicity
Risk
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.
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 and 1,800 ppt.
General equation
for direct contact;
considers
ingestion,
inhalation, and
dermal routes of
exposure.
Slope factor from
2008 EPA 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.
OR
20
Sep-09
130,000
Risk-based
concentration for TCDD,
occupational scenario.
Equation is based {Equations
on exposure from (adopted from
direct contact, former EPA
ingestion, dermal, {Region 9 PRG
and inhalation. document.
10~6
Values and
derivation
methodology are
available online.
Risk-based concentration
replaces previous
acceptable risk level.
PA
530
Nov-01
150,000
Medium-specific
concentration for TCDD,
based on nonresidential
scenario and direct
contact.
General equation; Slope factor
considers ingestion (source is given
route. |as HEAST
| (undated).
10~5
PADEP documents
are available online.
Current nonresidential
MSC for surface soil.
TX
5,000
Mar-09
Not found;
see note at
right for the
toxicity
basis.
Protective concentration
level for dioxin TEQ in
soil, commercial/
industrial scenario.
Exposure equation
takes into account
ingestion,
inhalation, dermal
contact, and
vegetable
consumption.
Reflects the
OSWER value;
derivation basis
is the evaluation
by Kimbrough et
al. (1984) of data
from Kociba et
al. (1978).
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."
December 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
Peer Review and
Availability
Selection Rationale
Exposure Toxicity
Risk
WA
1,500
Jun-09
150,000
Cleanup level forTCDD
in soil, direct contact,
industrial scenario.
Equation considers
ingestion as
primary contributor.
Slope factor I 10:
source is given
as HEAST.
Equations, cleanup
levels, and risk
calculations are
available online.
Current cleanup level for
the industrial scenario.
Notes: Field input from the review phase is in italics, and the input date is in parentheses. More details including citations are in Appendix B.
For the AZ concentration, it is not clear from information available 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; specific values were not provided for this compilation.
December 2009
Page 32
-------
6,000
5,000 (C)
1,800 (I)
5,000 (C/l)
1,800 (I)
160 (C/l)
1,600 (I)
1,800 (I)
360 (C/l)
180 (C/l) 160(1)
I| 100 (l) 18(1) 31(1) 35 (I) 38.2 (C/l)
I I.I I . - Ķ
300 (I)
530 (C/l)
20 (C/l)
1,500 (I)
& $ & & j? o# 5^ ^ 5? & 5^ 5? Ģ>N 5? 5?
d5"' ^ Ŧ. Os A/ v\. ^ i^)*1 .O) \4>'1 vX^ o~>
^ r' ^ <$
>' & V &
& ^
nT
^ #' #'
-------
10,000
5,000 (C)
5,000 (C/l)
1,000
Q.
c
o
?
2
c
o
o
c
o
o
100
X
o
W 10
1,800 (I)
1,800 (I)
160 (C/l)
40 (C/l)
30 (C/l)
1,600 (I)
1,800 (I)
360 (C/l)
300 (I)
180 (C/l)
160 (I)
100 (I)
31 (I)
35 (I) 38.2 (C/l)
18(1)
530 (C/l)
20 (C/l)
1,500 (I)
.5^ 5^ ^ 5^ & ,5^ JP 5? c?> 5?
^ O* ^
-------
10,000
1,000
100
W 10
5,000 (C/l)
5,000 (C)
1,800 (1)1,800 (1)1,800 (I)
1,600 (I)
1,500 (I)
530 (C/l)
360 (C/l)
180 (C/l)
160 (I) 160 (C/l)
100 (I)
38.2 (C/l)
40 (C/l)
31 (I) 30 (I)
20 (C/l)
^ d* cf* cf* ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
ĶV <*-'
-------
c
a)
o
c
o
o
X
o
o
10,000
1,000
a
c
o
15
(0
300 (I)
100
10
(I)
3 4
5,000 (C)
530 (C/l)
40 (C/l)
18(1)
J 6 7
|5,000 (C/l)
180 (C/l)
38.2 (C/l)
30 (C/l) _
35 (I)
360 (C/l)
160 (I)
100 (I)
1,800(1) 1,800(1) 1,800(1)
1,600 (I)
160 (C/l)
10
&
N
<^' ^ ^ ^ <
4* +*
&
^ ^ Od
ST
o°\# o° / o°
& ^ ^ 4^"
& *sŧ
FIGURE 12 Soil Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by Region
(EPA Regions are across top; a dark border indicates TEQ; a dashed border indicates draft values; parentheses indicate field input.)
December 2009
Page 36
-------
TABLE 8 Additional State Concentrations for Dioxin: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use
State
Soil
Date
Toxicity
Term and Scenario
Scientific Basis
Peer Review
Selection Rationale
Cone
Value
(PPt)
(mg/kg-d)1
Context
Exposure
Toxicity
Risk
and Availability
AS
170
Oct-08
1,400,000
Tier 2 action level for
General equation
From MNDOH
10~4
Information is
Value adopted from Guam
TCDD TEQ, lower bound
for direct contact,
(2003), animal
available online.
EPA. Represents lower
for nonresidential scenario,
incidental ingestion
bioassay upper
end of Tier 2 action level,
where remedial actions
as primary
bound derived
below which no remedial
vary when soil dioxin
contributor but
from Kociba et
action is required.
concentration is between
inhalation also
al., tapped from
170 and 1,800 ppt.
considered.
range of values
in EPA draft
reassessment
(2003a).
GM
170
Oct-08
1,400,000
Tier 2 action level for
General equation
From MNDOH
10~4
Information is
Represents lower end of
TCDD TEQ, lower bound
for direct contact,
(2003), animal j
available online.
Tier 2 action level, below
for nonresidential scenario,
incidental ingestion
bioassay upper !
which no remedial action is
where remedial actions
as primary
bound derived i
required.
vary when soil dioxin
contributor but
from Kociba et j
concentration is between
inhalation also
al., tapped from I
170 and 1,800 ppt.
considered.
range of values I
in EPA draft j
reassessment I
(2003a). [
HI
170
Mar-06
1,400,000
Tier 2 action level for
General equation
From MNDOH
10~4
Information is
Represents lower end of
TCDD TEQ, lower bound
for direct contact,
(2003), upper
available online.
Tier 2 action level, below
for nonresidential scenario,
incidental ingestion
bound derived
which no remedial action is
where remedial actions
as primary
from Kociba et al.
required.
vary when soil dioxin
contributor but
(1978) bioassay,
concentration is between
inhalation also
from range of
170 and 1,800 ppt.
considered.
values in EPA
reassessment
(2003a).
December 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
Peer Review
and Availability
Selection Rationale
Exposure
Toxicity
Risk
ME
310
(Jul-09)
130,000
Generic soil cleanup level
for dioxin TEQ, based on a
construction/excavation
worker.
Value considers
incidental ingestion,
dermal contact, and
inhalation of fugitive
dust.
Slope factor from
CalEPA.
10~6
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
Kimbrough et al.
(1984) evaluation
of Kociba et al.
(1978) data.
Value reflects the 1998
OSWER directive. See
Table 7 for the state-
specific soil value identified
for the commercial
scenario.
OR
140
Sep-09
Risk-based concentration
(RBC) for TCDD,
occupational scenario
protective of groundwater.
General equation
for direct contact,
incidental ingestion,
dermal contact, and
inhalation all
considered.
10~6
The concentration of
20 ppt identified for the
occupational scenario
based on direct contact
was selected as the
representative state-
specific value for
commercial/industrial use.
150
4,200
RBC for TCDD,
construction scenario,
direct contact, considering
ingestion, dermal, and
inhalation.
10~6
RBC for TCDD, excavation
scenario, direct contact,
considering ingestion,
dermal, and inhalation.
10~6
December 2009
Page 38
-------
100,000
CL
CL
c
o
c
d)
o
c
o
o
X
o
o
(/)
20,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
1,800
1,800
1,000
170
160
170
100
40
30
18 16
19
10
1,600
170
1,000
360
300
180 180
100
50
300
160
90
31.0
r
18.0
75
35
38.2
30
5,000
4,200
1,800
170
18
140
150
38.1 38
17.7
20
16
2,500
530
1,500
18 18
370
fS3 5? 5? 5? & 5? 5? 5? 5? . & 5? 5? 5? 5?
^ <<^ <<^ <<& <<& ^ cJ& cJ& cJ& cJ& ^ ^ ^
kX' ''o^'o^'o^'o^'o^'o^'^ '
FIGURE 13 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by State (Cleanup levels are solid bars; screening values are unshaded.)
December 2009
Page 39
-------
100,000
Q.
p.
c
o
c
0)
o
c
o
o
X
o
o
w
10,000
1,000
100
10
5,000 5,000 5,000
1,800 1,800 1,800
370 360
$ & & # j?3 j?3 # ^ <$> ;
^ ^ ^ o o o° / ^ ^ ^
- Q^' ^ ^
170 170 170 170
38.2 38.1 38
31 30 30
$ ^ ^ & & <§> & & j§> <Ģ> <Ģ> $ <§> <Ģ> Ķ$ cĢ> pV <Ģ> $> <Ģ> & $> & <Ģ> $p cĢ> j
\^^.y o° o° c# o° ^ o° C? C? i? ^ i? <Ģ> $P $ <Ģ> & & & j?3 & & j? & ^ $> # ?
^ ^ ^ cp OoV OoV V9 v/
-------
3
c
O
c
<1)
O
c
o
o
X
o
o
CO
10
100,000
20,000
10,000
5,000
1,000
300 300
100
50
10
31 30
18
1,000
40
18
530
370
18
5,000
2,500
38.2
30
18
180 180
90
75
35
5,000
38
18 18
360
160
100
18
1,800 1,800 _ 1,800
1,600
170
18
160
170
19
18
170
170
18
38
17.7
4,200
140
150
20
16
1,500
$ J? 5^ & & & & & $
^ qn qn q?5 ^ q?5^q?5{^^5q?5q?5q?5q?5q?5^q?5q?5^^ <Ģ <Ģ> $> <Ģ> $>
v9'^ VŧW ,/// ^ ^ ^^0° J>0&0&0&^^ ^VVVVQ^
S) rS) r?) r^> (J (J (J Q% (J Q% (J (^> <Ģ $> $> $> $> <§>
X/ cP O^'o/ C? C? Cp^^ ^
FIGURE 15 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by Region
(EPA Regions are across the top; cleanup levels are solid bars; a dark border indicates the basis is TEQ; a dashed border indicates a draft or supporting value; screening values are unshaded.)
December 2009
Page 41
-------
100,000
CL
ci
c
o
5
(0
s_
c
a)
o
c
o
o
c
"5
o
a
o
50,000
20,000
20,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
3,500
1,000
440
100
10
&
1,000
300
240 _
27
30 30 30 30 30 30
2,500
990 1,000
1,000
60
25
100 103
40
19
16
3.2
17.7
3,700
1,000
520
37
2,000
1,000
875
270
200
4.3
dp dp
& & & & & & 5^ 5^ 5#* & 5^ 5^ 5^ 5^ 5^ 5^ .5^ 5^ K5^ P
cJ0 cJ^ ^ <<&' ^ ^ <$* cJ0 ^ cJ0 ^ ^ ^ cJ^ <<& cfi i? cJ0 cJ$ ^ ~f cfi 0& cJ0 Ķ Ķ$Ķ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
FIGURE 16 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Restricted Use from Contaminated Site Applications, by State (Reflects site-specific cleanup decisions, so all are shaded.)
December 2009
Page 42
-------
100,000
50,000
10,000
1,000
100
10
0
20,000 20,000
5,000 5,000
3>700 3,500
2,500
2,000
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 990
&
&
&
875
520
440
300
270
240
200
103 100
60
40
37
30 30 30 30 30 30
27
25
19
17.7
16
3.2
&
&
5^
rĢ>
5^
\l> oS*
5^
&
&
&
&
&
&
S>N
&
&
&
^ ^ 0° ^ <5Ū° ^ ^ ^ cf of of <<& cf cf i? <<& of ^ ^ ^ ^
-------
(Page intentionally left blank.)
December 2009
Page 44
-------
TABLE 9 Supporting State Context: Subsurface Values
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
Toxicity
Value
(mg/kg-d)1
Term and Scenario
Context
Scientific Basis
Peer Review and
Availability
Exposure
Toxicity
Risk
AS,
GM,
NMI
1.500
Oct-08
130,000
Tier 1 environmental
screening level (ESL)
fordioxin 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 Table B.9
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
1.9x1011
Nov-01
150,000
Medium-specific
concentration for
TCDD, based on
nonresidential
subsurface soil
(2-15 ft).
General equation
uses incidental
ingestion as
primary
contributor.
Reflects earlier EPA value
indicated in HEAST.
10~5
PADEP documents
are available online.
December 2009
Page 45
-------
1,000,000,000,000
100,000,000,000
10,000,000,000
1,000,000,000
1.90E+11
§
Ģ
o
re
c
d>
o
c
o
o
X
o
o
-------
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
150,000
13
AK, DE,
FL, HI,
IA, IN,
KS, MS,
NE, NH,
OH, PA,
WA
The source of this value is commonly given as EPA HEAST1997, which lists
several citations including the Health Assessment Document for
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin. (U.S. 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 jjg/kg-d, or estimated dietary amount 2,200 ppt) produced multiple
toxicological effects, with lesser effects reported at 0.01 jjg/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 |jg (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.")
December 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
This value is based on a reevalution of the 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 draft upper bound slope factor from the
reassessment 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. |n 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).
(+4,
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 this
Pacific island set. 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.
December 2009
Page 48
-------
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
130,000
8
AS, AZ,
GM, MD,
ME, NMI,
OR, 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 jjg/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.
December 2009
Page 49
-------
TABLE 11 Supporting Context from Other Agencies
Endpoint
Toxicity
Value
Unit
Agency
Date
Scientific Basis
Nature of Value and
Peer Review
Cancer
Slope factor
In final
review
(mg/kg-d)"1
CalEPA* i 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 forTCDD calculated for California's
Proposition 65 is 5 pg/day (OEHHA, 2004). This
calculation uses a TCDD cancer potency factor of
1.3*105 (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).
December 2009
Page 50
-------
TABLE 11 Supporting Context from Other Agencies
Endpoint
T°x'cllŧ I Unit
Value
Agency
Date
Scientific Basis
Nature of Value and
Peer Review
Policy
guideline
(Toxicity I
value
underlying 5
recent soil;
guideline of
50 ppt
is not ATSDR
specified, j
see notes I
below)
Nov-08
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 forTCDD): "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)."
December 2009
Page 51
-------
16
14
to
<1)
TO
*->
-------
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
10'6 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
NE
3.9
(see entry under 10~5)
Remediation goal 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
OR
4.5
20
Risk-based concentration for TCDD
WY
4.5
-
Cleanup level for TCDD
FL
7
30
Soil cleanup target level for TCDD TEQ
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 or TEQ
OH
35.8
-
Generic cleanup number for TCDD TEQ
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 TEQ
PA
120
530
Medium-specific concentration for TCDD
NE
(see entry under 10~6)
160
Remediation goal for TCDD
WA
(see entry under 10~6)
1,500
Cleanup level for TCDD
10~4 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 explicitly 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.
December 2009
Page 53
-------
10"6 5x10"Ū 10"5 10~4
500
450 450 450
390
400
o 300
x 200
120
100
(60) 60
35.8 38
a
o
NE DE MS OR AZ MD WY FL NH ME WA
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.)
December 2009
Page 54
-------
10
-6
10"
10
-4
300
18
20
1 1
30
31
i
38.2
m
40
n
MD
OR
FL
ME
MS
DE
1,500
530
160 160
180
100
35
1,800 1,800 1,800
1,600
MN KS AZ NE IN PA WA
HI 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.)
December 2009
Page 55
-------
3.3 DERIVATION METHODOLOGY
States have applied standard methods to determine soil cleanup levels for dioxin. The
exposure and toxicity components of these methods are highlighted in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2,
respectively. The following discussion addresses the scientific basis of cleanup levels with an
emphasis on the calculations for unrestricted/residential scenarios. However, the tables and
figures also include information for commercial/industrial (restricted) cleanup levels, and the
approach for those scenarios involves the same basic concepts.
3.3.1 Exposure Calculations
The review of soil cleanup levels for dioxin indicates that states follow the standard EPA
approach for deriving such concentrations, commonly tapping the equation from the EPA (1989)
risk assessment guidance for Superfund or EPA (1996) soil screening guidance. The same
basic equation also underlies the recently harmonized EPA Regional screening levels (RSLs),
which have been adopted as cleanup levels by some states.
In most cases, dioxin is one of many chemicals for which states have derived soil cleanup
levels, so the agencies have identified generic exposure calculations for broad application.
Although terms vary somewhat and other relatively minor differences exist in the equation
structures, the basic concepts and routes considered in calculating exposures to guide cleanup
levels are essentially the same.
For soil contaminated with dioxin, the exposure basis for unrestricted/residential cleanup levels
is direct contact, and incidental soil ingestion is the key route. Four states base their cleanup
values on this pathway alone (Delaware, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Washington), and for
most of the remaining states with cleanup levels, incidental ingestion accounts for at least
90 percent of the total. The relative contribution is somewhat lower for six states, ranging from
50 percent (for Michigan and Minnesota) to about 75 to 85 percent (for Arkansas, Indiana,
Kansas, and Ohio).
While some variations exist in the specific terms and acronyms used, the common components
of the incidental ingestion equation applied across the states that provide derivation information
are: intake rate (IR), exposure frequency (EF), exposure duration (ED), body weight (BW), and
averaging time (AT); a units conversion factor (CF) is also often included. Extending to the
health endpoint, the common components are cancer slope factor (CSF or SF) (or oral
reference dose, RfD for the noncancer endpoint) and total target cancer risk (TR) (or total
hazard quotient, THQ, for the noncancer endpoint).
The general equation used to calculate a soil cleanup concentration for the residential scenario
based on incidental ingestion for the cancer endpoint is:
tng
mg
kg
TRxAT\ 365^x 70y I xBW(kg)
SF
mg
kg-d
f
xEF
xĢD(y)x/fi^JxCF
10 6 kg
mg y
December 2009
Page 56
-------
Most states consider 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 under the residential scenario. Thus, a combined
residential scenario (which covers the same hypothetical individual from childhood to adulthood)
often reflects an IFSadj calculated as follows:
The age-specific ingestion rates, exposure durations, and body weights can be lumped into a
single variable, which simplifies this equation to:
The equations and parameter values identified by the states to derive soil cleanup levels for
dioxin are summarized in Table 13; further information (including citations) is given in
Appendix B. Similarities and differences in the values used for the soil ingestion pathway are
highlighted in Table 14. (Shading is used to distinguish different values within related entries.)
Regarding the parameter values applied, most states use traditional EPA default assumptions
so the exposure factors are generally similar. However, relatively minor differences exist, some
of which reflect state-specific context. For example, the Washington averaging time and the
Minnesota exposure duration are slightly longer than the EPA default values for the typical
residential scenario.
The selected inputs presented in Table 14 illustrate that the combined exposure factors produce
differences within a factor of ten for this key exposure pathway. Although incidental soil
ingestion is the main contributor to dioxin cleanup levels for unrestricted/residential use, most
states also consider inhalation and/or dermal absorption - as shown in Table 13. (These routes
include modeling components unique to volatile compounds that are carried as part of the
overall calculation process.) In some cases, including for certain nonresidential scenarios,
these additional exposure routes can contribute more substantially to the calculated cleanup
level for dioxin.
December 2009 Page 57
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
(see Appendix B for further details)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
AK
38
CL = TRxAT x365d/v
EFx[(SF0x|Fsoi|/adjxCF) + (SFSxABSxSFdxCF)]
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
IFsoii/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
SFd = dermal slope factor
300,000 (mg/kg-d)"'1
CF = conversion factor, 10"6 kg/mg
Ingestion,
dermal
AL
1,000
Not available
Not available.
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 s
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
RBCrss = TR xATr
EFrx|FSadjxCSF0xCF
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 Ū kg/mg
Ingestion
DE presents the equation
for residential soil
ingestion from the EPA
Region 3 RBC tables;
other exposure routes are
not identified.
December 2009
Page 58
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
'see Appendix B for further details)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
FL
7
SCTL = (TRxBWxATxRBA)
EF x ED x FC( EXPoral+EXPderm+ EXPinhal)
where:
EXP0 = oral term = CSF0xIR0xCF
EXPd = dermal term = CSFdxSAxAFxDAxCF
EXPi = inhalation term = CSFiX|RiX(i/VF+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
CSFoi = 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 = volatilization factor, 4.619x10s m3/kg
PEF = particulate emission factor,
1.24x10Ū m3/kg
All
December 2009 Page 59
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
(see Appendix B for further details)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
GA
80
NC = (TRxBWxATx365 d/v)
EFxED (EXPoral+EXPinhal)
where:
EXP0 = oral term = CSF0x|Rsoi|XCF
EXPi = inhalation term = CSFiX|RiX(i/VF+1/PEF)
NC
=
notifiable concentration (mg/kg)
TR
=
target cancer risk, 10"5
BW
=
body weight, 70 kg
AT
=
averaging time, 70 y
EF
=
exposure frequency, 350 d/y
resident, 250 d/y nonresident
ED
=
exposure duration, 30 y resident,,
25 y nonresident
CSFo,
=
cancer slope factor, (mg/kg-d)"1
IRsoil
=
soil ingestion rate, 114 mg/d
resident, 50 mg/d nonresident
IRi
=
inhalation rate, 15 m3/d resident,,,
20 m3/d nonresident
CF
=
conversion factor, 10"6 kg/mg
VF
=
equation given but not all chemical-
specific parameters are provided
PEF
=
particulate emission factor,
4.63x10Ū m3/kg
Ingestion,
inhalation
The 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
values to
TRof 10"
the EPA RSL equation and toxicity
derive its cleanup level, but applies a
' 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
All
cleanup level but applies a TR of 10"
of 10"6 and an oral slope factor of
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 instead of
130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1.
instead
Represents value above
which residential use is
not recommended in the
absence of remedial
actions to reduce potential
exposure.
December 2009
Page 60
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
'see Appendix B for further details)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
IA
19
CL =
1/C oral^1/Cderm
CL = cleanup level (mg/kg)
Ingestion,
EDa = exposure duration for adult, 24y
EDC = exposure duration for child, 6y
dermal
where:
EFa = exposure frequency for adult, 350d/y
EFC = exposure frequency for child, 350d/y
Coral derm RFXAT
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 = (ER,xEF,xED,1
BWC = body weight child, 15 kg
BWC
CF = conversion factor, 10"6 kg/mg
Abs = absorption factor, 1 oral, 0.03 dermal
B = (ERaxEFaxEDa)
AT = averaging time, 25,550 d
BWa
RF = TR / SF
TR = target risk, 5*10"6
SF = slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
December 2009 Page 61
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
(see Appendix B for further details)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
IN
45
DCL = TRxATrx365 d/v
EF rx(A + B)
where:
A SF nx(lnqF adi+[SFSadixABS1)
6 mg/kg
10 a a
B = lnhFadjxSFi (1A/F + 1/PEF)
DCL = default closure level (mg/kg)
TR = target risk, 10"5
ATC = averaging time, 70 y
EFrs = exposure frequency residential,
250 d/y
SF0 = oral slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"
IngFadj = ingestion factor soil, age-adjusted,
114 mg-y/kg-d
SFSadi = skin factor soil, age-adjusted,
1,257 mg-y/kg-d
ABS = skin absorbance factor, 0.03
InhFadi = inhalation factor, age-adjusted,
10.9 m3-y/kg-d
SFi = inhalation slope factor,
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
VF = volatilization factor, m3/kg
PEF = particulate emission factor,
1.316x109 m3/kg
All
State review feedback
indicates the 2009 internal
draft value is based on a
SF0 of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
and IUR of 38 (|jg/m3)"1.
For these internal
provisional values,
calculating an inhalation
cancer risk via an IUR
approach would replace
the inhalation slope factor
and InhFadj in the
accompanying equation.
December 2009
Page 62
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
'see Appendix B for further details)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
KS
60
RBC (ma/ken = (TR x BW * AT * 365d/v)
EF*EDx[(A)+(B)+(C)]
where:
A= INGsxCFxSFo
B = INHxSFiX{1/VFs+1/PEF}
C = SF0xCFxSAxAFxABS
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,
1.18x10Ū m3/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 (last entry).
All
Per state review feedback,
the EPA RSL is the MD
soil cleanup level.
December 2009 Page 63
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
(see Appendix B for further details)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
ME
10
RAG =
(1/EPC ing) + (l/E^Cm/,) + (1/EPCde/
where:
ILCR x AT
EPC ing =
SF0x[{EDycxEFycx(IRycxCF/BWyc)}+{EDax EFax(IRaxCF/BWa)}]
Shortened versions of EPC equations with several exposure
parameters lumped were available for inhalation and dermal
pathways.
EPC/n/j _
0.68 x 10 '
[IUR(|jg/m ) *(i,000|jg/mg)x(1/PEF + 1/VF)]
EPC derm = 0.45 (kg BW * day/kg soil) * _j
SF ° DAF
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
IRyc = soil contact rate (child), 200 mg/d
IRa = soil contact rate (adult), 100 mg/d
BWVC = body weight (child), 14 kg
= body weight (adult), 70 kg
= conversion factor, 10"6 kg/mg
= inhalation unit risk, 38 (|jg/m3)"1
All
Equations provided in
MERAG draft technical
document.
yc
BWa
CF
IUR
PEF
DAF
= 1.36 x 10M
m
/kg
= dermal absorbance factor, 0.03
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 [jg/kg
SFo = 75,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
EFi = ingestion exposure frequency, 350 d/y
IF = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,
114 mg-y/kg-d
AEj = 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 are
given in MIDEQ (1998);
more recent
documentation from 2006
lists a generic DF of
353 mg-y/kg-d.
December 2009
Page 64
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
(see Appendix B for further details)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
MN
20
SRV =
TRxAT
where:
' (ing term)
(A) + (B) + (C)
IRx SFxCFxF|xEFn>
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
(see Appendix B for further details)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
NE
3.9
CL = 1
[(1/
Cpes soil ingestion)"*"( 1 f&res soil dermal)"*^ 1 f&res soil inhalation)]
where:
Cres soil ingestion ~~ _ TRrxATr
EF rxIFSadjxSFox10"6 mg/kg
TRrxATr
EP rxSFSadjxABSdx(SFo/ABSGi)x10"6 mg/kg
TRrxATr
EFrxEDaxf(URFx1000 ua/mq)1
PEF
res soil dermal "
res soil inhalation "
CL = cleanup level, (mg/kg)
TR = target risk, 10 Ū
SF0 = oral slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"
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
SFSadi = 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 (|jg/m3)"1
PEF = particulate emission factor,
1.2X109 m3/kg
All
NH
Concsoii = (ELCRxCF)
{CSFx(XA+XB)}
where:
A = (IRjxEFxEDjxRAFn)
(ATxBWi)
B = (SAxEFxEDxAFxRAFh)
(ATxBWi)
Concsoii = soil concentration (mg/kg)
ELCR = excess lifetime cancer risk, 10"6
CF = conversion factor, 10s 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)
EDi = exposure duration,2-6 (5 y),
7-16( 10y), 17-31 (15 y)
RAF0 = relative absorption factor ingestn, 1
AT = averaging time, 25,550 d
BWi = 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
December 2009
Page 66
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
'see Appendix B for further details)
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 = SF0x(IFSadjxCFxF|xEF)
B = SF0/OABsx(SFSadjxABSxCFxEF)
C = SFiX[lnhFadjxEFx(1/PEF)+(1/VF)]
GCN = generic cleanup number, mg/kg
TR = target risk, 10"5
AT = averaging time, carcinogens,
25,550 d
SFo i = oral and inhalation slope factor,
150,000 mg/kg-d
IFSadj = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,
114.3 mg-y/kg-d
CF = conversion factor, soil 10"6
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
InhFadi = age-adjusted inhalation factor,
10.9 m -y/kg-d
PEF = particulate emission factor,
1.36x10Ū m3/kg
VF = volatilization factor, none given
All
December 2009 Page 67
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
'see Appendix B for further details)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
OR
4.5
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, 130,000 (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-d)
SFi = inh. slope factor, 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
PEF = particulate emission factor,
1.316x109
All
Recent state update
indicates that OR has
adopted the CalEPA slope
factor of 130,000 per
mg/kg-d (which also
underlies the current
RSL), The available
equation and parameter
values (shown at left, with
the updated slope factor
information) are from 2003
documentation, which was
based on the previous
Region 9 PRG.
EF r [(IFSadjxSFoxCF)+(SFSadjxABSxSF0xCF)+(lnhFadjxSFi)/PEF]
PA
120
MSC = TRxATrx365d/v
qSf ox AbsxEFx|FadjxCF
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
Soilcnmh j,
[(1/ AirS0illnh-Vp)+(1/S°ilS0illng)+(1/S0ilS0ilDerm)]
Not found
Derivation basis is not
described. TX might have
adopted OSWER values.
Toxicity values and
chemical-specific
parameter values were not
found online.
December 2009 Page 68
-------
TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology
'see Appendix B for further details)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Equation
Parameters
Exposure
Routes
Notes
WA
11
SCL = (RISKxABWxATxllCR
(CPFxSIRxAB^EDxEF)
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, 10s 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 (last entry)
All
State review feedback
indicates the EPA RSL is
the WY soil cleanup level.
EPA Regional Screening Level Derivation for Residential Scenario
EPA
RSL
4.5
RSLrps "|
[(1 /Cres soil ingestion -ca)"'"( 1 /Cres soil dermal - ca)"'"(1 /Cres soil inhalation - ca)]
where:
Crps snil innestinn TRrxATr
CSF oxERrx|FSadjxCF
Cres soil dermal TRrxATr
CSFoXERrxDFSadjxABSdxCF
Cres snil inhalation TRr x ATr
IUR(|jg/m3)"1x(1,000|jg/mg)xERrx(1/VFs+1/PEF)xEDr
TR = target cancer risk, 10"6
ATr = averaging time, 25,550 d
CSF0 = slope factor, 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
ERr = exposure frequency, 350 d/y
EDr = exposure duration, 30 y
IFSadj = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,
114 (mg-y/kg-d)
CF = 10"6 kg/mg
DFSadj = soil dermal contact factor,
361 mg-y/kg-d
ABSd = dermal absorption fraction, 0.03
IUR = 38 (|jg/m3)"1
VF = volatilization factor
PEF = particulate emission factor,
1.4x10Ū m3/kg
All
December 2009 Page 69
-------
TABLE 14 Summary Comparison of State Derivations for Incidental Soil Ingestion (main route for residential cleanup levels)a
Generic equation for residential/unrestricted scenario, (incidental ingestion: Cresjng = TRXAT / SFoxEFxlFSadjxl0"6 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 (IRxED)/BW (mg-y/kg-d)
NE
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
OR
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"6
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"4
25,550
350
114
NMI
450
130,000
10"4
25,550
350
114
a Shading highlights variations within related entries. Note the internal draft provisional value of 60 ppt for Indiana uses a SF value of 130,000.
AL and TX identify a cleanup level of 1,000 ppt, which is the concentration recommended in the OSWER directive for a residential scenario.
December 2009
Page 70
-------
3.3.2 Toxicity Values
Most states that list soil cleanup levels for dioxin also indicate the health basis (24 of 26). Only
one cleanup level is based on the noncancer endpoint: the Iowa nonresidential level, which
applies only when dioxin is the only chemical of concern. This soil concentration (360 ppt)
reflects a reference dose of 10"9 mg/kg-d, which is the same as the ATSDR (1998/2008) chronic
oral MRL. (An MRL represents the estimate of daily human exposure to a hazardous substance
likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects for exposure extending
over a year to a lifetime.)
For the rest of the cleanup levels across both land use categories, cancer is the driver. (This
includes the Iowa residential level of 19 ppt, although the state also identifies a residential level
of 72 ppt based on the noncancer endpoint, when dioxin is the only contaminant.) Incidental
ingestion is the key exposure route, and the oral slope factor is the toxicity value of interest. (As
a note, although online information for Texas indicates that both the residential and commercial/
industrial cleanup levels are based on the noncancer endpoint ["n"], no information is given for
the toxicity value, and field followup confirmed that the basis is cancer; see Table B. 6.)
Four different cancer slope factors have been applied across the 24 states that identify a toxicity
value: 75,000; 130,000; 150,000; and 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"1. These slope factors are based on
one of two rodent bioassays published more than 25 years ago, combined with modeling
derivations by CalEPA, U.S. EPA, and other scientific groups to estimate the incremental risk to
humans of getting cancer over a lifetime. The data sources 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 slope factor of either 130,000 or 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 for their soil
cleanup levels. These very similar values are based on two different bioassays. The first is
derived from the chronic rodent bioassay from NTP (1982). The second is based on the two-
year dietary study of Sprague-Dawley rats by Kociba et al. (1978), as are the lowest and highest
of the four values listed above (75,000 and 1,400,000). These two original toxicity studies were
independently peer reviewed as part of the scientific publication process, as were the
subsequent derivations of the slope factors.
In the Kociba et al. (1978) bioassay, female rats that were exposed to the highest study 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 jjg/kg-d (210 ppt),
while no adverse effects were reported at 0.001 jjg/kg-d (22 ppt), and no carcinogenic effects
were reported at either 0.01 or 0.001 |jg (210 or 22 ppt). These findings were considered to
support a previous study that had indicated chronic intake of 5,000 ppt TCDD could lead to
many toxicological effects. The initial evaluation of these data to derive a slope factor produced
a value of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1, which is used by more than half the states (13 of 24). As a note,
this value has also been used to determine supporting concentrations for other states, such as
the Nevada basic comparison (screening) level.
Updated evaluations of the same data were used by Michigan and Minnesota, the two states
with different slope factors than the rest. In 1986, the NTP revised its tumor classification
scheme, and scientists (including Kociba and his colleague Squire, as well as EPA work groups)
used that methodology to reevaluate the incidence of female rat liver tumors and other tumors
from the 1978 data. This reevaluation identified a lower tumor incidence, which produced a
December 2009
Page 71
-------
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. Michigan used the latter (half the older slope factor) to determine 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 the range of values presented in the EPA 2003 draft dioxin
reassessment. This value, derived from the Kociba study, was identified as the upper bound for
animal bioassays. At roughly 10 times the two most commonly applied toxicity values (and
nearly 20 times the Michigan value), this slope factor was also used in a supporting role by the
Pacific island group. That is, it was used to estimate a concentration that could be used as the
lower bound of an operational cleanup range, as a companion to the standard cleanup levels
above which remedial action should be considered. Those main cleanup levels (which are the
representative concentrations shown in key figures and tables of this report) were derived using
a toxicity value of either 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 (for Hawaii) or 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 (American
Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands).
The slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 is used by a third of the states and is being considered
by an additional state for a provisional level. 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 the toxicity basis from the ATSDR toxicological profile for
chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (ATSDR, 1998/2008): a dose of about 0.007 jjg/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 |jg/kg-d, females exhibited a significant increase in hepatocellular hyperplastic nodules,
while those at the next lower dose (0.001 |jg/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 ATSDR 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) documents 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 members of 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 documented by CalEPA (1999).
This slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 underlies the basic soil cleanup levels identified for
Arizona and Oregon, as well as the three Pacific island territories (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 Maryland and
Wyoming. In addition, it underlies the draft cleanup level recently developed by Maine and the
internal draft being developed by Indiana - bringing the total number considering this slope
factor to nine.
December 2009
Page 72
-------
3.3.3 Target Risk Levels
The target risks used by states to back-calculate a soil cleanup concentration by combining
exposure inputs with the toxicity value range from 10"4 to 10"6, consistent with the EPA target
incremental risk range for contaminated sites. As shown in Tables 12 and 14 and the
accompanying figures, almost half the states that identify a target risk for their residential or
unrestricted cleanup levels (11 of 24) apply the lower-end value of 10"6. Eight use 10"5, and one
(Iowa) applies a value between these two (5x 10"6). The last four (Hawaii, American Samoa,
Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) use the upper value of 10"4. Most apply the same
values for the companion commercial/industrial cleanup levels, but 2 of the 11 states that use
10"6for residential cleanup (Nebraska and Washington) use 10"5 instead for the restricted
scenarios. Spanning two orders of magnitude, this component of the derivation calculation is
the key reason for differences among state cleanup levels.
3.3.4 Differences among State Cleanup Levels
The biggest reason for the fairly wide range of state-derived cleanup levels is the target risk
applied, which accounts for 100-fold differences. A second reason is the slope factor, which
accounts for differences of about 20-fold, with the Minnesota value about 10 times higher than
the two values used by most states, and the Michigan value about half those values.
A third reason is the variation in the exposure assumptions applied, generally accounting for
differences of less than 10-fold. This is illustrated by the comparison of input values used by
different states for incidental soil ingestion, the primary route contributing to
unrestricted/residential cleanup levels. Highlighting the values for this exposure alone offers a
quick indication of similarities and differences across states, as was shown in Table 14.
Beyond that single-route comparison, it is also helpful to compare the contributions from
additional routes. For this evaluation, the calculation used to derive the U.S. EPA Regional
screening level (RSL) for unrestricted use was selected as the starting point. This equation and
parameter values provide a useful anchor not only because the state calculations follow this
same general form, but also because several states have actually adopted the RSLs as cleanup
levels for residential and industrial scenarios, respectively.
The state cleanup values were normalized to their target risks to control the impact of that
factor. The route-specific soil concentrations were also normalized to 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.
An additional consideration is the chemical basis, i.e., whether the value is for TCDD or TEQ.
This can account for differences of at least several-fold; the factor can be higher depending on
the environmental mixture. Seven states and three Pacific island territories define their cleanup
levels as TEQs: Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, American Samoa,
Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. (Wyoming adopts the EPA Regional screening level
for TCDD and indicates TEFs may be considered for others.) While values reported as TEQs
would generally be expected to be higher than those for TCDD alone, and indeed five of the six
highest residential levels are TEQ, these values are also found at the other end of the
concentration range. For example, half of the ten TEQ-based cleanup levels are less than
120 ppt, and 30 percent of the state cleanup levels below 36 ppt are as TEQ.
December 2009
Page 73
-------
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:
RSLrPs = 1 = 4.5x10~6 mq/kq
[(1/Cpes soil ingestion)+(1/Ores soil dermal)"*"( 1/0res soil inhalation)]
TR
AT
= target cancer risk, 10"6
= averaging time, 25,550 d
Where:
CSFo
EF
ED
= slope factor, 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
= exposure frequency, 350 d/y
= exposure duration, 30 y
Ores soil inqestion TRXAT 4.9 x10 ITICj/kCJ
I FSadj
= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor, 114 (mg-y/kg-d)
CSF0xEFxlFSadjxCF
CF
D FSadj
= 10 s kg/mg
= soil dermal contact factor, 361 mg-y/kg-d
Crpssnii Hprmai = TRxAT = 5.2 x 10"5 mq/kq
ABSd
= dermal absorption fraction, 0.03
CSF0xEFxDFSadjxABSdxCF
IUR
VF
= 38 (pg/m3)-1
= volatilization factor
Ores soil inhalation TR x AT 8.7X10 tTIC}/kC}
IUR(|jg/m3)"1x(1,000|jg/mg)xEFx(1A/Fs+1/PEF)xED
PEF
= particulate emission factor, 1.4x109 m3/kg
(Table 15)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Component and Comparison to EPA RSL Values
Target
Risk
(TR)
Ratio
to RSL
TR
Ingestn
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Ingestn
RSL
Ingestion
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Dermal
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Dermal
RSL
Dermal
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Inhaln
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Inhaln
RSL
Inhalation
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Explanation of Differences between
State Value
and EPA RSL
(PPt)
(PPt)
(PPt)
EPA
RSL
4.5
io~6
1
4.9
1
91
5.2 *101
1
9
8.7*104
1
<1
-
NE
3.9
10"6
1
4.3
0.9
91
4.5 x101
0.9
9
8.9x10s
>104
<1
The CSF0 of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 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.
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
1
4.3
0.9
100
Ingestion route only. CSF0 of
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1.
AZ
4.5
10"6
1
4.9
1
91
5.2 x101
1
9
8.7x104
1
<1
AZ has adopted the RSL for the
unrestricted/residential scenario.
December 2009
Page 74
-------
(Table 15)
Component and Comparison to EPA RSL Values
State
Cone
(PPt)
Target
Risk
Ratio
to RSL
Ingestn
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Ingestn
RSL
Ingestion
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Dermal
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Dermal
RSL
Dermal
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Inhaln
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Inhaln
RSL
Inhalation
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Explanation of Differences between
State Value
(TR)
TR
(PPt)
(PPt)
(PPt)
and EPA RSL
MD
4.5
io-6
1
4.9
1
91
5.2 x101
1
9
8.7x104
1
<1
MD has adopted the RSL for the
unrestricted/residential scenario.
OR
4.5
10"6
1
4.9
0.9
91
5.2 x101
0.9
9
6.7x104
0.7
<1
OR 2003 document indicates use of the
previous Region 9 PRG equation; 2009
update indicates adoption of the current
CalEPA CSF of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1, which
also underlies the current RSL.
WY
4.5
10"6
1
4.9
1
91
5.2 x101
1
9
8.7x104
1
<1
WY has adopted the RSL for the
unrestricted/residential scenario.
FL
7
10-Ū
1
7.0
1.4
94
1.6 xio2
3.1
4
3.2x102
.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-Ū
1
1.0 x101
2.1
92
1.2 xio2
2.2
8
I I
i i
i S
I
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).
December 2009
Page 75
-------
(Table 15)
Component and Comparison to EPA RSL Values
State
Cone
(PPt)
Target
Risk
Ratio
to RSL
Ingestn
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Ingestn
RSL
Ingestion
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Dermal
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Dermal
RSL
Dermal
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Inhaln
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Inhaln
RSL
Inhalation
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Explanation of Differences between
State Value
(TR)
TR
(PPt)
(PPt)
(PPt)
and EPA RSL
ME
10
10"6
1
1.1 x101
2.2
91
1.2 *102
2.2
9
2.4 x106
27.6
<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
1.1 x101
2.2
100
|
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=16kg;
IR = 200 mg/d. Also, the WA AT is 75 y.
IA
19
5x10-Ū
5
4.3
0.9
91
4.5 x101
0.9
9
I I
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
10"5
10
2.1
0.4
77
1.5 *101
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.
December 2009
Page 76
-------
(Table 15)
Component and Comparison to EPA RSL Values
State
Cone
(PPt)
Target
Risk
Ratio
to RSL
Ingestn
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Ingestn
RSL
Ingestion
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Dermal
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Dermal
RSL
Dermal
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Inhaln
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Inhaln
RSL
Inhalation
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Explanation of Differences between
State Value
(TR)
TR
(PPt)
(PPt)
(PPt)
and EPA RSL
OH
35.8
10"5
10
4.3
0.9
84
2.3 x101
0.4
16
6.1 *104
0.7
<1
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
1(T5
10
4.5
0.9
84
2.4 x101
0.5
16
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
10"5
10
6.0
1.2
75
1.8 x101
0.34
25
8.2 *104
0.9
<1
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.
December 2009
Page 77
-------
(Table 15)
Component and Comparison to EPA RSL Values
State
Cone
(PPt)
Target
Risk
Ratio
to RSL
Ingestn
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Ingestn
RSL
Ingestion
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Dermal
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Dermal
RSL
Dermal
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Inhaln
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Inhaln
RSL
Inhalation
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Explanation of Differences between
State Value
(TR)
TR
(PPt)
(PPt)
(PPt)
and EPA RSL
KS
60
10"5
10
1.1 x101
2.3
50
1.1 x101
0.2
50
6.8 xio4
0.78
<1
In addition to a TR of 10"5 and CSF0 of
150,000 (mg/kg-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 KS ABSd of 0.1 instead of 0.03
makes the dermal-based concentration
smaller, which gives it a greater impact on
the overall cleanup level.
GA
80
10
10
Not
found
Cannot
be
deter-
mined
Cannot be
determined
Not
found
Cannot
be
deter-
mined
Cannot be
determined
Not
found
Cannot
be
deter-
mined
Cannot be
determined
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.
December 2009
Page 78
-------
(Table 15)
State
Cone
(PPt)
Component and Comparison to EPA RSL Values
Target
Risk
(TR)
Ratio
to RSL
TR
Ingestn
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Ingestn
RSL
Ingestion
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Dermal
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Dermal
RSL
Dermal
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Inhaln
Subtotal
Ratio
to
Inhaln
RSL
Inhalation
Contribution
to Cleanup
Level (%)
Explanation of Differences between
State Value
and EPA RSL
(PPt)
(PPt)
(PPt)
Ml
90
10"5
10
1.7 *101
3.5
53
1.9 *101
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 perTR. 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 x101
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 differences make the ingestion
contribution 2.4 times higher than the
equivalent RSL after both have been
normalized per the TR.
HI
390
10"4
100
4.3
0.9
91
4.5 *101
0.9
9
8.7*104
1
<1
HI uses the same equations and parameter
values as the EPA RSL except for applying
aTR of 10"4 andaCSFo of
150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1.
AS
450
10"4
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
10-4.
GM
450
10"4
100
4.9
1
91
5.2 *101
1
9
8.7*104
1
<1
GM adopted the EPA RSL equations and
parameter values except for using a TR of
10-4
NMI
450
10"4
100
4.9
1
91
5.2 *101
1
9
8.7x104
1
<1
NMI adopted the EPA RSL equations and
parameter values except for using a TR of
10-4
December 2009
Page 79
-------
a Table 15 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.
AL and TX identify a cleanup level of 1,000 ppt, which is the concentration recommended in the OSWER directive
for a residential scenario.
These normalized comparisons show that incidental ingestion accounts for nearly 75 to
85 percent of the cleanup levels for Arkansas, Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio (which range from
20 to 45 ppt). For Kansas and Michigan, incidental ingestion accounts for half the cleanup
concentrations (which are 60 and 90 ppt, respectively), while the other half comes from the
dermal route. The dermal route also accounts for the rest of the Arkansas, Indiana, and Ohio
values, while for Minnesota this route roughly splits the remaining portion with inhalation (jointly
accounting for 23 percent of the 20 ppt cleanup level). For the rest of the states, incidental
ingestion accounts for at least 90 percent of the cleanup concentration. Contributions of these
other routes are also higher for selected nonresidential scenarios, such as the trench worker.
3.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA
The four criteria considered in evaluating information compiled for the state soil dioxin 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 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 information for the criteria is summarized in Section 4.3.
4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
This chapter summarizes the range 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 dioxin cleanup levels was pursued for all 50 states plus DC, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, and four Pacific Rim islands. Online checks extended from state and other
December 2009
Page 80
-------
government agency websites to the EPA database of site cleanup decisions, and peer-reviewed
scientific literature.
About 280 cleanup values were identified for dioxin in soil. Nearly half the states and territories
(26), including three Pacific island territories, have established cleanup levels for unrestricted/
residential use, and 21 of these have also established levels for commercial/industrial use.
These cleanup levels address scenarios ranging from intensive residential use to occupational
activities such as outdoor maintenance and excavation work. Within each of these sets
(unrestricted/residential and commercial/industrial), the cleanup concentrations span three
orders of magnitude. A key reason for this spread is that different states have adopted different
existing values as their cleanup levels. At the upper end are states that tap the recommended
concentration from the OSWER directive. At the lower end are those that adopt a screening
value as their cleanup level.
For those states that have derived cleanup levels, the following factors contribute to differences:
Target risk.
Cancer slope factor.
Exposure assumptions.
Reporting basis (as TCDD or dioxin TEQ).
Frequency distributions of the representative state soil cleanup values for dioxin addressing
both unrestricted and restricted scenarios are presented in Figure 22.
(Although online information for the Trust Territories appears to suggest the same values as for
Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands, those values have not been
included in the tables and figures of this report per limited field feedback, which indicated that
the Trust Territories determine cleanup levels on a site-specific basis.)
Because many states identify multiple cleanup levels for dioxin in soil, to facilitate comparisons,
the figures and tables focus on a representative cleanup level for each state and land use
category (where available) - i.e., unrestricted/residential and commercial/industrial (restricted).
Although some states indicate cleanup levels should be determined on a site-specific basis, the
representative state values do not include any concentrations from site-specific decisions.
For unrestricted/residential land use:
Cleanup levels range from about 4 to 1,000 ppt. Two states use the value of 1,000 ppt
recommended in the OSWER directive as TEQ. Texas reports this value as TEQ, and
Alabama reports it as TCDD. (As a note, North Carolina identified this value as a
preliminary soil remediation goal in December 2009.)
More than 75 percent of the values (20) are at or below 120 ppt, and most of these (15)
are less than 40 ppt.
The seven lowest concentrations are consistent with values commonly used for preliminary
screening evaluations at contaminated sites, 3.9 to 4.5 ppt. This indicates that nearly a third of
the states with cleanup levels have essentially adopted a value intended for screening
purposes. The screening levels are based on a target risk of 10"6 and relatively conservative
residential exposure assumptions.
December 2009
Page 81
-------
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Unrestricted (Residential)
Restricted (Commercial/Industrial)
11
WA
10
ME
9
NH
120
PA
7
FL
90
Ml
4.5
AZ, MD,
OR, WY
80
GA
40
DE
5,000
TX
60
KS (IN)
38.2
MS
5,000
AL
45
IN
35
MN
1,800
AS, GM,
NMI
38
AK
31
ME
530
PA
4.26
MS
35.8
OH
-
450
AS, GM,
NMI
30
FL
-
160
AZ, NE
360
IA
4
DE
20
MN
1,000
TX
20
OR
300
NH
1,600
HI
3.9
NE
19
IA
390
HI
1,000
AL
18
MD
100
KS
180
IN
1,500
WA
<1?
vO
vo
A"
.*p
N*
>Q
vo
vo
1>
qP
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)
December 2009
Page 82
-------
The concentration group above 120 ppt contains four values that are 100 times higher
than these "screening" parallels - at 390 to 450 ppt - for Hawaii and three Pacific Rim
islands (documented in 2006 and 2008, respectively). These concentrations reflect the
higher target risk of 10"4 and are as dioxin TEQ. Several other states also report cleanup
levels as TEQs, notably Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio.
Five of the six highest concentrations are reported as TEQ, as are 30 percent of the
lowest 14 values.
For restricted commercial/industrial land use:
21 states and territories have established restricted cleanup levels. The five states for
which values were identified for residential but not restricted use are Alaska, Georgia,
Ohio, Michigan, and Wyoming.
These cleanup levels are higher than those for unrestricted use by roughly a factor of 5,
as expected based on less extensive exposures and in some cases less restrictive
target risks. These concentrations are also more broadly distributed - spanning a factor
of 270 (compared to 250 for the residential cleanup levels).
The lowest third of restricted use levels 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 island territories) ranges from 1,500 to 5,000 ppt. Alabama and Texas
identify the top soil concentration, which is the lowest end of the range identified in the
OSWER directive for commercial/industrial use (5,000 to 20,000 ppt).
The plots of cleanup values organized by EPA Region indicate:
No clear regional patterns exist for either land use category, beyond the similarities in
concentrations identified for the Pacific island set in Region 9 (for which development of
the guidance included the same experts).
States in 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.
Factors affecting these totals by region include: (1) some states do not have the same issue
(extent) of dioxin-contaminated sites as others, and (2) a number of states have eschewed
establishing a general cleanup level, calling instead for these to be determined on a site-specific
basis to incorporate consideration of local conditions. For this reason, concentrations
established for cleanup decisions were also reviewed as supporting context, with an emphasis
on states that had not established a cleanup level or screening value; these data are tabulated
Appendix B. This review of site applications indicates:
More cleanup levels were found for states and territories within Regions 9 and 10 (nearly
100 combined) than for the other regions.
About half the site-specific cleanup levels reflect the concentration of 1,000 ppt,
particularly in states that had not established cleanup values for dioxin in soil at the time
of those decisions.
December 2009
Page 83
-------
4.2 FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
Key contributors to similarities among the state cleanup levels include: the common underlying
approach, the use of generally similar exposure factors, and in several cases, adoption of the
same values as cleanup levels. Key contributors to differences include: the target risk levels,
toxicity values, and selected exposure assumptions.
It is also noteworthy that a number of states are similar in having deferred establishing generic
cleanup levels, invoking instead a risk-based determination of these levels that account for site-
specific conditions. Thus, no generic cleanup levels for dioxin were identified for 15 states and
one territory.
In fact, this approach is also taken by the same number of states that identify screening values
but no cleanup levels. For example, while Arkansas lists concentrations of 4.5 and 18 ppt as
screening levels for residential and industrial scenarios, respectively, and Massachusetts lists
values of 20, 50, and 300 ppt (as TEQ) for specific residential to restricted scenario categories
from essentially a screening approach, both refer to the need for site-specific determinations of
actual cleanup levels.
4.2.1 Exposure Calculations
States that have identified soil cleanup levels generally follow the standard EPA approach to
determine such values, including common default assumptions. Variations in cleanup levels
reflect the scenarios and exposure routes considered and the parameter values applied, which
in some cases account for regional context. For example, a trench worker scenario is included
for the development of cleanup levels for several Pacific islands.
The summary of inputs for incidental ingestion in Table 14 illustrate that a key difference
underlying the state cleanup levels is the target risk - by a factor of 100, while the slope factors
differ by a factor of about 20. For this ingestion calculation, which is the key exposure route for
direct contact (unrestricted use), the values for exposure frequency differ by a factor of 2.4, and
those for the age-adjusted soil ingestion factor differ by less than a factor of 3. Inhalation and
dermal exposures also contribute measurably to some cleanup levels, especially for certain
nonresidential (restricted) scenarios. The exposure equations presented in Table 13 underlie
the summary of key differences captured in Table 15, including relative route contributions. A
further consideration is whether the cleanup level is for TCDD or dioxin TEQ.
4.2.2 Toxicity Values
Cancer is the driving endpoint, and the toxicity value of interest is the oral slope factor. The four
values identified across the 24 states that provide this information are within a factor of 20.
The slope factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 underlies the cleanup level for more than half the states:
Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington. This is an older value based on the data
from Kociba et al. (1978) using outdated methodology.
These Kociba et al. (1978) data were reevaluated with the updated (1986) NTP tumor
classification scheme, which is based on all significant tumors rather than liver tumors alone.
This updated evaluation halved the slope factor to 75,000 (mg/kg-d)"1. One state, Michigan,
uses this number.
December 2009
Page 84
-------
The slope factor of 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 is a draft value that was among those discussed in the
EPA draft dioxin reassessment (EPA, 2003a). This was presented as the upper bound value
from animal bioassay data, and it too was based on analyses of the Kociba et al. (1978) data.
This draft value (40 percent higher than the upper bound based on human epidemiological data)
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 supporting role by the Pacific island set: American Samoa, Guam,
Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands. That is, it was used to estimate a lower-bound soil
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 used by a third of the states. This toxicity value was derived by CalEPA using the
updated tumor classification method and 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, Oregon, and Wyoming, as well as the
three Pacific island territories: American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. It is
also being considered by Indiana in internal updates of provisional default closure levels.
In addition to its cancer-based value for the residential scenario, Iowa has identified a cleanup
level for nonresidential use based on a reference dose that is the same as the ATSDR chronic
oral MRL (ATSDR, 1998/2008). The MRL underwent extensive peer review prior to being
finalized in 1998, under the standard process documented by ATSDR (2008b).
4.2.3 Target Risk Levels
Nearly half the states that identify a target risk for their unrestricted-use cleanup level apply the
low-end value of 10"6, eight use the middle value of 10"5, one lists a risk between these two, and
four use the upper-end value of 10"4. Most states use the same risk target for the companion
commercial/industrial cleanup levels, except two that use 10"6 to derive the unrestricted/
residential cleanup level use a target risk 10 times higher for the restricted scenarios. Thus,
target risk is a major reason for differences among cleanup levels, by a combined factor of 100.
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. The current CalEPA slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 for dioxin,
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
December 2009
Page 85
-------
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 more than half
the 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 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 not as strong overall in
terms of the combined 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 by
U.S. EPA, CalEPA, and other organizations. 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.
With regard to the range of cleanup levels, concentrations at the lower end (about 4 ppt) were
identified by a number of states that essentially adopted values 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, 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.)
December 2009
Page 86
-------
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.gov/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.qov/substances/dioxin/policv/Dioxin Policy Guidelines.pdf.
ATSDR, 2008b, Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs), DHHS, Atlanta, GA (Dec.);
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/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.gov/toxics/id/summary/dioxptB.pdf.
CalEPA, 1999, 1999-08-12 California Air Toxics Program Background, Air Resources Board;
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/background.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.gov/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.gov/air/hot spots/pdf/May2005Hotspots.pdf.
CalEPA, 2007, Public Health Goal for TCDD in Drinking Water (June) (review draft for second
public comment period); http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/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.gov/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, 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.gov/AssessingRisk/upload/HHRA Note2 dioxin-2.pdf.
CalEPA, 2009d, Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Values, Appendix H (July);
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/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.
December 2009
Page 87
-------
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.
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 (Aug. 31); http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deg/deg-whm-hwp-dow-
excerpt of dec tsd 251913 7.pdfNAS (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.
MNDOH (Minnesota Department of Health), 2003, Cancer Risk Assessment for Dioxins,
prepared by MDOH at the request of the Risk Evaluation/Air Modeling Unit, Environmental
Standards and Analysis Section, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (March 17);
www.canceractionny.org/cancerriskassessment.htm.
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 (perTSG 1990).
TSG (Toxic Steering Group), 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/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: //cf p ub.epa.gov/n cea/cf m/record i s p I av. cf m ?deid=38484.
U.S. EPA, 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document,
EPA/540/R-95/128, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (May);
http://www.epa.gOv/superfund/health/conmedia/soil/index.htm#user
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, 1989, 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.
December 2009
Page 88
-------
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.);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/additions.htm;
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/92-857-84fs.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 2009a, 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/recordisplav.cfm?deid=209690.
U.S. EPA (Region 3), 2009b, 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-
concentration table/Generic Tables/pdf/ressoil si table run APRIL2009.pdf
(page last updated June 8, 2009; accessed December 2009).
December 2009
Page 89
-------
December 2009
Page 90
-------
APPENDIX A: SUPPORTING DETAILS FOR THE APPROACH
December 2009 Page A-1
-------
December 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).
Please confirm or revise as indicated. Note
some units are converted for consistency
across all entries
If you add or revise here, please
also update corresponding entries
(including the information source).
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).
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.)
Coverage: Please confirm or identify (if
missing) whether the value is for TCDD only,
orTCDD equivalents or total dioxins.
Reminder: We do not need any
information for DLCs (e.g., PCBs).
December 2009
Page A-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:
Please at least indicate if any
external peer review was
conducted.
a. Internal: by same agency, same division or
department responsible for the level.
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 "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.
If this information is publicly
available but the source is not yet
identified in the table, please
provide it in the "information
source" column.
Public comment: Please indicate if the public
had an opportunity to review and comment
on the dioxin cleanup and/or toxicity value.
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//revise 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
The main intent 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.)
December 2009
Page A-4
-------
APPENDIX B: DETAILED DATA TABLES
December 2009 Page B-1
-------
December 2009
Page B-2
-------
APPENDIX B:
DETAILED DATA TABLES
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.
Ģ WA j
rĐ
l" OR (
\ Ntf
CA \
\ o
*
I m Di
Guam
Tru&t Territoiea
American Samoa
Northern Mariana
Islands
FIGURE B.1 States in U.S. EPA Regions (Source: EPA, 2008x, Regional Map, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, http://www.epa.gov/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).
Type of toxicity reference value: such as SF (slope factor) or RfD (reference dose);
UT
M7
vw
O
CO
MM
NH
VT - ME
nC'
Ģ0
NE
MM
Wl
IA
O
Ml
NY
RA
o MA
Đ Rl
o
KS
MO
IL IN
OH
e
l'uV
K'r
TN
MS 1 AL
CT
NJ]
- DE
VftJo.HSI
fDCl
NC 5 l~1
T>f
FL
December 2009
Page B-3
-------
Toxicity value units: as consistent unit: (mg/kg/d)"1 (or mg/kg-d for noncancer endpoint),
to facilitate comparisons.
Information source: streamlined reference (for quick indication of the nature of this
source, e.g., state agency or other), with weblink to facilitate direct checks.
Context notes: to indicate, where available:
> contaminant addressed - TCDD or toxic equivalents (TEQ);
> land use scenario - e.g., unrestricted or commercial/industrial;
> name of the value - e.g., cleanup level, or screening or comparison level; and
> application context.
Evaluation criteria: To highlight information relevant to the four criteria, as available.
Formatting to facilitate quick-glance checks Includes:
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 values: 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 to 20,000 ppt for commercial/industrial scenarios.
2. Sources other than state agencies
- Lighter font and italics are used to distinguish entries that summarize site-specific
applications or articles from journals or others sources beyond the primary focus,
which is direct state agency information. (Site-specific levels are included in
supporting context figures within the report, but those entries that provide no context of
basis for corroboration are not.)
As a further note, in a few cases, dioxin values were found for joint human-ecological protection
or in conjunction with concentrations for ecological protection as part of the search for health-
based levels; these limited entries have been retained (in green font) simply for related insights
they may offer.
December 2009
Page B-4
-------
TABLE B.1 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 1
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
CT
1,000
Sep-05
150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1
(CSF) |
300
eco
EPA (2005d), ROD Summary, Solvents
Recovery Service of New England, Inc
(SRSNE) Site, Southington
(http://www. ep a. gov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0105008.pdf).
For TCDD toxicity equivalents (TEQ), based on
EPA 1998 OSWER directive; as the lower value
of that 1 ppb level or background 2,3,7,8-TCDD
TEQ. (ROD indicates there are no residential
direct exposure criteria or pollutant mobility
criteria for dioxin in the CT Remediation
Standard Regulations.)
MA
20
Dec-07
150,000
(CSF)
Ecological toxicity benchmark of 0.3 fjg/kgTCDD
TEQ identified as the concentration "not to be
exceeded in soil according to MDNR (1988)
(primary citation not provided).
(mg/kg-d)1
50
300
3,000
MADEP (2007), The Massachusetts
Contingency Plan, 310, CMR 40
(http://www.mass.qov/dep/service/requlations/
310cmr40.pdf);
Standard from MADEP [undated A],
Documentation for S1 Standards
(http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/prop
s1.htm).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, dry weight basis
residential scenario, unrestricted use, accessible
soil (<3 ft below surface, not completely paved),
direct contact (ingestion, dermal contact) also
considering leaching; high frequency or intensity
for child use, or high frequency and intensity for
adult use , or high frequency and intensity for
child use but soil potentially accessible (3 to15 ft
below surface) (category S-1); e.g., residential
areas, school yards, playgrounds, gardens.
MADEP (undated B), Documentation for S2
Standards
(http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/prop
s2.htm).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, dry weight basis,
considering moderate direct exposure
(ingestion, dermal contact) also considering
leaching; accessible soil with no child use, or
high frequency or intensity of adult use, or
potentially accessible soil with high frequency or
intensity of child use or high frequency and
intensity of adult use (category S-2), e.g., retail
space, landscaping.
MADEP (undated C), Documentation for S3
Standards
(http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/prop
s3.htm).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, dry weight basis,
direct contact (ingestion, dermal contact), and
inhalation of airborne particulates; potentially
accessible soil with low child use, or low adult
frequency or intensity of use, or isolated soil
(deeper than 15 ft, or 3 ft beneath the floor of a
structure) (category S-3); addresses short but
intense construction/ excavation exposure
scenarios.
MADEP (undated D), Upper Concentration
Limits
(httpV/www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/ucls.h
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, upper
concentration limit in soil applicable as public
welfare and environmental resource standards.
tm).
ROD is available
online (via RODS
database).
MADEP (2007 &
undated A, B, C, D)
documents are
available online.
The Kimbrough et at. (1984) evaluation of
Kociba et al. (1978) underlies the OSWER
value. The site-specific risk assessment used
reasonable maximum exposure and the cancer
slope factor (CSF) of 150,000 per mg/kg-d from
the 1999 Health Effects Assessment Summary
Table (HEAST).
Example equation used to derive soil category
S-1 standards MADEP (undated A), for
residential exposure for an adult (15-31 y):
(Note: This equation is based on the summation
of three age groups, however, due to space, only
the factors for the 15-31 age group appear. See
MADEP (undated A) for all relevant data)
OHMCa-dc = (ELCR)
(LADSIRxRAFjnh)x(AxRAF dermal)xCSF oral
LADS IR =
IRsniixEFixEF?xEP
BWxAPxCixC2
A = LADSDCR = SSAXSAFX EFixEF?xEP
BWxAPxCixC2
where
OH Mca-dc
= target risk-based soil concentration
direct contact (ingestion), mg/kg
ELCR
= target lifetime excess cancer risk,
10"6
LADS IR
= lifetime average daily soil ingestion
rate, (d)~
RAF ca-ing
= relative absorption factor for
cancer,
oral exposure (1, per RAGS Part E)
CSF oral
= oral cancer slope factor,
150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1
IRsoil
= soil ingestion rate, 50 mg/d
EF1
= 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
C1
= conversion factor, 365 d/y
c2
= conversion factor, 10s mg/kg
LADSDCR = lifetime average daily soil dermal
contact rate, (d)~
SSA = average daily skin surface area
exposed, 5,653 cm2
SAF = soil adherence factor. 0 13 mg/cnr
"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).
December 2009
Page B-5
-------
TABLE B.1 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 1
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
MA
(cont'd.)
4
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(httD'J/www. trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%20100
Ooot.Ddf): Lists same values identified in:
EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in
Other States, cited in table available via
Tittabawassee River Watch (TRW) News
(httD'J/www. trwnews. net/imaaes/StateCleanuo
2006.PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information is
available via the
weblinks at left, with
neither the derivation
methodology or basis
of underlying toxicity
values.
Basis not provided.
1,000
Sep-04
c
EPA (20041), EPA Region 1, Shpack Landfill
Superfund Site Record of Decision Summary,
Norton/Attleboro
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0104694.Ddf).
For dioxin 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 cleanup level for remedial sites for
dioxin in surface soil involving a residential
exposure. The "adjacent resident, w/o
groundwater exposure" scenario on which the
remedy is based assumes approximately 150
days of exposure to site soils, which is
essentially equivalent to an on-site exposure.
Therefore, the cleanup goal for dioxin protective
of human health is being set at 1 ppb TEQ."
ROD is available
online (via RODS
database).
The Kimbrough et at. (1984) evaluation of
Kociba et al. (1978) underlies the OSWER
value.
ME
10
Jul-09
c
130,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)~
MEDEP (2009a), Maine Remedial Action
Guidelines for all Scenarios
http://www.maine.qov/dep/rwm/publications/qu
idance/raqs/MERAGS%20APPENDIX%201 2
For dioxin TEQ, residential scenario, based on
sites with more than one contaminant of concern
MEDEP (2009a,b)
are available online,
the values are draft
and are currently
open for public
comment.
An ILCR of10"6 was "Applicable at sites with
more than one contaminant of concern." TEQ
toxicity is based on WHO 2005 guidelines. ME
is in the final stages of revising generic draft soil
cleanup levels for dioxin TEQ. These guidelines
are based on MEDEP (2009b). Equation is
provided in MERAG technical document,
highlighted in Table 15 of the report.
17
For dioxin TEQ, park user scenario, based on
sites with more than one contaminant of concern
31
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
(http://www.maine.qov/dep/rwm/publications/q
uidance/raqs/MERAG Basis Draft For Publi
c Comment 2009 iulv 14 V2-rhd.DOC)'
from Wright (2009) (personal communication).
For dioxin TEQ, commercial worker scenario,
based on sites with more than one contaminant
of concern
310
For dioxin TEQ, excavation/construction worker
scenario, based on sites with more than one
contaminant of concern
NH
9
May-07
c
150,000
(CSF)
(mg/kg-d)~
NHDES (2007), Risk Characterization and
Management Policy, Groundwater Quality
Table 2, Appendix A-E with soil values
(http://des.nh.qov/orqanization/divisions/waste
/hwrb/documents/rcmp.pdf): the hiqher values
are estimated using EPA (1998a), Approach
for Addressing Dioxin in Soil at CERCLA and
RCRA Sites, OSWER Directive 9200.4-26
(http://www.epa.qov/superfund/resources/rem
edv/pdf/92-00426-s.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-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
NHDES
document is
referred to as
being under
review; intra-
agency.
Both the NH risk
characterization
document and EPA
OSWER directive are
available online.
Assumes the upper-bound lifetime excess
cancer risk from residential exposure to a
concentration of 1 ppb dioxin is 0.00025. The
estimate for commercial/industrial exposure to
5 ppb is 0.00013. Slope factor of 150,000 per
mg/kg-d (citing indirect resource RAIS 2/2006)
used to develop the direct contact risk-based
concentrations.
30
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, risk-based S-2 category, for
moderate exposure to accessible soil, currently
or foreseeable future (e.g., maintenance worker)
300
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, risk-based S-3 soil category,
for restricted access property with limited
potential for exposure, currently or foreseeable
future (e.g., excavation worker).
1,000
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, based on OSWER
directive approach using TEQs, S-1 category.
5,000
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, based on OSWER
directive approach using TEQs, S-2 category.
20,000
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, based on OSWER
directive approach using TEQs, S-3 category.
December 2009
Page B-6
-------
TABLE B.1 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 1
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
Rl
Feb-04
RIDEM (2004), Rules and Regulations for the
Investigation and Remediation of Hazardous
Material Releases
(httD://www.dem.ri.aov/Dubs/reas/reas/waste/r
emrea04.Ddf).
These RIDEM Remediation Regulations
(updated February 2004) contain tables listing
direct exposure criteria 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)
document is available
online.
Basis not pursued because dioxin is not
included in this suite of state values.
40
Sep-97
DoN (1997), Final Record of Decision: Site 09
- Allen Harbor Landfill, Naval Construction
Battalion, OU 01, Davisville
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0197157.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, determined using
toxic equivalency factors from EPA (1994),
specific citation not provided; represents risk-
based concentration for soils up to a depth of
10 ft. (As a note, the entry for TCDD soil
screening level is ND, no data.) This risk-based
concentration was developed for a recreational
scenario.
ROD is available
online (via RODS
database). Public
comments included
support for no action,
limited action, two of
the proposed plans
(one of which was
implemented), and
landfill excavation.
VT
4.5
May-09
c
130,000
(SFo)
(mg/kg-d)1
VTDEC, Brownfields Reuse Initiative
(httD://vwvw. anr. state. vt.us/dec/wastediv/SMS/
RCPP/CleanuD-Stand-Guid.htm): for soil and
air, links to EPA (2009), Regional Screening
Levels (RSL) for Chemical Contaminants at
Superfund Sites, RSL Table Update
(httD://www.eDa.aov/reaion09/suDerfund/Dra/).
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."
The VT context and
the EPA RSL table
and User's Guide
(EPA 2009e,f),
including equations,
are available online.
See Table 13 of the report for the derivation
methodology and values underlying the EPA
regional screening levels.
18
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD in industrial soils, total risk;
with further note as above.
Note the supporting documentation includes an
RfDo of 1.0x10"9 mg/kg-d; 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.)
December 2009
Page B-7
-------
TABLE B.2 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 2
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
NJ
50
Mar-01
c
NJDHSS (2001), Public Health Assessment:
Franklin Burn Site
(http://www. state, ni. us/health/eoh/assess/fb p
c.odf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, adopted from the
ATSDR screening value used as a "comparison
value" for public health assessment at that time.
(See related information in the ATSDR entry in
Table 11 of the report.)
See information
for the ATSDR
entry in
Table 11.
See ATSDR entry in
Table 11; toxicity
value not found in
the NJ
documentation.
See ATSDR entry in Table 11.
19
Sep-07
c
DoA (2007b), ROD, Site 180 (PICA 093)
Waste Burial Area, Final, Picatinny
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2007020002538. pdf).
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.
ROD available online
(RODS database)
Toxicity value not
found.
Based on a target risk level of 106; see Table 13
of the report for other values and the derivation
methodology (first entry); note the Region 3
RBCs have since been harmonized with the
screening values from Regions 6 and 9.
1,000
May-04
c
EPA (2004d), ROD, Franklin Burn, OU 01,
Franklin Township
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2004020001417.pdf).
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
for dioxins/furans is consistent with OSWER
Directive 9200.4-26."
ROD available online
(RODS database)
Toxicity value not
found.
The Kimbrough et at. (1984) evaluation of Kociba
et al. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.
NY
Sep-06
NYDEC (2006), New York State Brownfield
Cleanup Program, Development of Soil
Cleanup Objectives, Technical Support
Document
(http://www.dec.nv.aov/docs/remediation hud
son Ddf/techsuDDdoc.Ddf): link provided in
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 dioxins are listed as a
contaminant of concern at Brownfield sites by
the EPA, then NYSDEC would consider dioxin in
its remedial programs.
NYSDEC (2006)
document available
online.
feedback during field review, from Olsen
(2009) (personal communication).
600
Jan-94
NYDEC (2009), TAGM 4046, Table 3
(http://www. dec. nv.aov/requlations/30582. html
); the document that established these levels
is dated 1994, but the specific tables from this
document are shown by themselves on a
webpage that was updated in 2009.
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, identified as the
"allowable soil concentration" protective of
groundwater, which 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:
Cs = fxCwxKoc
where:
Cs = soil concentration
f = fraction of organic carbon of the natural
soil medium, 1 % or 0.01
Cw = appropriate water quality value from NY
Division of Water Technical and
Operational Guidance Series
(TOGS) 1.1.1, given as 0.000035 |jg/L for
TCDD in TAGM 4046, Table 3
Koc = partition coefficient between water and soil
media, 1,709,800
December 2009
Page B-8
-------
TABLE B.2 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 2
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
NY
(cont'd)
60,000
Jan-94
NYDEC (2009), TAGM 4046, Table 3 (as
above).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, "Soil cleanup
objective" that is protective of groundwater
quality. This value assumes that contaminated
soil in the unsaturated zone above the water
table is subject to attenuating processes during
transport to groundwater.
(NY DEC TAGM 4046 states that alternative
cleanup objectives are derived considering a
number of criteria including HEAST and RfD
values, concentrations protective of
groundwater, detection limits, and background
concentrations. "Recommended" cleanup
objectives are based on the criterion that
produces the most stringent value. No such
"recommended" cleanup objective value is
provided for TCDD.)
Soil cleanup objective protective of groundwater
is derived by applying a correction factor to the
allowable soil concentration. This factor assumes
that various properties and processes including
volatility, transformation, and degradation
prevent transfer of the full contaminant from soil
to groundwater.
Soil Cleanup Objective = CSXCF
where:
Cs = soil concentration
CF = 100 (consistent with the EPA dilution
attenuation factor [DAF] approach)
40
Nov-04
U.S. AF (2004a), Final ROD for the
Electrical Power Substation, Area of Concern
(SS-44) at the Former Griffiss Air Force Base,
Rome
(http://www. epa. aov/suDerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0205015.Ddf).
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 Services, Inc., December 1996,
Draft-Final Primary 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
for the indicated
guidance value.
Toxicity context not
found.
1,000
Mar-03
c
U.S. AF (2003a), SiteSS-026 Explosive
Ordinance Disposal Range: ROD, Plattsburgh
Air Force Base, Installation Restoration
Program, Plattsburgh
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0203022. pdf).
/\s dioxin toxicity equivalence. The ROD states
that the regulatory criteria used in the
assessment for 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 /jg/kg TEQ.
ROD available online
(via RODS
database) Toxicity
value not found.
The Kimbrough et at. (1984) evaluation of Kociba
et al. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.
PR
1,000
Apr-04
c
EPA (2004c), ROD, Vega Baja Solid Waste
Disposal, OU 01, Rio Abajo Ward
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2004020001421 .pdf).
For dioxin; the ROD mentions the EPA
recommended action level of 1 ppb (which
suggests the basis was the OSWER directive).
Dioxin was not considered a chemical of
concern at the site because soil concentrations
did not exceed 1 ppb.
ROD available online
(via RODS
database); toxicity
value not found.
The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation of Kociba
et al. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.
December 2009
Page B-9
-------
TABLE B.3 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 3
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
DE
Dec-99
150,000 (mg/kg-d)1
(CSFo)
40
eco
2006
(2004)
DEDNREC (1999), Remediation Standards
Guidance under the Delaware Hazardous
Substance Cleanup Act
(http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/divisi
ons/awm/sirb/docs/pdfs/misc/remstnd.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, dry weight basis, unrestricted
use scenario. ["Where 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 DE Uniform Risk-Based Remediation
Standards (URS) for protection of human health.
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.
Intra-agency
Calculations and
risk-based tables
can be found in both
the DEDNREC
Remediation
Standards,
Attachment 4, and
the PA Bulletin
(1997), both of
which are available
online.
Cancer slope factor values obtained from EPA
Health Effects Assessment Summary Table
(HEAST) document (1997). The PA document
also provides calculations.
Some of the risk-assessment equations are
based on EPA (1989) suggestions and the
Inhalation Numeric Values are based on EPA
(1995b) Risk-Based Concentration Tables
(RBC).
DEDNREC (1999) document provides RBC
equations for soil ingestion.
RBC res = TRxATr
EFrx IFSadjxCSF0xCF
The document uses equations and values
from the EPA (1995b) Regional RBCs; note
these regional screening levels were
recently harmonized (in 2008, with 2009
update).
URS for protection of the environment for
surface soil from ORNL May 1998 screening
benchmark levels for ecological risk assessment
Original ORNL
document not found.
where:
RBC res ~
residential risk-based concentration
TR
target cancer risk, 10"6
ATC =
averaging time carcinogens, 25,550 d
EFr =
residential exposure frequency, 350 d/y
I FSadj
soil ingestion factor, 114.29 mg-y/kg-d
CSFo =
oral carcinogenic slope factor,
150,000 (mg/kg-d)~
CF
10 s kg/mg
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(http://www. trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Rea
Basis not provided.
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000
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
(http://www. trwnews. net/imaaes/StateCleanup
2006.PDF).
Limited information
is available via the
! weblinks at left, with
neither the
derivation
:methodology or
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided.
December 2009
Page B-10
-------
TABLE B.3 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 3
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
DC
Jul-09
Rios Jafolla (2009) (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
cleanup standards. Those standards may also
be used by other environmental programs in DC.
4
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000
DDt.odf): lists same values identified in:
EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in
Other States, cited in table available via
Tittabawassee River Watch News
(httD'J/www. trwnews. net/imaaes/StateCleanup
2006.PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information
is available via the
weblinks at left, with
neither the
derivation
methodology or
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided.
4.3
Sep-07
c
NAVFAC (2007b), FFA Final ROD for Sites 1,
2, 3, 7, 9, 11, and 13, Washington Navy Yard
(httD'J/www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2008030002103. 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
RODS database).
Supplemental exposure point
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.)
MD
LO 00
Jul-09
c
130,000
(mg/kg-d)1
Rios Jafolla (2009) (personal communication).
Feedback during the field review phase
identified the EPA residential RSL as the MD
cleanup level. Feedback indicated MD
generally uses screening levels as cleanup
levels, however site-specific factors are
considered, including what other contaminants
may be present.
4
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(httD'J/www. trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000
DDt.odf): lists same values identified in:
EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in
Other States, cited in table available via
Tittabawassee River Watch News
(httD'J/www. trwnews. net/imaaes/StateCleanuo
2006.PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information
is available via the
weblinks at left, with
neither the
derivation
methodology or
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided.
25
Sep-07
c
150,000
(CSF)
(mg/kg-d)~
DoA (2007a), Canal Creek Study Area, ROD
for Remedial Action - G-Street Salvage Yard,
Final, Aberdeen Proving Ground
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2007030001944.Ddf).
Based on total dioxin TEQ; this final cleanup
level is the risk-based goal for a site worker
based on a 10~6 risk target. From the 2005
feasibility study by Shaw Group (that document
has not been found online).
Available online (via
RODS database).
Cancer slope factor from 1997 HEAST.
Derivation of risk-based remedial goals indicated
as being in the 2005 feasibility study, which has
not been found online.
1,000
Feb-99
c
EPA (Region 3) (1999a), Documentation of
Environmental Indicator Determination
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/rea3wcmd/ca/md/hhDdf/h
h mdd981041601.Ddf).
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 Kimbrough et at. (1984) evaluation of
Kociba et at. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.
December 2009
Page B-11
-------
TABLE B.3 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 3
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
PA
120
Nov-01
c
150,000
(CSF)
(mg/kg-d)1
PADEP (2001), Medium-Specific
Concentrations (MSCs) for Organic Regulated
Substances in Soil
(http://www. depweb. state, pa. us/landrecwaste/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.
Criteria address state legislation (PA 1997).
Equation used for ingestion of dioxin in
residential soil:
MSC = TRxATrx365d/v
530
ib/landrecwaste/land recvclina/table 3a.pdf):
developed as part of the PADEP (2002) Land
Recycling Program Technical Guidance
Manual
(http://vwvw.depweb.state.pa.us/ocrlas/cwp/vie
w.asp?a=1459&q=518850): equations based
on PA (1997), Pennsylvania Bulletin,
Environmental Quality Board Administration of
the Land Recycling Program (Act 2), Ingestion
Numeric Values
(http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chap
ter250/s250.306. html).
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.
CSF0X AbsxEFx|FadjxCF
where:
TR = target risk, 10"5
ATC = verage time for carcinogens, 70 y
CSF0 = oral cancer slope factor,
150,000 (mg/kg-d)~
Abs = absorption, 1
EF = exposure frequency, 250 d
IFadj = ingestion factor, 57.1 (mg-y/kg-d)
CF = conversion factor, 10"6 kg/mg
1.9x1011
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.
120
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(httD'J/www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000
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
(httD'J/www. trwnews. net/imaaes/StateCieanuo
2006.PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information
is available via the
weblinks at left, with
neither the
derivation
methodology or
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided.
40
Sep-07
c
NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic (2007a), ROD, Site 5
Soil, OU 4, Naval Air Station, Joint Reserve
Base, Willow Grove
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suDerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2007030001999. pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, preliminary
remediation goal (PRG) for resident, based on
10~5 cancer risk; described as agreed upon by
EPA, PADEP, and Navy, "developed by EPA
Region III and the Navy using EPA Region III
RBCs and based on site-specific risk for lifetime
resident exposure scenarios."
Available online (via
RODS database).
4.3
Apr-06
c
150,000
(CSF)
(mg/kg-d)~
U.S. ACE (2006), ROD for the Phase IV
BRAC Parcels, Groundwater Southeastern
(SE) Area Operable Unit 3B and Part of Soil
Operable Unit SE OU 8, AEDBR Sites LEAD-
016, -114, -115, Letterkenny Army Depot,
Chambersburg
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suDerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2006030001362.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Soil concentration
calculated from the RBC equation. The ROD
identifies the calculations and parameter values
for developing age-adjusted RBCs.
Available online (via
RODS database).
Slope factor taken from 2002 HEAST; equation
for calculating age-adjusted residential RBCs for
soil ingestion based on cancer risk:
RBC = TRy-AT
EF*CSF0*IFSadj*CF
where:
RBC = risk-based concentration, mg/kg
TR = target cancer risk, 10~6
AT = averaging time, 25,550 d
EF = exposure frequency, 350d/y
CSF0 = oral slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1
IFSadj = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,
114 (mg-y/kg-d)'1
CF = conversion factor, 10~6 kg/mg
December 2009
Page B-12
-------
TABLE B.3 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 3
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
PA
(cont'd.)
4.1
Aug-03
c
150,000
(CSF)
(mg/kg-d) 1
U.S. ACE (2003), ROD for Phase III Parcels,
Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suDerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0303065.Ddf).
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 for
soil ingestion based on cancer risk:
RBSCn = TR*AT
EF*CSF0*IFSadj*CF
where
RBSC0 = risk-based screening concentration,
mg/kg
TR = target cancer risk, 1(J6
AT = averaging time, 25,550 d
EF = exposure frequency, 350d/y
CSF0 = oral slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1
IFSgdj = age-adjusted ingestion factor,
114 (mg-y/kg-d)'1
CF = conversion factor, 1(J6 kg/mg
48
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, subsurface soil,
represents the soil screening level for
groundwater protection, basis indicated as
carcinogen; considered a total hazard quotient of
0.1; dilution attenuation factor of 20. The ROD
refers to the remedial investigation/risk
assessment for the methodology explanation.
10,000
eco
2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ ecological benchmark, EPA
Region III BTAG screening level for fauna; from
EPA (Region 3) (1995a).
0.32
(eco)
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, identified as NOAEL-
based benchmark for humans/mammals, from
ORNL (1997); ROD indicates PRGs were
adjusted to NOAEL-based criteria using a factor
of 10.
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
criteria using a factor of 10.
VA
4.5
Jul-09
c
130,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)-1
VADEQ (2009b), Contaminants of Concern
Soil: Unrestricted
(httD: //www. d ea. vi ra i n i a. a ov/exDO rt/s ites/d efa u I
t/vrprisk/files/screen/vrp25.xls): SFn from
VADEQ (2009c) Table 4.2,
(http://www.deq.virqinia.qov/export/sites/defaul
t/vrprisk/files/toxicitv/vrp42.xls):
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential scenario, EPA
regional screening level and VA Voluntary
Remediation Program (VRP) Tier II screening
level.
Intra-agency
VADEQ (2008c)
provides toxicity
tables, risk
calculations and
route-specific
(dermal, ingestion,
inhalation)
equations for
remediation levels;
this document is
available online.
The VADEQ VRP adopts the lower value of the
EPA Region III RBCs for the residential scenario
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.
VADEQ cites the most recent EPA (2005)
guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment.
18
Jun-09
VADEQ (2009a), Contaminants of Concern
Soil: Restricted
(http://www.deavirqinia.qov/export/sites/defaul
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.
Same as above, except RBCs for industrial
scenario and Tier III, restricted
(commercial/industrial) screening levels.
4
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(httD'J/www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000
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
(httD'J/www. trwnews. net/imaaes/StateCieanuo
2006.PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information
is available via the
weblinks at left, with
neither the
derivation
methodology or
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided.
May-05
c
DoA (2005), Decision Document, EBS-13
Parcel, OU 6, Blackstone,
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0305061 .Ddf).
For dioxin toxicity equivalents; the document
indicates the TEQ risk falls within the target
range (70~4 to 10~6) and indicates PRGs were
developed based on the EPA Region III 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).
December 2009
Page B-13
-------
TABLE B.3 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 3
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
WV
4.1
Mar-01
c
156,000
(CPSo)
(mg/kg-d)1
WVDEP (2001), Voluntary Remediation and
Redevelopment Act: Guidance Manual,
Version 2.1
(httD://www.wvdeD.ora/Docs/3200 Remediatio
nGuidanceVersion2-1.Ddf).
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.
Expert peer
review
coordinated by
the National
Institute for
Chemical Studies
The equations are
given in WVDEP
(2001) which is
available online.
The WVDEP
document cites
EPA (1989, 1996a,
1996b).
Uniform risk-based equation for residential soil
ingestion:
C = TRxATr
[(EFrx(IFSadjxCSFo)] x10"6kg/mg
where:
C = soil concentration, (mg/kg)
TR = target cancer risk, 10"6
ATC = averaging time, carcinogens, 25,550 d
EFr = exposure frequency, 350 d/y
IFSadj = ingestion factor, 114 (mg y/kg-d)"1
CSF0 = cancer slope factor oral,
156,000 (mg/kg-d )_1
(Equation for industrial soil ingestion is also
available in the WVDEP [2001] document.)
Cited documents range from 1951-1998;
most are from the late 1980s and early
1990s.
370
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 July
1996, multiplied by 10 to yield a value based on
10"5 risk.
4
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000
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
(http://www. trwnews. net/imaaes/StateCleanup
2006.PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information
is available via the
weblinks at left, with
neither the
derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided.
December 2009
Page B-14
-------
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
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
AL
1,000
Apr-08
5,000
212
385
ADEM (2008), AL Risk Based Corrective
Action Guidance Manual
(http://www.adem.state.al.us/LandDivision/Gui
dance/ARBCAApril2008final. pdf).
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.
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"
(SF0)
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, commercial scenario.
Preliminary screening level adopted as a
cleanup level for "Direct Contact Exposure
Pathway" from 1998 OSWER directive.
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, large soil source (4047.5m2),
soil screening level protective of groundwater
resource protectionRM-1 levels per ADEM AL
Risk Based Corrective Action Guidance Manual
(ARBCA).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, small soil source (225m2),
soil screening level protective of groundwater
resource protection, Risk Management-1 (RM-1)
Levels per ADEM ARBCA.
TheADEM
screening value
and basis (OSWER
directive) are
available online.
The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation of Kociba et
al. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.
General equations for deriving (other) cleanup are
available in ADEM (2008).
Values for equations are from EPA
(1989, 2000).
FL
Feb-05
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"
(CSFo)
FDEP (2005), Technical Report: Development
of Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs) for Chapter
62-77, F.A.C., Table 2
(http://www.dep.state.fI.us/waste/quick topics/
rules/documents/62-777/TablellSoilCTLs4-17-
30
05.pdf, from
http://toxicoloav.ufl.edu/documents/TechnicalF
eb05.pdf.
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, residential direct contact
soil cleanup target level (SCTL). Derivation
provided in FDEP (2005).
The value reported in the CTL table (7 mg/kg-d),
is also cited by Paustenbach et al. (2006) as the
cleanup target level for FL (as 7 ng TEQ/kg, risk-
based calculation).
Paustenbach et
al. (2006) was
peer reviewed as
part of the
journal
publication
process.
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, commercial/industrial
direct contact SCTL.
Derivation basis
and equations
values clear for
residential and
commercial/
industrial SCTLs.
Default and
chemical-specific
values for equation
variables provided
in FDEP (2005),
Technical Report.
EPA (1997a)
Health Effects
Assessment
Summary Tables
(HEAST) values for
nonradionuclides
have not been
found via open
access online.
Slope factors and other toxicological information cite
EPA 1997 HEAST. Model equation for developing
acceptable risk based concentrations in soils for
carcinogens:
SCTL = (TRxBWxATxRBA)
FDEP report was prepared in 2005.
Toxicity value and context was taken
from the outdated EPA HEAST (1997)
source.
EFxEDxFCfEXPoral+EXPderm+EXPinhal)
where:
EXP0 = oral term = CSF0x|R0xCF
EXPd = dermal term = CSFdxSAxAFxDAxCF
EXP = inhalation term = CSFiX|RiX(iA/F+1/PEF)
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 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"6 kg/mg
SA = surface area skin exposed, 4810 cm2/d,
resident
AF = adherence factor, 0.1 mg/cm2, resident
IDA = dermal absorption, 0.01
VF = volatilization factor, 4.619x10s m3/kg,
resident
PEF = particulate emission factor, 1.24x10Ū m3/kg
December 2009
Page B-15
-------
TABLE B.4 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 4
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
FL
(cont'd.)
7
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000
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
(httpJ/www. trwnews. net/imaaes/StateCieanuo
2006.PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information
is available via the
weblinks at left,
with neither the
derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided.
2
1997
c
Hirschhorn (1997a), Cleanup Levels for Dioxin
Contaminated Soils;
Hirschhorn (1997b), Two Superfund
Environmental Justice Case Studies
(httpJ/www.trwnews.net/Documents/Cieanup/t
wo superfund environmental iust.htm)
Indicated as TCDD TEQ in soil. Escambia
Treating Company Superfund site, Pensacola,
FL, for residential scenario (reflecting ingestion,
inhalation, and dermal exposure), 10~6 risk.
Article peer
reviewed as part
of journal
publication
process.
7
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Superfund
site cleanup level; 10~6 risk.
200
Escambia Treating Company Superfund Site,
Pensacola (1996) cleanup level for off-site
residential areas (from EPA Region 4);
corresponds to 7 0"4 cancer risk level (ignoring
noncancer health effects).
50
1997
n
Hirschhorn (1997a), Cleanup Levels for Dioxin
Contaminated Soils;
Hirschhorn (1997b), Two Superfund
Environmental Justice Case Studies
(http://www. trwnews. net/Documents/Cleanup/t
wo superfund environmental iust.htm).
Indicated as TCDD TEQ in soil; 1995 "ATSDR
Public Health Assessment for Escambia
Superfund site cited 50 ppt level for noncancer
effects." (Note: not found in the ROD for this
site, from the RODS database.)
Article peer
reviewed as part
of journal
publication
process.
See information for the ATSDR entry in Table 11 of
the main report.
7
30
Sep-06
EPA (2006g), ROD Summary of Remedial
Alternative Selection: Coleman-Evans Wood
Preserving Company: Superfund Site, OU 02
(Residual Dioxin in Soil), Whitehouse
(httD'J/www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2006040001242.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.
Available online
(via RODS
database).
30
Aug-06
EPA (2006d), ROD Summary of Remedial
Alternative Selection: Jacksonville Ash Site,
Jacksonville
(httD'J/www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2006040001162.pdf).
Based on FDEP Dioxin TEQ SCTLs for
commercial/industrial scenario.
Available online
(via RODS
database).
7
30
Aug-06
EPA (2006c), ROD Summary of Remedial
Alternative Selection: Brown's Dump Site,
Jacksonville
(httpJ/www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2006040001161 .pdf): eauations aiven in
(httpJAoxicoloav. ufl. edu/documents/Technical
Feb05.pdf).
Remediation goals as TEQ were adopted from
FDEP SCTLs: 7 ppt for residential scenario,
30 ppt for commercial/industrial scenario;
calculated for 10~6 risk level.
Available online
(via RODS
database).
See information for
FDEP (2005)
above.
See information for FDEP (2005) above.
See information regarding FDEP (2005)
above.
30
Feb-06
EPA (2006a), ROD Summary of Remedial
Alternative Selection: Escambia Wood
Treating Company: Superfund Site, Operable
Unit 01 (Soil), Pensacola
(httpJ/www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2006040001445.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ, based on FDEP SCTL
for commercial scenario, lifetime cancer risk of
10~6. (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 for that
contaminant. Florida Statute 376.30701.)
Available online
(via RODS
database).
December 2009
Page B-16
-------
TABLE B.4 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 4
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
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
GA
80
1992
2006
(2004)
4.8
1997
200
1997
1,000
Aug-04
GADNR (1992), Chapter 391-3-19 -
Appendix 1: Regulated Substances and Soil
Concentrations that Trigger Notification
< http://rules.sos. state, aa.us/docs/391/3/19/AP.
pdf) Part of GA Hazardous Site Response Act
(HSRA).
Lund (2009) (personal communication).
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Reg
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000
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
(httpJ/www. trwnews.net/imaaes/StateCleanuD
2006.PDF).
Hirschhorn (1997a), Cleanup Levels for Dioxin
Contaminated Soils.
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.
Basis not provided.
Hirschhorn (1997b), Two Superfund
Environmental Justice Case Studies
(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/Cleanup/t
wo superfund environmental just.htm).
"The state of Georgia publishes a cleanup value
corresponding to 4.8 ppt and North Carolina
uses 4.1 ppt, both presumably following EPA risk
methods, but probably with some minor change
in one or more exposure parameters." No basis
provided, no further information given.
Marzone Inc./Chevron Chemical Company
Superfund Site, Tifton (1996), indicated as
cleanup level for residential scenarios (from EPA
Region 4); corresponds to 10~4 cancer risk level,
even though risk-based cleanup levels for
pesticides at the site were based on 10~6 cancer
risk for residential exposure.
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
weblinks 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 = (TRxBWxAT><365 d/v)
EFxED (EXPoral+EXPinhal)
where:
EXP0 = oral term = CSF0x|Rsoi|XCF
inhalation term = CSFiX|RiX(i/VF+1/PEF)
target cancer risk, 10"5
body weight, 70 kg
averaging time, 70 y
exposure frequency, 350 d/y resident
GA HSRA is from 1992. The basis (and
date) of the slope factor was not
specified.
EXP,
TR
BW
AT
EF
ED
CSF
IRsoil
IRi
CF
VF
PEF =
= exposure duration, 30 y resident
cancer slope factor, (mg/kg-d)"
soil ingestion rate, 114 mg/d resident
inhalation rate, 15 m3/d resident
conversion factor, 10"6kg/mg
equation given but not all chemical-specific
parameter values
particulate emission factor, 4.63x10!
m3/kg
Article peer
reviewed as part
of journal
publication
process.
EPA (2004e), Woolfolk Chemical Works Site,
OU #3: Amended Record of Decision
(http://www. ep a. gov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ, commercial/industrial
scenario. Value is given as SCTL.
xt/a0404664.pdf).
Available online
(RODS database).
Basis not provided.
December 2009
Page B-17
-------
TABLE B.4 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 4
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
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
Apr-09
c
130,000
(SFO)
(mg/kg-d)"1
KY Legislature (2009), Kentucky
Administrative Regulations
(http: //www. I rc. state. kv. u s/ka r/401/100/030. h t
m); based on EPA (2009a) Preliminary
Remediation Goals
(httD://www.eDa.aov/reaion09/suDerfund/Dra/D
df/ressoil si table run APRIL2009.Ddf) &
fhttD://www.eDa.aov/reaion09/suDerfund/Dra/D
df/indsoil si table run APRIL2009.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential scenario. KY
regulation dictates that the state use EPA
Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)
(see Table13 of the report for recently
harmonized regional levels).
The PRG
documentation is
available online.
See Tables 11 and 13 for the basis of EPA regional
levels, including the toxicity value.
CalEPA report from late 2002 reflects the
1982 NTP study (slightly more recent
than the Kociba study, using updated
tumor classification methodology). See
Tables 11 and 13 of the report for
information underlying the recently
harmonized regional screening levels
(last updated in fall 2009, with intent to
assess for update every 6 months).
18
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).
MS
38.2
Feb-02
c
150,000
(CSFo)
(mg/kg-d)"1
MSDEQ (2002), Final Regulations Governing
Brownfield Voluntary Cleanup and
Redevelopment in MS
(httD://www. dea. state. ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/Ddf/Ma
in HW-2/$File/HW-2.pdf?OpenElement):
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, restricted scenario, based on
ingestion. Calculated using equations in EPA
RAGS (2000). Slope factors (hierarchy) from
EPA IRIS, HEAST, ATSDR or peer-reviewed
literature.
Target remediation
goals are available
online.
Toxicological basis
from HEAST
(outdated) is not
publicly available.
Residential TRGs are calculated using Equation 2
from USEPA (1996) Soil Screening Guidance
TRG = TR xAT
EFxIFSadjxCSF0xCF
where :
TRG = target remediation goal, (mg/kg)
TR = target risk, 10 s
CSF0 = 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1
AT = averaging time, 25,550 d
EF = exposure frequency, 350 d
IFSadj = soil ingestion factor, 114 mg-y/kg-d
CF = conversion factor, 10
The Region 4 guide is from 2000. The
basis of the outdated HEAST values was
not reported.
4.26
based on EPA (2000) Supplemental Guidance
to RAGS
(htt d ://www. e d a. a o v/R e a i o n 4/wa st e/ots/h e a It b
ul.html Hess (2009) (personal
communication), verified that EPA (1996), Soil
Screening Guidance: User's Guide
(httD://www.eDa.aov/suDerfund/health/conmedi
a/soil/Ddfs/ssa496.Ddf) was used to derive MS
target remediation goal (TRGs).
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.
5
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000
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
(http://www. trwnews. net/imaaes/StateCleanup
2006.PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information
is available via the
weblinks at left,
with neither the
derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided.
5
1997
c
Hirschhorn (1997a), Cleanup Levels for Dioxin
Contaminated Soils.
Indicated for Naval Seabees Center, Gulfpoint,
MS; to remove contaminated soil with about
100 ppt dioxins.
Article peer
reviewed as part
of journal
publication
process.
100
Commercial scenario in Gulf port, 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
0.1 ppb and then to delist the soil as safe."
1,000
Sep-07
EPA (2007), ROD Summary of Remedial
Alternative Selection: Picayune Wood Treating
Site, Picayune
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2007040001948. pdf).
Based on EPA 1998 OSWER directive.
Available online
(via RODS
database).
The Kimbrough et at. (1984) evaluation of Kociba et
at. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.
December 2009
Page B-18
-------
TABLE B.4 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 4
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
NC
1,000
Oct-09
c
NCDENR (2009), Inactive Hazardous Sites
Branch Soil Remediation Goals
(http://www.wastenotnc.orq/soiltable.pdf) (link
updated in October 2009);
Inactive Hazardous Sites Program Guidelines
for Assessment and Cleanup
(http://www.wastenotnc.ora/sfhome/stateleada
uidance.pdf)
ForTCDD TEQ, preliminary health-based
preliminary soil remediation goal (PSRG) for
unrestricted land use; NCDENR indicates a
target risk of 10"6 is used preliminary health-
based PSRGs based on cancer. (1,000 ppt is
the OSWER value for residential soil, which is
not based on that risk level.) NCDENR also
indicates the PSRGs are adapted from the April
2009 EPA RSL tables. (Note the current
1,000 ppt replaces the October 2008 residential
value of 4.5 ppt, which is the EPA RSL for
TCDD; an industrial level no longer appears in
the 2009 documentation (18 ppt in 2008).
The PSRGs are
available online.
Not clear; NCDENR indicates adoption of the EPA
RSL, and also indicates a target risk of 10"6 is applied
for, but the RSL value for dioxin is not reflected here
(the 1,000 ppt appears to reflect the OSWER
directive). The toxicity value was not found.
NCDENR provides the current WHO TEF
values for determining TEQ although the
source of these values is not cited, e.g.,
Van den Berg et al. (2006) or WHO
(2005).
0.64
For TCDD TEQ, protection of groundwater SRG.
(For comparison, the EPA RSL risk-based soil
screening level for protection of groundwater is
0.15 ppt.)
Refers to EPA 1996 soil screening guidance, and soil
leachate model with default values "appropriate for
NC. " Specific input values for dioxin were not found,
nor was the toxicity value.
4
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(httD'J/www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000
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
(httD'J/www. trwnews.net/imaoes/StateCleanuD
2006.PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information
is available via the
weblinks at left,
with neither the
derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided.
4.1
1997
Hirschhorn (1997a), Cleanup Levels for Dioxin
Contaminated Soils.
"The state of Georgia publishes a cleanup value
corresponding to 4.8 ppt and North Carolina
uses 4.1 ppt, both presumably following EPA risk
methods, but probably with some minor change
in one or more exposure parameters." No basis
provided, no further information given.
Article peer
reviewed as part
of journal
publication
process.
1,000
Sep-08
EPA (2008e), Lower Roanoke River,
Weyerhaeuser Operable Unit 2, Martin
County, NC, Part 2: The Decision Summary
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2008040002458. Ddf).
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 recovery" given that soil dioxin is <1 ppb.
Available online
(via RODS
database).
4
Sep-06
EPA (2006e), Record of Decision Summary of
Remedial Alternative Selection, Sigmon's
Septic Tank Site, Statesville
(httD'J/www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xUr2006040001281.pdf).
Indicated as NC soil remediation goal for dioxins.
Available online
(via RODS
database).
14.5
Sep-06
DoD (2006), Final ROD, Operable Unite 6,
Site 12, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point,
Havelock
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2006040001306. Ddf):
Calculation given in Appendix 2, NC
DENR (2005)
(httD'J/wastenot.enr. state, nc.us/hwhome/auida
nce/Ddf/HWSdeanuD5-05draft.Ddf).
Indicates the NC soil screening level for TCDD
of 14.5 ppt is back-calculated from the
concentration protective of groundwater. NC
Hazardous Waste Section (HWS) soil screening
process sets the unrestricted use level as the
lowest of the background concentration, a SSL
protective of GW, or the EPA Region 9
residential PRG. In this case, the regional PRG
of 3.9 was used as a final remediation goal.
Available online
(via RODS
database).
120
Jul-05
150,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)'1
EPA (2005b), Amendment to the ROD,
Carolina Transformer Site, Fayetteville
(httoJ/www. eoa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/a0405038. pdf).
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ, based on cancer risk.
Derivation of the remediation goal was not found
in this document. Action selected to "protect the
local community and the environment".
Available online
(via RODS
database).
December 2009
Page B-19
-------
TABLE B.4 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 4
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
SC
Aug-09
Byrd (2009) (personal communication).
Feedback from field review indicates no state
cleanup value exists for dioxin. SC uses EPA
screening values, toxicity values, and guidance
for risk-based cleanup levels.
3.9
Aug-04
SCDHEC (2004), Evaluation of the Koppers
Inc. Site under the RCRIS Corrective Action
Environmental Indicator Event Code CA723
(Human Exposures), with attachment (1999),
Documentation of Environmental Indicator
Determination
(http://www. scdhec. aov/environment/lwm/pubs
/eipdfs/Koppers %20CA 725. %20dated%20Aua
PRG for residential scenario. Memo with
attachment does not provide derivation basis.
Memo with
attachment in
which values are
cited is available
online.
Scientific basis not found.
Memo is from 2004, with the attachment
dated February 1999.
16
PRG for industrial scenario. Memo does not
provide derivation basis.
ust%2019. %202004. pdf).
3.2
May-04
c
150,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)'1
DOE (2004), ROD, Remedial Alternative
Selection for the R-Area Burning/Rubble Pits
(131-R and 131-1R) and Rubble Pile (631-
25G) Operable Unit (U), Aiken
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0404088. pdf).
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/RIAA/PA with Baseline Risk Assessment for
the R -Area Burning Rubble Pits (131-R and
131-1R) and Rubble Pile (631-25G) Operable
Unit (U), WSRC-RP-2002-4183, Rev.1, June.)
Available online
(via RODS
database).
References the 2002 EPA Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS)as source of toxicity data
(with B2 as the carcinogen descriptor).
TN
50
Sep-03
c
DHHS (2003), Residential Dioxin
Contamination
(httD://health. state. tn.us/Environmental/PDFs/
hc-e-easvaoer.pdf):
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Soil screening level for
dioxins based on 10"6 lifetime cancer risk over a
70-year life span. Reflects recent ATSDR
guideline.
ATSDR follows
an external
review process
(e.g., the 1998
policy with the
screening value
was reviewed by
a panel of
university and
Canadian health
officials).
Available online.
See ASTDR entry in Table 11 of the report.
The updated ATSDR dioxin policy was
not based on new scientific data or a
reanalysis of the existing data. "The
update does not change the assessment
of health hazards associated with dioxin
exposure, as summarized in the 1998
ATSDR Toxicological Profile and in the
derivation of the Minimal Risk Level
(MRL). The policy update impacts site-
specific health assessments evaluating
exposure to dioxin directly from
residential soils."
based on ATSDR (1998), Toxicological Profile
for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins
(httD://www.atsdr.cdc.aov/toxDrofiles/tDl04.Ddf
)Ķ
2,500
Jul-02
c
Bates et al. (2002), American Creosote Site
Case Study: Solidification/Stabilization of
Dioxins, PCP and Creosote for $64 per Cubic
Yard.
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Soil action level based
on 10~4 lifetime cancer risk for future adult
worker.
Article peer
reviewed as part
of journal
publication
process.
Available online.
Scientific basis not found.
This contaminated site was remediated in
1996.
1,000
Jul-03
c
EPA (2003e), ROD, Summary of Remedial
Alternative Selection for the Soil and
Groundwater at the Wrigley Charcoal Site,
Wrigley
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xtZr0403576.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. The ROD indicates that
soil was tested for dioxin on two separate
occasions and found to be below the EPA
cleanup level of 1 ppb.
Available online
(RODS database)
December 2009
Page B-20
-------
TABLE B.5 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 5
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency-
Review Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
IL
14
Jun-05
n
(eco)
1.4x10"5
(NOAEL)
mg/kg-d
CWLP (2005), Springfield, IL, City Water,
Light & Power, Supplement to Part 7 of PSD
Permit Application, Additional Impact Analysis
for Metals
(http://vosemite.epa.qov/r5/r5ard.nsf/c408a200
9710018f8625716f004d9038/df97027430f55b6
d862571 a3005a188e/$FILE/CWLP%20Metals
%20Analvsis 3 14 06.pdf): based on wildlife
benchmark in Sample et al. (1996)
(http://www.esd.ornl.aov/proarams/ecorisk/doc
uments/tm86r3.pdf).
Screening level of 1.4x10"5 (or 14><10"6) mg/kg soil is
based on the no observed adverse effect level
(NOAEL) for a ring-necked pheasant - which was
"used to represent closest available species and
was the worst-case screening level for dioxins" -
taken from ORNL technical report for DOE,
"Toxicology Benchmarks for Wildlife:
1996 Revision."
(1996 ORNL
report
underwent
technical review;
nature of peer
review for the
screening level
derivation not
found.)
Full derivation
approach not found.
Summary
information from the
toxicological study
is available online in
ORNL (1996). (The
original Nosek et al.
[1992] article is not
publicly available
online.)
Methodology is not provided; soil concentration
appears to be the same value as the daily dose
summarized in ORNL (1996) from Nosek et al.
(1992): intraperitoneal, 10-wk study during critical
life stage for the reproductive endpoint; chronic
NOAEL of 14 ng/kg-d; chronic of lowest observed
adverse effect level (LOAEL) 140 ng/kg-d.
ORNL (1996) also summarized similar dose
information from a second study, Murray et al.
(1979): rat dietary 3-generation study; chronic
NOAEL of 1 ng/kg-d; chronic LOAEL of
10 ng/kg-d.
The ecological benchmark from Nosek et al.
(1992) is cited in the ORNL (1996) technical
report on toxicological benchmarks for
wildlife.
1,000
Apr-02
c
ROD; OU 04, Sangamo Electric Dump/ Crab
Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, Carterville
(htto'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0502044.Ddf).
For Site 36, 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ 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*10"4 risk 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 was identified
for recreational use.
Methodology and
assumptions for
deriving BHRGs are
provided in the
1996 human health
baseline risk
assessment and
ecological risk
assessment, for the
site, not yet found
via open access
online.
The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation of Kociba
et al. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.
60
For Site 22A, For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ, a BHRG of 60
ppt was established for site workers.
45
n
(eco)
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ, 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.
The FS that
provides basis
information has not
been found online.
The ROD indicates the RBC basis is the LOAEL
for each receptor group (cites the FS, which was
not found online).
IN
45
2006
c
150,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"1
IDEM (2006), Risk Integrated System of
Closure (RISC), Provisional 2006 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.aov/idem/files/risctechauidance.
pdf): also note IDEM (2009), RISC Technical
Guide, Appendix 1, Default Closure Tables
(http://www.in.aov/idem/files/risctech appendix
1 2006 r1.pdf), this technical auide reflects
revisions since IDEM (2001) and IDEM (2006)
(note the internal 2009 tables are not yet
available online).
Current provisional default closure level for TCDD in
residential soil, is 4.5 xiO"5 mg/kg (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.)
Not identified.
The RISC technical
guide (2006/2009,
which does not yet
contain any dioxin
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 = TRxATrx365 d/v
EFrx(A+[lnhFadjxSFixB])
A = SFnXdnaF^i+rSFS^xABSl)
10s mg/kg
B =1+1
VF PEF
where:
TR = target risk, 10 s
ATC = averaging time, 70 y
EFrs = exposure frequency residential soil,
250 d/y
SF0 = oral slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
(130,000 for 2009 internal draft level)
IngFadj = ingestion factor soil age adjusted,
114 mg-y/kg-d
SFSadi = skin factor soil age adjusted,
1,257 mg-y/kg-d
ABS = skin absorbance factor, 0.03
InhFadi = inhalation factor age adjusted,
10.9 m3-y/kg-d
SFi = inhalation SF, same as for SF0 above
VF = volatilization factor, m3/kg
PEF = particulate emission factor,
1.316x10Ū m3/kg
The internal 2009 update 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.
180
Current provisional closure level for TCDD for the
commercial/industrial scenarios is 1.8 x 0"4 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 1.0x10"9 mg/kg-d; 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.)
December 2009
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
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis Incorporation of Most Recent Science
IN
(cont'd)
60
Jun-09
c
130,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"1
IDEM (2009), Risk Integrated System of
Closure (RISC), Proposed 2009 Default
Closure Levels (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 late 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"5 mg/kg
(this is also the default closure level for residential
soil, direct contact); it is based on the cancer
endpoint; 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 |jg/m3).
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 (180 ppt).
Not identified.
As above.
Basic equation is as above. However, the
internal draft proposed values incorporate the
CalEPA oral cancer slope factor and IUR (rather
than using the oral SF for the inhalation SF).
As above.
180
Proposed commercial/industrial soil default closure
level for TCDD, given as 1.8 ><10"4 mg/kg; with the
same basis as the preceding entry. (This value is
also the default closure 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 endpoint, noting the chronic ATSDR MRL
of 1><10"9 mg/kg-d, (and intermediate MRL of
2x10"8 mg/kg-d), as well as the CalEPA reference
concentration of 4x10"7mg/m3. However, cancer is
the driving endpoint for the closure levels.
1,000
Jun-89
c
EPA (1989c), ROD; OU 01, Wedzeb
Enterprises, Inc., Lebanon
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0589097.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Dioxin found at very low
levels; no cleanup action taken because the
concentration was less than the cleanup level of
1,000 ppt.
ROD indicates
community
involvement was
not significant;
concerns expressed
by citizens and local
officials on remedy
implementation
were addressed at
the 6/1/89 public
meeting so no
formal comments
were received by
Wedzeb on the
remedy.
December 2009
Page B-22
-------
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
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis Incorporation of Most Recent Science
Ml
90
Jan-06
c
75,000
(SF)
(mg/kg-df1
MIDEQ (2006), Attachment 1, Table 2, Soil:
Residential and Commercial,
(http://www.michiqan.qov/documents/deq/deq-
rrd-OpMemo 1-
Attachment1Table2SoilResidential 283553 7.
pdf): from Technical Support Document, Part
201 Generic Cleanup Criteria and Screening
Levels, Part 213 Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening
Levels (http://www.michiqan.qov/deq/0,1607,7-
135-3311 4109 9846 30022-101581-
.00.html): basis and equations from MIDEQ
(2005), Attachment 6 (from same main
document as above)
(http://www.michiqan.qov/documents/deq/deq-
rrd-OpMemo 1-Attachment6 285488 7.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Direct contact criteria
(DCC) and risk-based screening level (RBSL),
protective against adverse health effects from long-
term ingestion and dermal contact with soil. MIDEQ
notes "of all polychlorinated and polybrominated
dibenzodioxin and dibenzofuran isomers present at
a facility, expressed as an equivalent concentration
of 2,3,7,-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin based upon
their relative potency, shall be added together and
compared to the criteria for 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. The generic cleanup
criteria for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin are
not calculated according to the algorithms presented
in R 299.5714 to R 299.5726. The generic cleanup
criteria are being held at the values that the DEQ
has used since August 1998, in recognition of the
fact that national efforts to reassess risks posed by
dioxin are not yet complete. Until these studies are
complete, it is premature to select a revised slope
factor and/or reference dose for calculation of
generic cleanup criteria."
The DCC derivation
methodology is
available online.
Generic residential and commercial algorithm:
DCC = (TRxATxCF)
SFx[(EFiX|FxAEi)+(EFdxDFxAEd)]
where:
DCC= direct contact criterion, [jg/kg (ppb)
TR = target risk, 10"5 cancer risk
AT = averaging time, 25,550 d
CF = correction factor, 109 |jg/kg
EFi = ingestion exposure frequency, 350d/y
IF = age-adj soil ingestion factor, 114 mg-y/kg-
d
AEj = oral absorption efficiency, 0.5
EFd = dermal exposure frequency, 245 d/y
DF = age-adjusted soil dermal factor,
2,442 mg-y/kg-d
AEd = dermal absorption efficiency, 0.3
The value for age-adjusted soil dermal
factor was obtained from MIDEQ (1998).
This parameter appears to have been
updated in MIDEQ (2005) document to a
value of 353 mg-y/kg-d. However, the DCC
for dioxin has remained unchanged.
90
Aug-98
c
75,000
(SF)
(mg/kg-df1
MIDEQ (1998), More Details on Dioxin 90 ppt
value, Excerpt from Part 201, Generic Soil
Direct Contact Criteria, Technical Support
Document; developed under MIDEQ
1994 Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Act 451, Part 201
(http://www.michiqan.qov/documents/deq/deq-
whm-hwp-dow-
excerpt of dec tsd 251913 7.pdf):
SF context given in TSG (1990),
Carcinogenicity Slope Factor for 2,3,7.8-
TCDD: Overview and Recent Developments,
Toxic Steering Group Meeting
(http://www.michiqan.qov/documents/deq/deq-
whm-hwp-dow-slope factor 251918 7.pdf).
(Also see CalEPA [2007] for further context
and citations, in Table 11 of the report.)
Concentration is based on a risk target of 10"5 (note
the hazard quotient of 1 for noncancer endpoint was
not used for the 90 ppt level). The slope factor (SF)
is for total significant tumors per the 1986 NTP
classification scheme, context is given in TSG
(1990); the earlier SF from the initial Kociba et al.
(1978) analysis was higher. (Note that study served
as a key basis for the earlier 1 ppb value from
ATSDR, and the EPA 1998 OSWER value.) TSG
(1990) includes historical context from the 1980s,
including the EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group
(CAG) SF of 156,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 based on
significant female tumors (liver, lung, nasal
turbinates/hard palate), as the geometric mean of
the Kociba analysis (151,000) and Squire analysis
(161,000), adjusted for early mortality (deaths in
year 1). Reanalysis per the NTP 1986 liver
classification scheme produced an SF of
52,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 per liver tumors only. TSG (1990)
cites EPA regarding FDA, CDC, and CA using SFs
of 151,000 or 161,000 per mg/kg-d based on liver
tumors only, from the Kociba or Squire analysis,
respectively.
(Underlying
studies are from
peer-reviewed
literature.)
The DCC derivation
methodology is
available online, as
is summary context
for the slope factor.
Tumors from 2-y dietary rat study, Kociba et al.
(1978), with subsequent reanalysis per 1986 NTP
methodology producing a SF of
75,000 (mg/kg-d)-1 based on total significant
tumors.
Equation is same as identified above for MIDEQ
(2006).
MIDEQ methodology (1998) cites EPA
guidance from 1992 or earlier; some default
values have changed since then, e.g., for
dermal and other exposure factors (e.g., the
"IF" would have been lower per the EPA
2008 child-specific EFH and the EPA 1997
EFH; note that document was itself recently
updated and released in October 2009 as
an external review draft. The toxicity value
is based on analyses of the 1978 Kociba et
al. (1978) data using updated tumor
classification methodology.
1,000
Jul-08
c
Heltman (2008), EPA Requires Limited Dioxin
Cleanup at Dow Site Absent Final Risk Levels
(htto://www. trwnews. net/Documents/EPA/epaO
72908.htm).
Indicates Ml waived its standard in consenting to 1
ppb for cleanup of the Riverside Blvd. site near Dow
Chemical Co., and notes State regulations allow for
a different cleanup level based on site-specific and
other information; the amount of contaminated soil
was considered too large for interim remediation;
article indicates (per state officials) that this level
was selected as matter of practicality.
Concentration appears to reflect OSWER
directive. (The Kimbrough et al. (1984)
evaluation of Kociba et al. (1978) underlies the
OSWER value.)
90
2006
c
Paustenbach (2006), Identifying Soil Cleanup
Criteria for Dioxins In Urban Residential Soils:
How Have 20 Years of Research and Risk
Assessment Experience Affected the
Analysis?
(httD'J/ndeD.nv. aov/bmi/docs/060406 dioxin %2
0paper.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD-TEQ; risk-based calculation
reported for soil ingestion pathway, which indicates
this is the driving pathway.
Article peer
reviewed as part
of journal
publication
process.
December 2009 Page B-23
-------
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
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
Ml
(cont'd.)
990
Feb-98
EPA (1998c), AMD, OU 03, Ott/Story/Cordova
Chemical Co., Dalton Township
(http://www. ep a. gov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/a0598101.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ 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 laboratory equipment
can measure; if 20 x DWis
-------
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
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis Incorporation of Most Recent Science
MN
(cont'd.)
25
Jun-09
c
1,400,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-df1
MPCA (2009), Risk-Based Guidance for the
Soil - Human Health Pathway, Tier 1 and Tier
2 SRV Spreadsheets
(http://www.pca. state, mn.us/cleanup/riskbased
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Tier 2 recreational
scenario; ELCR of 10"5 (updated from the 1999
value of 200 per mg/kg-d).
Same as above.
For recreational, chronic incidental soil ingestion,
age-adjusted: IR = 155 mg/d, EF = 92 d/y,
ED = 33 y, BW= 51 kg.
35
These soil reference values (SRVs) update the
Jan 1999 working draft values that were based
on an SF0 of 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"1, from
MPCA (1999), Risk-Based Guidance for the
Soil - Human Health Pathway, Volume 2
(http://www.pca.state.mn.us/cleanup/pubs/srv3
99.pdf).
Hansen (2009) (personal communication).
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Tier 2 industrial worker;
ELCR of 10"5 (updated from the 1999 value of 350
per mg/kg-d for the chronic industrial scenario).
Same as above.
For industrial, chronic incidental soil ingestion:
IR = 80 mg/d, EF = 250 d/y, ED = 25 y,
BW= 70 kg.
75
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Tier 2 short-term worker
scenario; ELCR of 10"6 (updated from the 1999
value of 800 per mg/kg-d).
Same as above.
For short-term worker: IR = 330 mg/d, EF = 45 d
(5 d/wk, 9-wk construction period within 1 y),
BW= 70 kg; ELCR = 10 s (IR changed from
1999 value of 480 per EPA [2002]).
1,000
Sep-08
n
MPCA (2008), Second Five-Year Review
Report for Ritari Post and Pole Superfund Site,
Sebeka, Wadena County, September 2008
(htto://www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/fivevear/f2
008050002503. Ddf).
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. 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 the Agency for
Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ASTDR)
and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), a
residential cleanup criterion of 1 ppb or
microgram/kilogram (jug/kg) was established for
TCDDeq." (See context for value in Tables 11 and
13 of the report.) /\s of the September 2008 5-year
review, the site is zoned "Mixed (Agricultural/
Residential/Forestry District)" and is assessed as
"Agricultural - Non-homestead."
Adopted the
ATSDR
residential soil
value available
in 1994.
Basis for using this
ATSDR value as
the soil cleanup
level for the site
was available to the
public. (See
subsequent
information in the
ATSDR entry in
Table 11 of the
report.)
See information for the ATSDR entry in Table 11
of the report.
The 2008 5-year review considered the
recent WHO 2005 TEFs and determined it
would not change the protectiveness of the
site remedy. This September 2008 review
preceded the ATSDR update of Oct.-Nov.
2008 (which retained 0.04 ppb as a
screening level and eliminated 1 ppb as an
action level); see information for the ATSDR
entry in Table 11 of the report. Also note
the historical content provided in the earlier
documents regarding ATSDR value of 1 ppb
for residential cleanup that preceded its
1998 documentation of the policy guideline,
excerpted under "context notes" at left.
1,000
Sep-99
c
EPA (1999d), ROD AMD; OU 01, 03, MacGillis
& Gibbs Co./Bell Lumber & Pole Co., New
Brighton
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/a0599147. Ddf).
Amendment did not alter cleanup level from the
1994 ROD, with total risk meeting the W4 limit for
commercial and industrial use; the surrounding area
is commercial and residential. From the 1994 ROD:
MN generally establishes its cleanup goals at
the 10~5 level... for PCDDs/PCDFs, the cleanup
level is 1 /ug/kg. This cleanup level was developed
by ATSDR and has been established as EPA policy.
This concentration was also the practical detection
limit for laboratory analysis of PCDDs/PCDFs in soil.
The 1 /ug/kg cleanup level does exceed the 10~5 risk
level that MPCA uses as a goal. However, the
remaining cleanup levels for other site contaminants
have been calculated so that total risk from all
contaminants at the site will not exceed 1G4 which is
within U.S. EPA's acceptable risk range."
December 2009
Page B-25
-------
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
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
OH
35.8
Oct-09
150,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"'
OHEPA (2009), Closure Plan Review
Guidance for RCRA Facilities
(http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/32/pdf/2008CPRG.
M);
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Values are for single
chemicals, direct contact with soil. Considers
ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation, with
ingestion as the primary pathway.
OHEPA document Slope factor from HEAST database. Calculation
and tables available of direct contact cancer GCN for a constituent
online. Cites EPA that has an SF0 and a SFj.
GCN = TR x AT .
(1996) Soil
Screening
Guidance and EPA
(2002)
supplemental
guidance (available
online).
Where:
GCN
TR
AT
SFo.i
I FSadj
CF
Fl
EF
Oabs =
S FSadj
ABS =
A + B + C
= SF0x(IFSadjxCFxF|xEF)
= SFo/OABsx(SFSadjxABSxCFxEF)
= SFiX[lnhFadjxEFx(1/PEF)+(1/VF)]
= generic cleanup number, mg/kg
= target risk, 10"5
= averaging time, carcinogens, 25550 d
= oral and inhalational cancer slope
factor, 150,000 mg/kg-d
= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,
114.3 mg-y/kg-d
= conversion factor, soil 10"6
= soil fraction ingested, 1.0
= exposure frequency residential, 350 d/y
= oral absorption factor, 0.5
age-adjusted soil dermal contact factor,
360.8 mg-y/kg-d
dermal absorption factor, 0.03
InhFadi = age-adjusted inhalation factor,
10.9 m -y/kg-d
PEF = particulate emission factor,
1.36x10Ū m3/kg
VF = volatilization factor, no value provided
1,000
Jun-89
156,000
(mg/kg-d)'1
EPA (1989b), ROD; OU 01, Laskin/Poplar Oil
Co., Jefferson Township
(http://www. epa. gov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0589091.pdf).
No cleanup action was taken because soil
concentrations were below the 1,000 ppt TCDD
equivalent cleanup level from the EPA 1998
OSWER directive.
| ROD displays
\cancer slope factor
\from Superfund
\Public Health
\Evaluation Manual
Ķ(SPHEM) (US EPA,
11986), but SF is not
\used to derive any
| site-specific dioxin
\cleanup level.
The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation ofKociba
let al. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.
(Although the ROD also identifies a cancer slope
factor of 156,000 per mg/kg-d from the 1986 EPA
SPHEM, that value was not used to derive a site-
specific dioxin cleanup level because the site
adopted the extant EPA 1,000 ppt level.)
Wl
0.5
May-00
n
(eco)
0.0001
(NOAEL)
mg/kg-d
Wheat (2000), [USCC] Dioxins and Furans
(http://mailman.cloudnet.com/pipermail/compo
st/2000-Mav/006755. html):
WDNR, cites Wl Dept. of Health memo (May 4,
1994, from Goldring, Bureau of Public Health,
subject: "Revision of DOH Guidelines for
Dioxin in Landspread Sludge").
Toxicity value is from Thiel et al. (1995).
1.2
Identified as risk-based standards for human and
wildlife protection, as total dioxin equivalent (TDE);
indicates wildlife emphasis [hence "(eco)" in
endpoint column]: Using this methodology, Wl DNR
"has derived ... wildlife dioxin criterion for surface
spreading (i.e., no incorporation)..." these are
meant to be applied "in situations where
contaminated material is spread in a thin layer on
the surface and not incorporated" (Thiel et al. 1995).
Standard for agricultural land with grazing.
TDE, standard for agricultural land without grazing.
Underlying study Memo from Wl
From Thiel et al. (1995): NOAEL of 0.1 [jg/kg-d Thiel et al. (1995) reflects research
is from peer-
reviewed
literature.
Dept. of Health not
found online; Thiel
et al. (1995)
available via
Journal of
Environmental
Toxicology and
Chemistry.
for embryo hatchability. Methodology not
identified in this information source. Thiel et al.
publication is not publicly available.
from 1977 through 1994.
December 2009
Page B-26
-------
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
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
AR
4.5
May-09
c
130,000
(SF0)
(mg/k-d)"1
ARDEQ (2009a,b) AR Corrective Action
Strategy
(h tt p : //www. adea.state.ar.us/hazwaste/branc
h tech/risk assessment.htm),
(h tt p : //www. adea.state.ar.us/hazwaste/branc
h tech/cas.htm#CAS):
ARDEQ website links to the EPA (Region 6)
Corrective Action Strategy
(http://www.epa.qov/earth1 r6/6pd/rcra c/pd-
o/riskman.htm).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the RSL 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 and 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 clean-up 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."
Regional screening
levels are available
online from EPA
Region 6 (and
Regions 3 and 9).
For cleanup levels (which are distinct from screening levels):
"Site-specific clean-up standards established through site
specific, risk-based minimized threat variances should be within
the range of values that ARDEQ and EPA generally find
acceptable for risk-based cleanup levels ... total excess risk to
an individual exposed over a lifetime generally falling within a
range from 10"4 to 10"6, using 10"6 as a point of departure ... For
non-carcinogenic 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."
18
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, RSL for industrial scenario.
(1,000)
Apr-08
APEC (2008), Regulation No. 23, Hazardous
Waste Management
(http://www.adea.state.ar.us/reas/files/rea23
final 080526.pdf):
Regulation No. 23 identifies a treatment
standard of 1,000 ppt for TCDD TEQ in
nonwastewater hazardous waste.
1,000
Sep-96
c
EPA (1996e), ROD, OU 02, Vertac, Inc.,
Jacksonville
(httD'J/www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullt
ext/r0696102. Ddf):
EPA (1998b), ESD, OU 02, Vertac, Inc.,
Jacksonville
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullt
ext/e0698160. Ddf):
CH2MHILL (2003), Second Five-Year
Review for the Vertac Incorporated
Superfund Site, Jacksonville (prepared for
EPA Region 6)
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/fivevear/
f04-06002.pdf).
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 1(J4 to 1(J6 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 was still accepted;
2,3,7,8-TCDD was still present.
The ROD includes supporting equations and parameter values.
3,500
For TCDD, the cleanup goal for onsite 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).
5,000
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
(http://www.dea.louisiana.aov/portal/LinkClick
.aspx?fileticket=blPYm4ICf9a%3d&tabid=293
0).
The list was checked for TCDD and dioxin, and
no standards were found.
December 2009
Page B-27
-------
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
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer ? Transparency- - Ķ
_ i ui- a i u-i-t Scientific Basis
Review Public Availability
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
LA
(cont'd.)
1,000
Mar-03
LDEQ (2003b), Title 33 Part V. Hazardous
Waste and Hazardous Materials, Subpart 1.
Table 2 Treatment Standards for Hazardous
Wastes (Final Rule)
(httD://www.dea.louisiana.aov/Dortal/Dortals/0
/Dlannina/reas/Ddf/HW083fin.Ddf).
For all TCDDs (as TEQ.) the treatment standard
(acceptable level) for "non-waste waters" is
0.001 mg/kg.
1,000
Jun-02
c
150,000
(SF)
(mg/kg-d)'1
EPA (2002), ROD, OU 01, Marion Pressure
Treating
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullt
ext/r0602009. pdf);
ATSDR (2006), Health Consultation: A
Review of Soil Data, Marion Pressure
Treating Co., Marion, Union Parish, LA
(http://www. atsdr. cdc. aov/HAC/PHA/Marion %
20Pressure%20Treatina%20Companv/Mario
nPressureTreatinaCoHC013106.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD total TEQ (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 mg/kg, and therefore
is not directly based on a 10~6 cancer risk."
From the health consultation, the health-based
assessment comparison value (environmental
medium evaluation guide) is 5*10~5 mg/kg
(50 ppt), also indicated as the ATSDR screening
value.
For recreational and industrial scenario; the
dioxin screening value reflects the EPA PRG for
the residential scenario, 1 ppb.
Health consultation indicates risk from ingestion is calculated
by:
ID, = (Cx-IRx-EFx CF) x SF
BW
where:
ID, = soil ingestion cancer risk, mg/kg-d
C = contaminate concentration, mg/kg
IR = soil ingestion rate, 100 mg/d
EF = exposure factor, unitless
(EF = exposure freauencv x exposure duration) time
(ED = exposure duration, 15y)
(EF = 2 d/wk, 26 wk/y; time: 365 d/y for 15 y)
BW = body weight, 43kg and 70kg
CF = conversion factor, 1 (J6 kg/mg
SF = cancer slope factor, 1.5*1 (f(mg/kg-d)~1
(risk = 10'4)
1,000
Nov-97
c
150,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)'1
EPA (1997c), ROD, OU 01, Lincoln
Creosote, Bossier City
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullt
ext/r069804 7. pdf).
For TCDD TEQ, residential scenario; ingestion
of soil with dioxins/ furans meets the target risk
range (1(J4to 1(J6.) for the adult resident (RME)
and child 5-13 (CTE) for current and assumed
future conditions. "All detections of dioxins/
furans in soil and sediment were less than the
1 /jg/kg (ppb) cleanup level used by EPA in
some Records of Decision for residential sites."
Little information is given in the ROD; source of oral cancer
slope factor is identified as EPA (1994) but the citation was not
provided. The dermal cancer slope factor is identified as the
same (150,000 per mg/kg-d), obtained by dividing the oral SF
by the Gl absorption factor of 1.0 (as the default for organics).
1,000
Jul-95
c
EPA (1995e), ROD, OU 01, Southern
Shipbuilding, Slidell
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullt
extZr0695093.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ residential scenario;
remedial goal for treatment alternatives, per EPA
and ATSDR. (No 2,3,7,8-TCDD was found at
the site; neither TCDD nor dioxin was mentioned
in either the first or second five-year review.)
Specific scientific basis of cleanup level or toxicity value was not
found in these documents. The document states: it has been
determined by EPA and ATSDR that 2,3,7,8 TCDD between 1
to 10/jg/kg does not represent a significant residential risk
provided they are covered with at least 12 inches of clean soil.
Furthermore, the document indicates that ATSDR and EPA
have established that a level of 1 /jg/kg or less of 2,3,7,8 TCDD
is an acceptable level in surface soils)
10,000
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, extending to subsurface
soil: up to 10 ppb of 2,3,7,8-TCDD allowed if the
contaminated soil is covered with at least
12 inches of clean soil, per EPA and ATSDR.
December 2009
Page B-28
-------
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
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency-
Review Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
LA
(cont'd.)
1,000
Apr-93
c
EPA (1993a), ROD, OU 01, American
Creosote Works, Inc., Winnfield
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullt
ext/r0693086. Ddf):
CH2M HILL (2005a), Second Five-Year
Review for American Creosote Works, Inc.,
Winnfield
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/fivevear/
f05-06003. Ddf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, residential
scenario, remedial goal for alternatives with
dioxin treatment. The five-year review did not
indicate any change (2005 is most recent). No
2,3,7,8-TCDD had actually been found.
/\s indicated for the previous entry (EPA, 1995e).
10,000
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, extending to subsurface
soil: up to 10 ppb of 2,3,7,8-TCDD allowed if the
contaminated soil is covered with at least
12 inches of clean soil, per EPA and ATSDR.
("It has been determined by EPA and the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) as presented in the RI/FS that
levels of 2,3,7,8 TCDD between 1 to 10/jg/kg do
not represent a significant residential risk
provided they are covered with at least
12 inches of clean soil.")
NM
Jun-06
NMED (2006), Technical Background
Document For Development of Soil
Screening Levels, Revision 4.0 Vol. 1 Tier 1:
Soil Screening Guidance Technical
Background Document, Table A-1
(ftD://ftD. nmenv. state, nm. us/hwbdocs/HWB/a
uidance docs/NMED June 2006 SSG.Ddf).
This table was checked for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and
dioxin, and no entries were found (nor was other
input provided during the field review phase).
OK
3.9
Feb-03
c
150,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"1
OKDEQ (2004), Site Cleanup Using Risk-
Based Decision Making
(httD://www. dea. state, ok. us/bdnew/FactShee
ts/RiskbasedDecisionGuidanceFinal.Ddf):
EPA (Region 6) (2003), Medium-Specific
Screening Levels
(httD://www. dea. state, ok. us/LPDnew/HW/02s
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"5
as a policy; calculations also follow EPA (1989).
Intk = CSxIRxCFxFlxEFxED
BWx AT
where:
Intk = Intake, mg/kg-d (multiplied by slope factor,
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1)
CS = chemical concentration in soil, mg/kg
IR = ingestion rate, 200 mgSOii/d for child (1-6 y), 100 mgsoi|/d
for over 6 y old
CF = conversion factor, 10"6 kg/mg
Fl = fraction ingested from contaminated source
EF = exposure frequency, 365d/y
ED = 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 = EDx365 d/y
Source of slope factor from
the earlier Region 6 table is
indicated as HEAST (which
is not a current resource).
(Note the 2008/2009
harmonized screening level
table identifies CalEPA as
the source of the value
reflected there).
18
creentable.pdf):
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, screening level, industrial
scenario, outdoor worker.
38
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, screening level, industrial
scenario, indoor worker.
December 2009
Page B-29
-------
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
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency-
Review Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
TX
1,000
Mar-09
c
TRRP (2009), TRRP Protective
Concentration Levels, Tables 1-5
(http://www.tceq. state, tx.us/remediation/trrp/tr
rppcls.html): TXCEQ (2005). TXCEQ
Regulatory Guidance RG-366/TRRP-22:
Tiered Development of Human Health PCLs
(http://www.tcea.state.tx.us/comm exec/form
s pubs/pubs/ra/ra-366 trrp 22.html):
Haney (2009) (personal communication).
Tier 1 residential soil PCL for 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ
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 al.
(2006) as the promulgated TX value. Note the
2005 guidance indicates 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs,
but the TX 2009 tables reflect TCDD alone;
Haney (2009) clarified the basis as TEQs.
Paustenbach et
al. (2006) was
peer reviewed as
part of the
journal
publication
process.
TCEQ documents are
available online.
Toxicity value not found in toxicity tables provided. TCEQ
documentation indicates the PCL is based on the noncancer
endpoint.
5,000
Tier 1 commercial/industrial scenario for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD TEQ for both a 0.5-acre and 30-acre
source area, total and combined, as above.
520
Sep-06
c
EPA (2006f), ROD, OU 1, Jasper Creosoting
Company, Inc.
(httpJ/www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullt
ext/r2006060001482. pdf).
Industrial scenario for 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ,
worker. The lower values of the soil direct
contact PRGs for protection of both human
health and the ecological receptors were
selected as the final soil direct contact PRGs;
10'5 risk level. (No 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected.)
ROD indicates: Value developed by taking the ratio of the
toxicological reference value (TRV) known to cause adverse
effects to the total dose from the site-specific risk estimates
(HQs) and factoring out the site-specific soil 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.
An upper-range PRG was established by using a lowest-effect
level TRV. The final PRG was the average of the no-effect and
lowest-effect level PRGs as allowed in EPA guidance and
recommended in TCEQ guidance document.
17.7
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).
1,000
Jun-00
TXNRCC (2000), Proposed Remedial Action
Document: Toups State Superfund Site: Sour
Lake, Hardin County
(httD'J/www. tcea. state, tx. us/assets/public/rem
ediation/suDerfund/reaister/Ddf0100. pdf).
Residential scenario for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; cleanup
goal based on soil-to-groundwater pathway or
soil ingestionAnhalation/dermal contact,
whichever is lower.
1,000
Oct-98
c
EPA (1998d), ROD AMD, OU 02, United
Creosoting Co., Conroe
(httD'J/www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullt
ext/a0699032. pdf):
CH2M HILL (2005b), Second Five-Year
Review for the United Creosoting Company
Superfund Site
(httpJ/www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/fivevear/
Residential soil target action level for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD equivalents. Based on the EPA OSWER
directive. Cleanup values for sediment were the
same as those for 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.
Cancer risk comparisons based on EPA values:
Cancer risk = 10~6
Exposure period = 70 y
TX Department of Health (TDH) also identifies these values:
Body weight = 15 kg for child, 70 kg for adult
Soil incidental ingestion rate = 200 mg/d for a child,
100 mg/day for an adult
20,000
f05-06008.pdf):
TDH under cooperative agreement with
ATSDR (2003) Health Consultation:
Sediments in Stewarts Creek, Conroe
Creosoting Co.
(httpJ/www. dshs. state, tx. us/epitox/consults/c
ccsed he fnl.pdf).
Industrial soil target action level for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD equivalents.
December 2009
Page B-30
-------
TABLE B.7 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 7
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
IA
19
Jul-09
c
150,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d )"1
mg/kg-d
IADNR (undated), Statewide Soil Standards,
IA Land Recycling Program (LRP); personal
communication from Drustrup (2009); based
on risk calculation in:
IA General Assembly (1998), Environmental
Protection [567], Chapter 137, Iowa Land
Recycling Program and Response Action
Standards
(http://www.iowadnr.qov/land/consites/docume
Residential cleanup level forTCDD based on
cancer risk.
Residential
cleanup value
based 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
unclear); note the value is the same as the 1998
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
72
n
o
D CD
Residential cleanup level for TCDD where it is
the only contaminant of concern; field review
feedback indicated basis is noncancer endpoint
360
n
Nonresidential cleanup level for TCDD; field
review feedback indicated basis is noncancer
endpoint.
nts/chaDl37.Ddf)
1 /Coral"*" 1 /Cderm
where:
Cnral Hprm RFXAT
AbsxCFx(A+B)
and
A= (ER,xEF,xED,V BW,
B = (ERaxEFaxEDa)/ BWŧ
CL = cleanup level (mg/kg)
EDa = exposure duration for adult, 24 y
EDC = exposure duration for child, 6 y
EFa = exposure frequency for adult, 350 d/y
EFC = exposure frequency for child, 350 d/y
ERa = exposure rate for adult, 100 mg/d oral,
400 mg/d dermal
ERC = exposure rate for child, 200 mg/d oral,
560 mg/d dermal
BWa = body weight adult, 70 kg
BWC = body weight child, 15 kg
CF = conversion factor, 10"6 kg/mg
Abs = absorption factor, 1 oral, 0.03 dermal
AT = averaging time, 25,550 d
RF = TR / SF
TR = target risk, 5x10 s
SF = slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
14
2006
(2004)
c
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000
DDt.Ddf): lists same values identified in:
EC(2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in Other
States, cited in table available via TRW News
(http://www.trwnews.net/imaaes/StateCleanup
2006.PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information
is available via the
weblinks at left,
with neither the
derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided.
14
Jul-04
c
MIDEQ (2004), Dioxin Contamination in the
Midland Area
(http://www.michiqan.qov/documents/deq/deq-
whm-hwD-Dow-FactsFinal 251769 7.Ddf).
For dioxin TEQ, residential scenario. No cleanup
level found from searches of IA websites or
RODS database, but the Ml document notes: "Of
the other states that 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 (including for toxicity value and basis).
December 2009
Page B-31
-------
TABLE B.7 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 7
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency- - Ķ
_ ui- a i u-i-t Scientific Basis
Review Public Availability
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
KS
60
Jun-07
c
150,000
(SF0 =
SFi =
SFd)
(mg/kg-d)"1
KDHE (2007), Risk-Based Standards for KS
RSK Manual - 4th Version
(http://www.kdheks.qov/remedial/download/RS
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD, residential scenario.
"Chemical-specific and media-specific risk-based
cleanup goals were calculated using guidance
and directives from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency and various
other technical resources."
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 include incidental
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:
RBC = TRxBWxATx365 d/v
EFxEDx[(INGsxCFxSF0)+(INHxSFiX{1/VFs
+ 1/PEF})+(SF0xCFxSAxAFxABS)]
where:
RBC = risk based concentration (mg/kg)
TR = target cancer risk, 10"5
BW = body weight, 70 kg
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,
1.18x10Ū m3/kg
SA = surface area of skin, 5000 cm2/d
AF = adherence factor, 0.2 mg/cm2
References are from 1979-1998, including
the 1996 EPA Region 9 PRGs
K Manual 07.pdf): Niahtinaale (2009)
(personal communication).
100
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD, industrial (non-resident)
scenario.
MO
(1,000)
Jul-09
Garoutte (2009) (personal communication).
Feedback during field review indicated MO has
not established or adopted any specific cleanup
level for dioxin in soil, while also stating that 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
cleanup level for contaminated sites in MO.
Apr-06
MDNR (2006), MRBCA Technical Guidance
(Appendices)
(http: //www. d n r. mo. a ov/e n v/h wp/mrbca/d ocs/
mrbca-append6-06.pdf).
MDNR MRBCA Technical Guidance document
(updated June 2008) contains guidelines for
surface soil. This document was searched for
TCDD and dioxin, but no information was found.
MDNR document is
available online.
1,000
1997
Hirschhorn (1997a), Cleanup Levels for
Dioxin-Contaminated Soil.
Indicated for 2,3,7,8 TCDD, residential scenario;
1 ppb for residential land use from EPA 1988
decision for Superfund cleanup at Times Beach,
MO, set the stage for the policy-based level.
Article peer
reviewed as part of
journal publication
process.
1,000
Sep-05
c
EPA (2005c), Missouri Electric Works Sites,
OU 02, Cape Girardeau
(htto://www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0705052.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, residential scenario.
TCDD was a combustion byproduct of concern
during thermal treatment of PCB-contaminated
soil. TCDD soil concentrations were monitored
to ensure levels below 1 ppb.
Available online
(RODS database).
Concentration appears to reflect the OSWER
directive. The Kimbrough et at. (1984) evaluation
of Kociba et al. (1978) underlies the OSWER
value.
December 2009
Page B-32
-------
TABLE B.7 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 7
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer Transparency- - Ķ
_ ui- a i u-i-t Scientific Basis
Review Public Availability
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
MO
(cont'd.)
20,000
Apr-93
c
EPA (1993b), Ground Water OU 02, Syntex
Agribusiness, Inc., Verona
(htto://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0793071 .Ddf).
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 1 and 20 ppb dioxin).
Available online
(RODS database).
Concentration appears to reflect the OSWER
directive. The Kimbrough et at. (1984) evaluation
of Kociba et al. (1978) underlies the OSWER
value.
1,000
Sep-86
c
EPA (1986) Ellisville Site, OU 02, Ellisville
(httD.//www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0786006.Ddf).
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
(RODS database).
Concentration appears to reflect the OSWER
directive. The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation
of Kociba et al. (1978) underlies the OSWER
value.
NE
Jul-09
Borovich (2009) (personal communication).
Feedback during field review indicates that the
remediation goals here are both screening levels
and preliminary cleanup goals. The NDEQ
Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) does allow a
site to develop different risk-based cleanup
levels based on site characterization and NDEQ
approval. For sites not under VCP regulations,
the NDEQ may use EPA RGs or medium-
specific screening levels as cleanup levels, given
proper documentation.
Slope factor from the EPA1997 HEAST. The
NDEQ documentation indicates a slope factor
other than HEAST would be used if (a) the source
was considered "higher" in the EPA's toxicity
hierarchy and (b) the science behind the level was
well-documented and available for review.
NDEQ indicates a plan to update the VCP
Remediation Goals Lookup Table based on
the most recent review of toxicological data.
3.9
Oct-08
c
150,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d )"1
NDEQ (2008), NE Voluntary Cleanup
Guidance
(httD://www. dea. state. ne.us/Publica.nsf/23e5e
39594c064ee852564ae004fa010/d243c2b56e
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 .incidental inaestion of carcinoaenic compounds is:
160
34ea8486256f2700698997/$FILE/VCP%20Gu
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, industrial soil; based on direct
contact.
public; EPA
CL = 1
idance%200ct%202008.Ddf).
NDEQ (2006), Protocol for VCP Remediation
Goals Lookup Tables
(http://www. dea. state. ne.us/Publica.nsf/23e5e
39594c064ee852564ae004fa010/d243c2b56e
34ea8486256f2700698997/$FILE/ATTEBI5L/
RG%20Protocol%20Auqust%202006.pdf).
(1997a) Health
Effects
Assessment
Summary Tables
(HEAST) values for
nonradionuclides
have not been
found via open
access online.
[(1/Cing)+(1/Cderm)+(1/Cinh)]
where:
Cres soil innpstinn - na TRrx ATr.
EFrxlFSadjxSFox10"6 mg/kg
Cres soil dermal - ca TRrxATc
EFrxSFSadjxABSdx(SFo/ABSGi)x10"6 mg/kg
Cres soil inhalation na TRrx ATn
EFrxEDaxr(URFx1000 ua/rncm
CL = cleanup level, (mg/kg)
TR = target risk, 10 Ū
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
SFSadi = 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,
1.2X109 m3/kg
December 2009
Page B-33
-------
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-
Review Public Availability
Scientific Basis Incorporation of Most Recent Science
CO
Dec-07
CODPHE (2007), CO Soil Evaluation Values
(CSEV)
(http: //www. cd d h e. state. co. u s/h m/csev. pdf).
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
Dec-09
c
130,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"1
MTDEQ (2009), Soil Screening Process
(Attachment C)
(h tt d : //www. d e a. state. mt. u s/State S u p e rf u n d/vc
raquide.asp).
Some state-specific risk-based screening levels
(RBSLs) are provided on website but no specific
value was found for dioxin. Newly updated
guidance (Attachment C) shows 2-part process,
to address both direct contact and leaching to
groundwater. For Part 1, flow chart directs users
to screen soil dioxin concentrations based on
2009 EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs),
which are as TCDD. (Regional EPA values were
recently harmonized, see Table 13 of this report.)
Values at left are for residential and industrial
use, respectively. For Part 2, site contaminants
are compared to the risk-based soil screening
level using a dilution attenuation factor of 10
Beyond this value for TCDD (e.g., for other
dioxins) "The DEQ uses the most current toxicity
data, including toxicity equivalency factors
(TEFs), as much as possible. Because of this,
the DEQ requires dioxin/furan calculations for soil
and water samples to use the World Health
Organization (WHO) 2005 TEFs." (These TEFs
are presented in Van den Berg et al. [2006].)
Intra-agency
review.
MTDEQ document
and the EPA RSL
Table and User's
Guide (EPA
2009e,f) with
equations are
available online.
See Tables 11 and 13 of the report for information
underlying the regional screening levels, including
the toxicity value.
Reflects current WHO TEFs, Attachment C
(December 2009) updates the basic
guidance from August 2002.
62.5
Jun-08
MTDEQ (2008), Final Feasibility Study Report,
KRY Site
(htto://www. dea. state, mt. us/StateSuoerfund/K
PT/FinalFSJulv2008/FinalFSreDortComDlied.D
df).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, residential scenario.
MTDEQ (2008a) is
available online, but
not the appendix
with the key data.
MTDEQ used the earlier World Health
Organization (WHO) (1998) Toxicity Equivalence
Factors (TEFs) for TCDD and dioxin-like
compounds (DLCs) to determine cleanup levels.
WHO TEFs were recently updated, as
captured in 2005 and 2006 publications
(see Van den Berg et al. [2006]).
103
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, industrial scenario.
Limited information; the document states that the
cleanup levels are based on risk analysis and soil
modeling in Appendix C, which cannot be found
online.
736
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, residential subsurface
scenario.
736
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, industrial subsurface
scenario.
ND
No state-specific guidelines for dioxin soil
cleanup levels were identified from the ND
Department of Health, Division of Waste
Management website.
SD
Nov-09
SDDENR (2009), Lookup Table For Surface
Soil (0-3.2 feet)
(httD://denr.sd.aov/des/aw/LookllDTables/Look
ud Tables.asDx).
No soil screening or cleanup values for dioxin
were identified on the SDDENR website. The
SDDENR has developed look-up tables with
Tier 1 action levels calculated for some soil
contaminants leaching to ground water based on
10"5 cancer risk, but no value was identified for
dioxin.
SDDENR (2009)
website and lookup
tables are available
online (website last
updated
November 24).
1,000
Jun-96
c
U.S. AF (1996), ROD, Ellsworth Air Force
Base, OU 08, Ellsworth AFB
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0896124.pdf).
For dioxin TEQ, international toxic equivalents
corresponding to dioxin concentrations were
below the 1,000 ppt level of concern for
residential soil; risk associated with dioxins in
surface soil is in the 10~5 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
1,000 ppt; the specific source of this value was
not provided (but could be the 1998 OSWER
directive, which is based on an evaluation by
Kimbrough et al. [1984] of Kociba et al. [1978]
data).
December 2009
Page B-34
-------
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
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
UT
May-06
UT (2006), UT LUST Program Screening
Levels for Soil and Groundwater
(http: //www. u n d era ro u n dta n ks. uta h. a ov/d ocs/t
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.
Available online
(RODS database).
1,000
Jun-00
U.S. ACE (2000), Final OU 4 Hotspot, ROD
Amendment for OU 4, Ogden Hill
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/a0800533.Ddf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, remedial action goals for
site soils where future land use is
commercial/industrial.
37
Dec-97
c
150,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)'1
EPA (1997d), Explanation of Significant
Difference, Petrochem Recycling Corp./Ekotek
Plant, Salt Lake City, OU 01
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/e0898175.pdf).
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 for a cancer risk
of 10~6 (site wide) for the commercial worker for
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".
Available online
(RODS database).
Values were calculated based on the same
equations and assumptions as in the August 2,
1994 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
for the Petrochem Site. The equation for the soil
performance standard (SPS) is not available, but
the parameter values are given as:
TR = target risk, 10'6
BW = body weight, 70 kg
AT = averaging time, 70y
EF = exposure frequency 250 d/y
ED = exposure duration, 25 y
SF0 = slope factor oral, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)'1
CF = conversion factor, 10'6 kg/mg
IR = ingestion rate for soil, 50 mg/d
3,700
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEF, derived from the soil hot
spot performance standard based on a
combination of soil PRGs and applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs).
Value is for localized areas with elevated cancer
risk above 10~4 (hot spots) for the industrial
worker for exposure to soil via ingestion and
dermal absorption. These performance
standards "establish the levels of soils that must
be excavated and shipped for offsite disposal".
1,000
Sep-92
EPA (1992b), ROD, Ogden Defense Depot
(DLA), OU 04, Ogden
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xtZr0892061.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. 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), A Comparison
of Dioxin Levels Found in Residential Soils of
Davis County Utah with Those Found in
Residential Soils in the Denver Front Range
(http://www. wasatchintearated. ora/PDF/Davis
%20Dioxin%20Studv. pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Davis County study
sampled soil for dioxin, using the ATSDR
screening and action levels as a point of
reference, based on De Rosa et. al. (1997).
(Note the date of this document is at least 2001,
per its most recent internal citation.)
Available online.
December 2009
Page B-35
-------
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
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most Recent Science
WY
4.5
(Jul-09)
c
130,000
(mg/kg-d f
Griffin (2009) (personal communication).
Field feedback indicated this was the cleanup
level for dioxin (unrestricted/residential scenario).
0.15
Field feedback indicated this was the value for
the residential scenario based on migration to
groundwater.
4.5
Jun-09
c
130,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d f1
WYDEQ (2009), Fact Sheet #12: Soil Cleanup
Level Lookup Table
(http://deq.state.wv. us/volremedi/downloads/C
urrent%20Fact%20Sheets/FS 12.Ddf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential scenario, based on
direct contact; the fact sheet links to the Region 9
PRG table. Prior to the WYDEQ June update, the
residential value was 3.9 ppt. Regional EPA
values were recently harmonized, see related
entry in Table 13 of the report. The fact sheet
indicates: "Note that prior to evaluation,
concentrations of dioxins and furans may be
adjusted using appropriate toxicity equivalency
factors (TEF) [see EPA (1989) for further
information]." Nevertheless, the fact sheet links
to the Regional screening value, which is based
on TCDD. (Thus, in this report, the latter is
indicated as the general basis for the WY value.)
The WYDEQ
document is
available online.
Screening levels from Regions 3, 6, and 9
were harmonized in 2008 (see related entry
in Table 13), and updated in fall 2009; these
include an updated SF of 130,000 per
mg/kg-d. Note that WYDEQ indicates an
intent to update its table whenever the
Region 9 PRGs are updated. As a further
note, WHO (2005) has updated the TEFs
(also see Van den Berg et al. [2006]).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, industrial scenario, based on
direct contact. Prior to the WYDEQ June update,
the Regional screening value of 16 ppt was
identified for the industrial value. No industrial
cleanup levels were identified in the June update
of the WY fact sheet, leaving this instead to a
site-specific determination. (Regional EPA values
were recently harmonized, see related entry in
Table 13 of the report.)
4.3
38
May-04
150,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)'1
U.S. AF (2004b), ROD, OU 10, Landfill 7 and
Fire Protection Area 1, F.E. Warren Air Force
Base
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0804104.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD; used 2001 EPA Region 3
industrial and residential 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 [U.S. AF 2002d]) (which
could not be found online)). The ROD indicates
the SF0 is from IRIS.
Note that the EPA 2001 Region 3 tables were
updated May 2009 to EPA RSLs; see Table 13 of
the report for RSL values and derivation.
December 2009
Page B-36
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
AS
(Amer.
Samoa)
4.5
Oct-08
130,000 (mg/kg-d)"
(SF0)
18
1,500
42
1,400,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"
450
170
130,000 ! (mg/kg-d)
(SFo)
1,400,000 | (mg/kg-d)"'
(SFo)
1,800
130,000 ! (mg/kg-d)
(SFo)
GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008a), Evaluation of
Environmental Hazards at Sites with
Contaminated Soil and Groundwater - Pacific
Basin Edition
(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/
pdf/pbvolume1 mar2009.pdf):
Volume 2, Appendix 1
(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/
pdf/pbvolume2app1 mar2009.pdf):
Volume 2, Appendices 2-9
(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/
pdf/pbvolume2app2to9mar2009.pdf).
Approach is based on Guam EPA procedures;
calculations are supported by the spreadsheet
at
HDOH (2008b), Evaluation of Environmental
Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater - Hawai'i Edition
(http://www.hawaiidoh.org/references/HDOH%
202008.pdf).
For dioxin TEQs, environmental screening levels
(ESLs), based on direct soil contact, 10"6 risk
(except for construction/trench worker: 10"5 risk per
lower exposure frequency and duration).
"Although prepared specifically for Guam EPA, the
use of well-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." "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."
4.5 ppt is the Tier 1 environmental screening level
for unrestricted use, shallow soil: <3 m, below
ground surface (bgs).
Tier 1 environmental screening level for
commercial/industrial land use scenario, shallow
soil (<3 m bgs).
Tier 1 environmental screening level, deep soil
(>3 m bgs) for: unrestricted (residential) use,
commercial/industrial use, and construction/trench
worker.
For dioxin TEQs, Tier 2 action levels, direct
contact, 10"4 risk; especially intended for
redevelopment of former agricultural fields but
apply to any site. Guidelines rather than strict,
regulatory, cleanup 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, including current and planned
use, available options for onsite isolation or offsite
disposal, and technical/economical constraints.
>1,800 ppt: Commercial/industrial use not
recommended in absence of remedial actions to
reduce potential exposure.
The equations and
toxicity value used to
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)."]
sThis 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
clay 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 includes 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 2008
EPA RSL table, which is based on a CalEPA 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 include: oral and inhalation routes are equivalent,
air concentration assumed to be daily oral dose, route of
exposure does not affect 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 half-life 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"e
to 10"4
The SF of 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"1, 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
Kociba 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.
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 more 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 classification
scheme, indicating "B1?" for
TCDD. The cancer slope
factor was revised in
October 2007 from previous
guidance (this affected the
action levels).
As above, using the SF0 from the recently harmonized 2008
EPA RSL, updates the previous Tier 2 action level of 390 ppt,
which had used the previous RSL SF0 of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1.
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)"1was used to generate a lower bound for cleanup
consideration.
As above, using SF0 of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)" from the recently
harmonized 2008 EPA RSL; updates the previous Tier 2 level of
1,600 ppt, which reflected the previous SF0,150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1.
December 2009
Page B-37
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
AZ
4.5
May-07
c
130,000
(mg/kg-d)"1
AZDEQ (2007), Title 18. Environmental Quality
Chapter 7. Remedial Action
(httD://www.azsos.aov/Dublic services/Title 18
/1 8-07.htm):
ADHS (1999), Deterministic Risk Assessment
Guidance
(httD://www. azdhs.aov/Dhs/oeh/Ddf/auidance.D
df).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential use, 10"6 risk level.
The 2007 soil remediation levels (SRLs) 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"6 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. Per field feedback (Stralka,
2009), AZDEQ has adopted the recently
harmonized RSL (see Table 13 in this report).
The AZDEQ
documentation and
ADHS guidance
document are
available online.
However, specific
toxicity values used
to derive the SRLs
are not provided in
either document.
Equations and default parameter values for SRL derivation are
indicated in ADHS (1999), although the link appears to be
damaged as the equations were not visible. Equations were
adopted from the 1996 Region 9 PRG document. The toxicity
value was not found in the AZDEQ or ADHS document. (Note
that ADHS [1999] mentions slope factors were taken from IRIS,
HEAST, or NCEA.) Field input indicated the adoption of the
EPA RSL and underlying toxicity value (see residential value).
The toxicity value is the
slope factor used in the EPA
regional screening level
table from that time, which
does reflect the more recent
scientific literature, such as
the 2004 NTP study).
45
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential use, 10"5 risk level.
This value updates the 1997 residential SRL of
38 ppt (provided here as context for entries below).
As stated: a risk level of 10"5 may be used for any
carcinogen other than a known human carcinogen.
160
c
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, nonresidential use, based on
cancer risk; this updates the 1997 SRL of 240 ppt
(provided here as context for the entry below).
Specific information was not provided for the nonresidential SRL,
including for toxicity value or risk level (e.g., to determine if 10"5)
is assumed, per the 1997 SRL indication ofTCDD as a B2
(probable) rather than A (known) human carcinogen.
38
2006
(2004)
c
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(htto://www. trwnews. net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000
DDt.odf): lists same values identified in: EC
(2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in Other
States, cited in table available via
Tittabawassee River Watch News
(httD'J/www.trwnews.net/imaaes/StateCieanuD
2006.PDF).
Basis not provided, but appears to reflect the
AZDEQ 1997 residential SRL (which was updated
to 45 ppt in 2007, see entry above).
Limited information is
available via the
weblinks at left, with
neither the derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided, but see entry for AZDEQ (2007) above.
38
Apr-01
c
EPA (2001), ESD, Tucson International Airport
Area, OU 02
(htto://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/e0901612.pdf).
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
RODS database).
See entry for AZDEQ (2007) above. Excerpted table identifies
TCDD as: Group B2 carcinogen. (Probable human carcinogen,
with inadequate or no evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.
Sufficient evidence for 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.
December 2009
Page B-38
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
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
CA
4.6
Jan-05
c
130,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"1
CalEPA (2005a), Human-Exposure-Based
Screening Numbers Developed to Aid
Estimation of Clean-Up Costs for
Contaminated Soil
(http://www.oehha.ca.qov/risk/pdf/screenreport
010405.Ddf).
CalEPA (2005b), Use of CA Human Health
Screening Levels (HHSLs) in Evaluation of
Contaminated Properties
(http://www.calepa.ca.qov/Brownfields/docume
nts/2005/CHHSLsGuide.pdf):
CalEPA (2009d), Human Health Risk
Assessment (HHRA) Note 2, Interim, Remedial
Goals for Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds
for Consideration at California Hazardous
Waste Sites;
(http://www.dtsc.ca.qov/AssessinqRisk/upload/
HHRA Note2 dioxin-2.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential land use, HHSL.
Note that a value of 50 ppt as dioxin TEQ was
recently suggested an interim remedial goal
developed for consideration at sites in California.
This value is for a target risk of 10"6 and is based
on the HHSL, with an adjustment that reflects
multiplying by 10 "to account for the minimal
contribution of soil and dust to the dioxin human
body burden, as shown in the University of
Michigan dioxin exposure study." (Note the study
has recently undergone independent technical
review.) The CalEPA document is suggested
residential remedial goal should only be
considered if a farming scenario is not relevant.
Note that the remedial goal based on noncancer
effects is 78 ppt, so the cancer-based goal is
protective. The noncancer-based value is
calculated for the residential child, with 1 pg/kg-d
considered the minimum risk level for the
neurological endpoint (based on data for monkeys,
described in ATSDR (1998/2008).
Information on the
HHSLs and their
derivation basis is
available online,
including the source
of the cancer slope
factor, via the
CalEPA OEHHA
website.
Indicates the slope factor was computed from the OEHHA REL.
HHSL equations for both residential and industrial-occupational
scenarios consider ingestion, dermal, and inhalation exposures.
To simplify this presentation, only the ingestion component is
included below because this pathway dominates (over dermal
and inhalation contributions to the total).
HHSL., = TRxATr
EFrx(CSFoxlFSadjx10"6 kg/mg)
where:
TR = target risk, 10 s
ATr = averaging time, 25,550 d
CSF0 = 130,000 per mg/kg-d
EFr = exposure frequency, 350 d
IFSadj = residential soil ingestion rate, 114 mg-y/kg-d
19
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, commercial/industrial land use,
HHSL.
HHSLind = TRxATrxBWa
EFoxEDox(IRSoxCSFox10"6 kg/mg)
where:
TR = target risk, 10 s
ATr = averaging time, 25,550 d
BWa = adult body weight, 70 kg
EF0 = occupational exposure frequency, 250 d/y
ED0 = occupational exposure duration, 25 y
CSF0 = 130,000 per mg/kg-d
IRS0 = occupational soil ingestion rate, 100 mg/d
4
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(http://www. trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000
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
(http://www.trwnews.net/imaaes/StateCleanup
2006.PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information is
available via the
weblinks at left, with
neither the derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided.
December 2009
Page B-39
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
CA
(cont'd.)
3.9
Mar-08
c
130,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)'1
NAVFAC (2008), ESD for OU 3 ROD, Camp
Pendleton
(httD'J/www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/e200809000274 7. odf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Original remediation goal
of 4.1 ng/kg (from 2/21/08 ROD for OU 5) was
revised to 3.9 ng/kg, based on the 2004 EPA
Region 9 PRG-residential for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The
basis of the original 4.1 ng/kg was identified as the
EPA-derived mean rural soil TCDD TEQ
concentration (EPA 2000).
Available online (via
RODS database).
Derivation of NOAEL-based toxicity reference value for
mammals in Sample et al., (1996), which summarizes several
toxicity studies, including the study by Murray et al. (1979).
Three-generation dietary study in rats, NOAEL of
0.000001 mg/kg-d for the reproductive endpoint. 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-1 ADD = (Cso^T1-IRF)+(Cso^IRsxT1-IRF)
where:
Csoii = soil EPC (mg COPC/kg soil dry weight)
T1-IRf = Tier-1 food ingestion rate (kg food dry weight/kg body
weight-d)
IRS = incidental soil ingestion rate (% of food ingestion rate)
COPC = chemical of potential concern
44
eco
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, burn ash
site. "The value for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 exposure
estimates for mammalian receptors was 0.000044.
The upper-bound limit for an acceptable exposure-
point concentration for the dioxins (the eco PRG) is
approximately 4.4*10~5 mg/kg (44 pg/g) or less."
3.9
May-08
c
130,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)'1
AFRL (2008), ROD AFRL Soil and Debris
Sites OUs 4 and 9, Edwards AFB
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2008090002438. Ddf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, adopted the EPA Region 9
PRG-residential value of 3.9 ng/kg as the
remediation goal for dioxin, but indicated that
detected levels were not of concern.
Available online (via
RODS database).
1.2
Feb-95
c
DoA (1995), Fort Ord, OU 05, Marina
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0995138.Ddf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, adult residential scenario; PRG
taken from the Draft Final Technical Memorandum,
Preliminary Remediation Goals, Fort Ord, CA
(June 24, 1994). PRGs were developed per
procedures in the EPA Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund, Vols. 1-2.
Available online (via
RODS database).
However, the
technical
memorandum was
not found online.
Refers to PRGs derived in the Draft Final Technical
Memorandum, Preliminary Remediation Goals, Fort Ord,
California (dated June 24, 1994), and Indicates they were
developed according to procedures in the EPA Risk
Assessment. Guidelines for Superfund, Vols. 1 and 2. The
specific equations and toxicity value were not found in the ROD.
300
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, PRG for construction worker
scenario.
27
Feb-01
c
DOE (2001), Interim Site-Wide ROD for LLNL,
Site 300
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xtZr0901606.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, cleanup standard at
building 850 Firing Table area. The Region 9
industrial PRG was adopted as the cleanup
standard.
Available online (via
RODS database).
(Note Region 9 PRGs
have since been
harmonized with
Regions 3 and 6
screening levels.)
See toxicity value basis information in the body of this report.
1,000
Mar-99
c
EPA (1999b), ROD, McCormick & Baxter
Creosoting Co., OU 01 and 03, Stockton
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0999044.odf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. EPA 1998 OSWER
directive (Approach for Addressing Dioxin in Soil at
CERCLA and RCRA Sites) taken into account in
deriving the cleanup standard.
Available online (via
RODS database).
Concentration reflects OSWER directive (which is based on an
evaluation by Kimbrough et al. [1984] of a study by Kociba et al.
[1978]).
1,000
Sep-03
c
EPA (2003g) ROD AMD, Selma Treating Co.
OU 1, Selma
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/a0903016.Ddf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, 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 the value from the
2003 ESD as "1 pg/kg." It is not clear if the more
recent value is intended to also be 1 microgram/kg,
or 1,000 ppt (which seems more likely than 0.001
ppt). (Note the 2003 update did change
concentrations for two other contaminants.)
Available online (via
RODS database).
Concentration appears to reflect OSWER directive (which is
based on an evaluation by Kimbrough et al. [1984] of a study by
Kociba et al. [1978]).
December 2009
Page B-40
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
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
GM
(Guam)
4.5
Oct-08
c
130,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"1
GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008a), Evaluation of
Environmental Hazards at Sites with
Contaminated Soil and Groundwater - Pacific
Basin Edition
(http://hawaii.qov/health/environmental/hazard/
pdf/pbvolume1 mar2009.pdf):
Volume 2, Appendix 1
(http://hawaii.aov/health/environmental/hazard/
pdf/pbvolume2app1 mar2009.pdf):
Volume 2, Appendices 2-9
(http://hawaii.aov/health/environmental/hazard/
pdf/pbvolume2app2to9mar2009.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, environmental screening
levels based on direct soil contact, 10"6 risk (except
construction/ trench worker: 10"5 risk per lower
exposure frequency and duration).
"Although prepared specifically for Guam EPA, the
use of well-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." "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 DEQ.
(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
(<3 m bgs).
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 the total.
Unrestricted land use:
Crp, = TRxATr
Reflects the slope factor
from the recently
harmonized EPA RSL table;
as a note, this value does
not reflect more recent
scientific literature (e.g., the
2004 NTP study).
See notes for parallel
entries for AS, NMI, and TT.
Calculations supported by spreadsheet at
HDOH (2008b), Evaluation of Environmental
Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater - Hawai'i Edition
(http://www.hawaiidoh.ora/references/HDOH%
202008.pdf).
EFrx(CSFoxlFSadjx10"6 kg/mg)
where:
TR = target risk, 10 s
ATr = averaging time, 25,550 d
CSF0 = 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
EFr = exposure frequency, 350 d
IFSadj = residential soil ingestion rate, 114 mg-y/kg-d
18
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. 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.)
Commercial/industrial land use:
CinH = TRxATrXBW,
EFoxEDox(IRSoxCSFox10"6 kg/mg)
where:
TR = target risk, 10 s
ATr = averaging time, 25,550 d
BWa = adult body weight, 70 kg
EF0 = occupational exposure frequency, 250 d/y
ED0 = occupational exposure duration, 25 y
CSF0 = 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
IRS0 = occupational soil ingestion rate, 100 mg/d
1,500
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. 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.)
Construction/trench worker:
CinH = TRxATrXBWa
EFctwxEDctwX(IRSctwxCSFox10"6 kg/mg)
where:
TR = target risk, 10"5
ATr = averaging time, 25,550 d
BWa = adult body weight, 70 kg
EF0 = occupational exposure frequency, 35 d/y
ED0 = occupational exposure duration, 7 y
CSF0 = 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
IRS0 = worker soil ingestion rate, 330 mg/d
December 2009
Page B-41
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
GM
(cont'd.)
42
Oct-08
1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"'
(SF0)
GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008a) (cont'd.)
450
170
170-
1,800
1,800
130,000 (mg/kg-d)"
(SF0)
1,400,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"
130,000
(SF0)
390
Aug-07
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, 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 rather than
strict, regulatory, cleanup requirements, and
alternate values can be proposed in site-specific
assessments.
(See the AS entry where these values are first
discussed for further details, across all columns.)
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 for large,
former field areas)."
>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 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, Tier 2 action levels for
commercial/industrial scenario:
<170 ppt: No action required.
(See parallel AS entry for lower bound context.)
(mg/kg-d)"
170-1,800 ppt: "Within 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."
>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.)
U.S. AF (2007a), ROD for Sites 7, 16,17, 31,
and 36, Northwest Field, Andersen AFB
(http://www. epa. gov/superfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r2008090002420. p df).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, cleanup level, 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 was equivalent to 70"4 resident child
cancer risk ... Although the cleanup level for
TCDD-TEQ was initially established to be
equivalent to 70"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."
Equations are
provided in HDOH
(2008) Appendix 2,
adopted from the
2008 EPA RSL
documentation. Slope
factors were taken
from EPA RSL tables
and MNDOH (2003).
This information is
available online.
The SF of 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)" 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, to 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:
Cres = TRxATr
The standard cleanup level
reflects the slope factor from
the recently harmonized
EPA RSL table (2008,
updated in 2009).
EFrx(CSFoxIFSadjx10 kg/mg)
where:
TR = target risk, 10 s
ATr = averaging time, 25,550 d
CSF0 = 130,000 or 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
EFr = exposure frequency, 350 d
IFSadj = residential soil ingestion rate, 114 mg-y/kg-d
Commercial/industrial land use:
Cind
TRxATrxBWa
EFoxEDox(IRSoxCSFox10 kg/mg)
where
TR
ATr
BWa
EF0
ED0
Available online (via
RODS database).
target risk, 10
averaging time, 25,550 d
adult body weight, 70 kg
occupational exposure frequency, 250 d/y
occupational exposure duration, 25 y
CSF0 = 130,000 or 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
IRS0 = occupational soil ingestion rate, 100 mg/d
Document refers to the 2007 risk assessment update to reflect
more recent values, including for the exposure calculation and
slope factor, 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,
was based on studies by Binder et al. [1986] and Clausing et al.
[1987]) but the specific calculations with values were not
included.
December 2009
Page B-42
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
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
GM
(cont'd.)
9.13
Dec-03
c
150,000
(mg/kg-d)'1
U.S. AF (2003b), ROD for Urunao Dumpsites 1
and 2, Urunao OU, Andersen AFB
(htto://www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fullte
xt/r0904002. Ddf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. For resident child, surface
soil, remedial goal objective (RGO) corresponding
to 10~6 risk level.
Indicates cancer slope factor of 150,000 per mg/kg-d: weight of
evidence cancer guideline description: B2/respiratory and liver;
from HEAST (5/1/95). (Reflects earlier carcinogen classification.)
inaestion intake = Conc*CRxEF*EDxCF
BW*AT
where:
Intake = mg/kg-d
Cone = 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/mg
BW = body weight, 70 kg
AT = averaging time, 25,550 d
9.43
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. For resident child,
subsurface soil, RGO corresponding to 1Cf6 risk
level.
3.9
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. 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.
1,000
July-02
c
Ģ8
o
(mg/kg-d)'1
U.S. AF (2002), Final ROD for Harmon Annex
OU, Andersen AFB
(httoJ/vosemite. eoa. oov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/
3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/1dca9
93480c9ecd788257205002bf81 e/$FILE/ander
sen%20ROD%20harmon%20annex.Ddf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, Considered for soil at IRP
Site 39/Harmon Substation, 1,000 ppt reflects
OSWER directive; Region 9 PRGs were also
considered; "Subsurface soil exceeded the
Region 9 residential PRG (0.0038 yjg/kg), but was
less than the industrial PRG (0.03 /jg/kg). This
TEQ concentration is considerably lower than the
subsurface dioxin cleanup standard of 1.0/jg/kg
established by the U.S. AF, GEPA, and 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 corner of Parcel A was not
recommended for remediation."
The sources cited for the specific information that would inform
this entry (e.g., IT/OHM reports) have not been found online.
December 2009
Page B-43
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
HI
3.9
Sum-08
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
(SF0)
HDOH (2008b), Evaluation of Environmental
Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater - Hawai'i Edition
(http://www.hawaiidoh.org/references/HDOH%
202008.pdf):
calculations supported by spreadsheet
(gepatier2.deoct2008.xls) are available via this
weblink.
Also reflects information from:
EPA (1996), Soil Screening Guidance: User's
Guide
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedi
a/soil/pdfs/ssg496.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. From the EPA Soil
Screening Guidance, for Environmental Action
Levels (EAL), Volume 1: "this document
incorporates and significantly expands upon the
USEPA Preliminary Remediation Goals and more
recent Regional Screening Levels." Report is
similar to the GEPA report of same name
developed for the Pacific Basin (see Guam), much
is the same, although some scenarios and
terminology differ. (Note the June 2008 Brewer
memo in Appendix 8 of the GEPA (2008)/HDOH
(2008a) report indicates that ambient levels (as
dioxin TEQ) in undisturbed areas in former sugar
can fields (in HI) appear to be <50 ppt. Tier 1
environmental action level (EAL) for unrestricted
use scenario, includes potential use for residential
housing, schools, day care, and health care.
42
Sum-08
1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"
(SFo)
HDOH (2008b), Evaluation of Environmental
Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater - Hawai'i Edition
(http://www.hawaiidoh.orq/references/HDOH%
202008.pdf):
HDOH (2006), Proposed dioxin action levels
for East Kapolei Brownfield Site
(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/
pdf/dioxinactionlevelsmarch2005.pdf):
390
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"
(SF0)
MNDOH (2003), Cancer Risk Assessment for
Dioxins
(www.canceractionnv.org/cancerriskassessme
nthtm).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. HDOH established Tier 2
action levels primarily to guide remedial actions for
former agricultural fields. They do not serve as
strict regulatory cleanup requirements. Tier 2
action levels were initially proposed in 2006
document but updated in 2008. GEPA updated
values further to reflect toxicity value updates in
2008 RSLs (see GM).
Residential/recreational, low risk, 42 ppt: no further
action required; memo from Environmental Risk
Assessment HEER Office to Brownfields
Coordinator HEER Office. "This memo presents an
approach for assessing dioxin contamination at the
East Kapolei Brownfield site" ... "The dioxin action
levels are not recommended for use in Hawai'i."
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, residential/recreational
scenarios, intermediate risk; >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/kg, identify "hot spots" as
areas that exceed 42 ng/kg TEQ 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 (2,3,7,8-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).
Toxicity values
considered
OSWER 2003
hierarchy (IRIS,
PPRTVs); EPA
Supplemental
Guidance for
Developing Soil
Screening Levels
for Superfund
Sites, Peer
Review Draft.
The EPA RSL table
and User's Guide
with equations are
available online; the
PPRTVs are not
publicly available
online.
Reflects equations for noncancer and cancer endpoints from
EPA (1996); suite of equations addresses exposures via
ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact. To simplify this
presentation, the following screening-level equation focuses on
incidental ingestion of carcinogenic contaminants in residential
soil, as this is the dominant pathway:
SL = TRxAT><365 d/v
SF0x EFx IFsoii/adjx 10"6kg/mg
where:
= screening level, (mg/kg)
= target cancer risk, 10"6
= averaging time, 70 y
= exposure frequency, 350
= oral slope factor, (mg-kg-d)"
SL
TR
AT
EF
SF0
IFsoii/adj = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor, 114 mg-y/kg-d
EPA User's Guide published
in 2008; the document does
not reflect changes in TCDD
screening levels presented
in the 2008 EPA RSL tables.
Note that the document
cites an SF0 of 150,000
rather then 130,000 per
mg/kg-d, which is reflected
in the RSL tables.
Equations are
provided in HDOH
(2008) Appendix 2,
adopted from the
2008 EPA RSL
documentation.
Slope factors were
taken from EPA RSL
tables and MNDOH
(2003). This
information is
available online.
The SF factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)" was taken from the
previous Region 9 PRGs (subsequently updated). The SF of
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.
Reflects slope factor
underlying previous PRG.
Cres
where:
TR
ATr
CSFo
EFr
I FSadj
TRxATr
[EFrx(CSFox|FSadjXl0 kg/mg)]
= target risk, 10"6
= averaging time, 25,550 d
= 150,000 or 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1
= exposure frequency, 350 d
= res. soil ingestion rate, 114 mg-y/kg-d
December 2009
Page B-44
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
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
HI
(cont'd.)
170
Sum-08
c
1,400,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"1
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, industrial/commercial, low
risk, <170 ppt; see residential/recreational, low
risk.
Equation for ingestion of carcinogenic contaminants in industrial
scenario:
CinH = TRxATrxBWa
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, industrial/commercial,
intermediate risk, 170-1,600 ppt; see
residential/recreational, intermediate risk.
[EFoxEDox(IRSoxCSFox10"e kg/mg)]
where:
TR = target risk, 10 Ū
ATr = averaging time, 25,550 d
BWa = adult body weight, 70 kg
EF0 = occupational exposure frequency, 250 d/y
ED0 = occupational exposure duration, 25 y
CSF0 = 150,000 or 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1
IRS0 = occupational soil ingestion rate, 100 mg/d
1,600
O
(mg/kg-d)"1
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ , industrial/commercial,
high risk, >1,600 ppt; see residential/recreational,
high risk.
4
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(htto'J/www. trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000
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
(httD'J/www.trwnews.net/imaaes/StateCieanuD
2006.PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information is
available via the
weblinks at left, with
neither the derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided.
NMI
(North'n
Mariana
Islands)
4.5
Oct-08
c
130,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"1
GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008a), Evaluation of
Environmental Hazards at Sites with
Contaminated Soil and Groundwater - Pacific
Basin Edition
(httD ://h awa i i. a ov/h ea It h/e n vi ro n me nta l/h aza rd/
pdf/pbvolume1 mar2009.pdf):
Volume 2, Appendix 1 and Appendices 2-9
(httD ://h awa i i. a ov/h ea It h/e n vi ro n me nta l/h aza rd/
pdf/pbvolume2app1 mar2009.pdf:
http: //hawa i i. a ov/h ea Ith/e nvi ro n me nta l/h aza rd/
pdf/pbvolume2app2to9mar2009.pdf):
calculations supported by spreadsheet at
HDOH (2008b), Evaluation of Environmental
Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater - Hawai'i Edition
(http://www.hawaiidoh.ora/references/HDOH%
202008.pdf):
GEPA 2008 updates information from HDOH
(2005), Screening for Environmental Concerns
at Sites with Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater, Volume 1: Summary Tier 1
Lookup Tables
(http://www.dea.aov.mp/artdoc/Sec8art133ID4
53.pdf):
Stralka (2009) (personal communication).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, environmental screening
levels (ESLs), based on direct soil contact, 10"6
risk (except construction/ trench worker: 10"5 risk
per lower exposure frequency and duration).
"Although prepared specifically for Guam EPA, the
use of well-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." "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 the
earlier guidance prepared for the Commonwealth
of the Mariana Islands DEQ. See the AS entry
where these values are first discussed for further
details, across all columns.)
Unrestricted land use: 4.5 is Tier 1 ESL for shallow
soil (<3 m bgs). (Field input indicated NMI follows
current Guam guidance, which updated HDOH
[2005], which previous indicated a value of
3.9 ppt).
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.
Based on recent Guam EPA guidance; as described for AS,
Equations for calculating Tier 1 ESLs and the toxicity value were
taken from 2008 EPA RSL documentation. See GM 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 clay 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
includes 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 2008
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
from CalEPA include: oral and inhalation routes are equivalent,
air concentration assumed to be daily oral dose, route of
exposure does not affect 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 half-life is relatively long, both
schedules should give similar tissue concentrations).
See notes for parallel
entries for AS, GM, and TT.
December 2009
Page B-45
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
NMI
(cont'd.)
18
Oct-08
130,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"'
1,500
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Commercial/industrial
land use, Tier 1 ESL for shallow soil (<3 m bgs).
(See AS where these values are first discussed for
further details.) (Field input indicated this update
from the previous value of 16 ppt from HDOH
[2005].)
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Construction/trench
worker scenario, Tier 1 environmental screening
level for deep soil (>3 m bgs). (See AS where
these values are first discussed for further details.)
(Field input indicated this update from the previous
value of 2,000 ppt identified from HDOH [2005].)
42
Oct-08
1,400,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"
GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008a) (cont'd.)
450
170
170-
1,800
1,800
130,000 (mg/kg-d)
(SFo) |
1,400,000 ; (mg/kg-d)"'
(SFo) I
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, 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 rather 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 for large,
former field areas)."
>450 ppt: Residential use not recommended in the
absence of remedial actions to reduce potential
exposure. (See AS for SF context.)
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, Tier 2 action levels,
commercial/industrial scenario:
<170 ppt: No action required.
(See parallel AS entry for lower bound context.)
130,000 (mg/kg-d)"
(SFo)
170-1,800 ppt: "Within 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."
>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.)
The action level of 42 ppt was derived using the basic
calculation in the HDOH (2008b) spreadsheet, with the target
risk level updated from 10"6 to 10"4.
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.
As above, using the SF0 from the recently harmonized 2008
EPA RSL; updates the previous Tier 2 action level of 390 ppt,
per the previous RSL SF0, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1.
iSame approach as for the 42 ppt action level above; the SF of
11,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 was used to generate a lower bound.
As above, using SF0 of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)" from the recently
harmonized 2008 EPA RSL; updates the previous Tier 2 level of
1,600 ppt, which reflected the previous SF0,150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1.
December 2009
Page B-46
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
NV
3.9
Feb-09
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"'
(SF0)
NDEP (2009), Basic Comparison Levels
(http://ndep.nv.gov/bmi/docs/bcl calculations t
able09.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 auidance09.p
df).
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. (Note that the table title
indicates Basic Comparison Levels 2008, but the
footer of this document identifies the date of
February 12, 2009, as supported by the weblink.)
Former HEAST
tables not available;
equations used to
identify comparison
levels for residential
and industrial
scenarios are
available online.
17.7
2,3,7,8-TCDD,
(outdoor).
for industrial/commercial worker
38.1
2,3,7,8-TCDD, for industrial indoor worker without
dermal exposure.
Toxicity value cites (former) EPA HEAST, no date indicated.
Residential scenario: ingestion of carcinogenic contaminants in
soil (driving pathway):
CL = TRxAT
CSFox10"6xEFx|FSadj
where:
CL =
comparison level, mg/kg
TR =
target risk, 10"6
AT =
averaging time, 25,550 d
CSFo =
150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1
EF =
exposure frequency, 350 d
IFSadj
adjusted soil ingestion, 114 mg-y/kg-d
Industrial/commercial scenario, outdoor worker: ingestion of
carcinogenic contaminants in soil:
CL = TRxATxBW,
EFoxEDox(IRSoxCSFox10"b kg/mg)
target risk, 10"6
averaging time, 25,550 d
adult body weight, 70 kg
occupational exposure frequency, 250 d/y
occupational exposure duration, 25 y
150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1
where:
TR =
AT =
BWa =
EF0 =
ED0 =
CSF0 =
IRSo = industrial outdoor worker soil ingestion rate, 100 mg/d
Industrial scenario, indoor worker: ingestion of carcinogenic
contaminants:
CL =
TRxATxBWa
EFoxEDox(IRSoxCSFox10 kg/mg)
where:
TR =
target risk, 10"6
AT =
averaging time, 25,550 d
BWa =
adult body weight, 70 kg
EF0 =
occupational exposure frequency, 250 d/y
ED0 =
occupational exposure duration, 25 y
CSFo =
150,000 (mg/kg-d)"1
IRSo =
indoor worker soil ingestion rate, 50 mg/d
December 2009
Page B-47
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
NV
(cont'd.)
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(httpJ/www. trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Rea
uest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000
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
{http://www.trwnews.net/imaaes/StateCleanuD
2006.PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information is
available via the
weblinks at left, with
neither the derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided.
TT
(Trust
Terri-
tories)
4.5
Oct-08
130,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"
GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008a), Evaluation of
Environmental Hazards at Sites with
Contaminated Soil and Groundwater - Pacific
Basin Edition
(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/
pdf/pbvolume1 mar2009.pdf):
(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/
pdf/pbvolume2app1 mar2009.pdf):
(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/
pdf/pbvolume2app2to9mar2009.pdf):
Stralka (2009) (personal communication).
18
1,500
Field feedback for TT during the review phase
indicated soil cleanup levels are determined on a
site-specific basis (Stralka, 2009). 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 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."
Guam EPA (2008) updated the earlier guidance
prepared for the Commonwealth of the Mariana
Islands, DEQ. Although not specifically prepared
forTT, the document states, "Although prepared
specifically for Guam EPA, the use of well-
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 (<3 m, below ground surface, bgs)
is 4.5 ppt.
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Tier 1 ESL, industrial scenario,
shallow soil (<3 m bgs).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Tier 1 ESL, construction/trench
worker scenarios, deep 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
RSLs, as was the toxicity value.
See parallel entries for AS and GM for further details.
As a note, the AS, GM, HI,
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 2008 EPA
RSLs, 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
draft slope factor from
MNDOH (2003), which
reflects the upper bound
from bioassay data based
on 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).
December 2009
Page B-48
-------
TABLE B.9 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 9
State
Soil
Cone
(PPV
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
TT
(cont'd.)
42
Oct-08
1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)"'
(SF0)
450
170
170-
1,800
1,800
130,000
(SF0)
1,400,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"
(mg/kg-d)"
130,000 (mg/kg-d)-'
(SF0)
GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008a), Evaluation of
Environmental Hazards at Sites with
Contaminated Soil and Groundwater - Pacific
Basin Edition
(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/
pdf/pbvolume1 mar2009.pdf):
(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/
pdf/pbvolume2app2to9mar2009.pdf) see
Appendix 8;
HDOH (2006), Proposed dioxin action levels
for East Kapolei Brownfield Site
(http ://h awa ii.g ov/h ea It h/e n vi ro n me nta l/h aza rd/
pdf/dioxinactionlevelsmarch2005.pdf).
(See the AS entry where these values are first
discussed for further details, across all columns.)
In addition to the Tier 1 ESL values, HDOH
established Tier 2 action levels primarily to guide
remedial actions for former agricultural fields. They
do not serve as strict regulatory cleanup
requirements. Values were initially proposed in
2006 document but updated in 2008 to reflect most
recent toxicological data from EPA RSLs.
Tier 2 action levels forTCDD (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.)
ForTCDD (TEQs), Tier2 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
site-specific factors, including 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 absence of remedial actions to
reduce potential exposure.
(See parallel AS entry for SF/update context.)
Equations are
provided in
Appendix 2 of the
2008 document,
adopted from the
2008 Regional EPA
RSLs. Slope
factors were taken
from the EPA RSL
tables (current
value) and MNDOH
(2003) proposed
value. This
information is
available online.
The SF of 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)- , which was proposed several
years ago by MNDOH (2003) (derived from Kociba et al.
[1978]), was used to generate a lower bound.
The slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)"1 is from the current
EPA RSL table.
See the Guam entry for the equations used to calculate
intake/dose.
As described above, does
not reflect more recent
scientific data (such as the
2004 NTP study).
For additional details, see the AS entry where these values are
first discussed.
December 2009
Page B-49
-------
TABLE B.10 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 10
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
AK
38
Jun-08
c
150,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"1
ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response,
Contaminated Sites Program (2008a), Cleanup
Levels Guidance
(http://www. dec. state, ak.us/spar/csp/quidance/cle
anuplevels.pdf):
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD based on direct contact
with soil, exposure frequency 330 d/y.
Document does
not mention any
intra-agency or
external review.
Equations/tables for
each element of the
cleanup level
equation are given in
the ADEC
documentation, which
is available online.
Used EPA standards for exposure frequency and developed
AK-specific soil parameters for equations. Equation used for
dioxin in residential soil:
CL = TRxAT x365d/v
EFxSFoxlFsoii/adjx10"6 kg/mg
where:
CL = cleanup level, mg/kg
TR = target cancer risk, 10"5
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)"1
IFsoii/adj = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor, 114 (mg-y/kg-d)"1
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
(http://ddoe.dc.aov/ddoe/lib/ddoe/Riaas Remedv
94.Ddf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD based on direct contact
with soil, exposure frequency 200 d/y.
39
Jan-04
c
150,000
(mg/kg-d)"1
ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response
(2004), Dioxin and the Haines-Alaska Pipeline
(http://www. dec. state, ak.us/spar/csp/docs/hfp/hfp
dioxin factsh 1 04.pdf).
Residential scenario, for dioxins; ADEC
adopted the Region 9 PRG for TCDD but
calculated value based on TR of 10"5 instead
of 10"6
Equation basis for
Region 9 PRG and
ADEC document are
available online
Used EPA Region 9 PRG equation to derive value for TCDD.
Slope factors and other toxicological information are taken
from EPA 1997 HEAST ADEC based value on TR of 10"5
440
Jun-03
c
EPA (2003d), ESD, OU 01, Arctic Surplus,
Fairbanks
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e
1003009. Ddf):
EPA (2008d), First Five Year Review Report for
Arctic Surplus Salvage Yard Superfund Site,
Fairbanks
(httD'J/vosemite. eoa. aov/r10/CLEANUP. NSF/sites/
fivevr/$FILE/Arctic%20Sumlus%20First%2012180
8.pdf).
Industrial scenario for dioxins. Did not alter
original 1995 ROD; value reflects risk-based
concentration (RBC) for 10~5 risk level.
Available online
(RODS database).
0.4
Jul-96
c
EPA (1996d), ROD, OU 01, Standard Steel and
Metal Salvage Yard (USDOT), Anchorage
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r
1096141 .odf);
U.S. ACE, (2008) Second Five-Year Review
Report for Standard Steel and Metal Salvage Yard
(USDOT), Anchorage
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f200
8100002158.odf).
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Residential scenario
screening value for 10~6 risk level. Five-year
reviews have not indicated any change to the
cleanup level.
Available online
(RODS database).
December 2009
Page B-50
-------
TABLE B.10 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 10
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
ID
1,000
Apr-03
c
EPA (2003c), ESD, OU 03, Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory (USDOE), Idaho Falls
(httD'J/www. eoa. aov/suoerfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e
1003133.Ddf):
USDOE (2007), Five Year Review of CERCLA
Response Actions at the INL
(httD'J/vosemite. eoa. aov/r10/CLEANUP. NSF/sites/
INEEL/SFILE/DOE-NE-ID-11201-R3.Ddf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, based on EPA 1998
OSWER directive.
Available online
(RODS database).
The Kimbrough et at. (1984) evaluation of Kociba et at. (1978)
underlies the OSWER value.
1,000
Aug-02
c
EPA (2006b), Poles, Incorporated Integrated
Assessment
(httD'J/vosemite. eoa. aov/R10/CLEANUP. NSF/9f3c
21896330b4898825687b007a0f33/434a255cbae5
217d88256b560065cb 04 ?OpenDocument);
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, residential scenario;
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.
Available online
(RODS database)
The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation of Kociba et at. (1978)
underlies the OSWER value.
5,000-
20,000
EPA (2002), Poles Incorporated Dioxin/Furan
Sampling, Surface Soil Samples Analytical
Results Summary, Oldtown
(httoJ/vosemite. eoa. aov/R10/CLEANUP. NSF/9f3c
21896330b4898825687b007a0f33/434a255cbae5
217d88256b560065cb 04/$FILE/Soil%20Results. P
DF).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, industrial scenario;
per EPA OSWER PRGs based on dioxin
screening of surface soil samples taken from
Poles Inc. in Oldtown.
OR
4.5
Sep-09
c
130,000
(mg/kg-d)"1
ORDEQ (2009), Risk-Based Concentrations
(http://www.deq. state, or. us/lq/pubs/docs/RBDMTa
ble.Ddf):
ORDEQ (2003), Risk-Based Decision Making for
the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites
(httD://www. dea. state, or. us/la/Dubs/docs/RBDMG
uidance.Ddf):
Bailey (2009) (personal communication).
RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; residential; direct
contact via ingestion, dermal, or inhalation.
Substantial
revisions made
in 2003 with
input from TPH
Generic Remedy
Work Group
along with DEQ
employees;
updated in 2009.
Equations used for
the derivation can be
found online in the
ORDEQ (2003)
document for the
remediation of
petroleum-
contaminated sites
(Appendix B).
The basic equations are from 1995-2000; revisions were made
in 2003. Calculations are based on cancer risk of 10"6.
Although a toxicity value was not explicitly identified in the
updated table, a value of 130,000 per mg/kg-d can be inferred
because of the use of the RSLs as the basis, per Bailey
(2009); this can be confirmed by check calculations.
2003 document cites (DEQ,
2000); (EPA, 1996a); (ASTM
1995); Mott (1995); Mariner et
al. (1997); and Park and San
Juan (2000) as the basis for
the equations provided.
12
RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; urban residential;
direct contact via ingestion, dermal, or
inhalation.
20
RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; occupational; direct
contact via ingestion, dermal, or inhalation.
150
RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; construction; direct
contact via ingestion, dermal, or inhalation.
4,200
RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; excavation; direct
contact via ingestion, dermal, or inhalation.
19
RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; residential; leaching
to groundwater.
66
RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; urban residential;
leaching to groundwater.
140
RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; occupational;
leaching to groundwater.
December 2009
Page B-51
-------
TABLE B.10 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 10
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
OR
(cont'd.)
3.9
May-05
c
150,000
(mg/kg-d)"1
ORDEQ (2005), Pre-Calculated Hot Spot Look-Up
Tables
(httD://www. dea. state, or. us/la/Dubs/docs/cu/PreCa
RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential scenario
for exposure by ingestion, inhalation of
vapors/particulates, and dermal contact.
Acceptable risk level calculated using EPA Region 9 PRG
equation of that time:
PRG =
TRxAT
16
lculatedHotSpotLookupTables.pdf).
RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; industrial scenario for
exposure by ingestion, inhalation of
vapors/particulates, and dermal contact.
EF[(IFSajXSFoxCF)+(SFSajXABSxSF0xCF)+(lnhFajXSFi)/PEF]
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
SFo i = oral and inhalation 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-d)
PEF = particulate emission factor, 1.316x10Ū
3.9
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(http://www. trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Reaues
t%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000DDt.Ddf
Basis not provided.
Limited information is
available via the
weblinks at left, with
neither the derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided.
); lists same values identified in: EC (2004),
Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in Other States, cited
in table available via Tittabawassee River Watch
(TRW) News,
(http://www.trwnews.net/imaaes/StateCleanup200
6. PDF).
December 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
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
. .... Incorporation of Most
Scientific Basis _ r . _ .
Recent Science
WA
11
Jun-09
c
150,000
(SF0)
(mg/kg-d)"1
WADEC (2009), Cleanup Levels and Risk
Calculations
(https://fortress.wa.qov/ecv/clarc/Reportinq/CLAR
CReportinq.aspx).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Unrestricted scenario;
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.
"Although
CLARC has
undergone
review to ensure
the quality of the
information
provided, there is
no assurance
that CLARC is
free from errors."
"CLARC includes
technical information
related to the
establishment of
cleanup levels under
the Model Toxics
Control Act Cleanup
Regulation,
chapter 173-340
WAC."
SCL = (RISKxABWxATxUCF)
(CPFxSIRxAB-ixEDxEF)
where:
SCL = soil cleanup 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/kg
CPF = carcinogenic potency factor as defined in WAC
173-340-708(8)
SIR = soil ingestion rate, 200mg/d
ABi = gastrointestinal absorption fraction, 1.0
ED = exposure duration, 6 y
EF = exposure frequency, 1.0
1,500
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Industrial scenario;
Method C, Carcinogen, Standard Formula
Value, Direct Contact (ingestion only);
CLARC tool, a searchable database
developed and maintained by the WA
Department of Ecology.
6.67
Jan-98
WADEC (1998), Fact Sheet: Controlling Metals
and Dioxins in Fertilizers
(http://www.ecv.wa.qov/news/1998news/fert.htmh.
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Used as a final
cleanup level for dioxins but it is possible that
a higher cleanup 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.
50
to
1,000
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. 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, site-specific evaluation of
potential human exposure).
8.7
2006
(2004)
Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000ppt dioxin soil
standard: Letter from concerned citizens,
environmental groups
(http://www. trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Reaues
t%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201000ppt.pdf
); lists same values identified in: EC (2004),
Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in Other States, cited
in table available via Tittabawassee River Watch
(TRW) News,
(http://www.trwnews.net/imaaes/StateCleanup200
6. PDF).
Basis not provided.
Limited information is
available via the
weblinks at left, with
neither the derivation
methodology nor
basis of underlying
toxicity values.
Basis not provided.
875
Sep-03
EPA (2003f), Final ROD, OU 10, Oeser Company
Superfund Site Remedial Action, Bellingham,
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r
1003135.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, site-specific cleanup
level derived from WA Dept. of Ecology,
MTCA Method C for industrial scenario,
10~5 risk level.
Available online
(RODS database).
107.7
Feb-00
c
EPA (2000), Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor Superfund
Site, Soil and Groundwater Operable Units,
Bainbridge Island, OU 02,04
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r
Residential scenario for 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity
equivalency factor (TEF), reasonable
maximum exposure (RME) concentration,
2.52x10~5 cancer risk from EPA (1994b).
Soil cleanup levels in the ROD were based on
MTCA method B TEQ calculations. The
second five-year report concludes that the
minor changes in the basis for TEQ
calculations would not significantly change
the level of protectiveness. The only changes
made were for other dioxin compounds (not
2,3,7,8-TCDD).
Available online
(RODS database).
Equation for ingestion for RME exposure, based on data from
EPA (1987) and Van den Berg et al. (1998, 2006):
IFsoi/adj (mg-y/kg-d) =
(Uni/aae 1-6 x D*1-6) + (Una 7-31 x DaqP7-31)
1000047.pdf):
U.S. ACE (2007), Second Five-Year Review
Report for the Wyckoff./Eagle Harbor Superfund
Site, Bainbridge Island, Kitasp
Countv(http://www.epa.aov/superfund/sites/fiveve
ar/f2007100001727.pdf).
(Wage1-6) (Wage7-31)
where:
IFSoi/adj = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor (114 mg-y/kg-d)
Wage1-6 = average body weight from ages from 1-6 (15 kg)
Wage7-31 = average body weight from ages from 7-31 (70 kg)
Dage1-6 = exposure duration during ages 1-6 (6 y)
Dage7-31 = exposure duration during ages 7-31 (24 y)
Isoi/age 1-6 = ingestion rate of soil ages 1-6 (200mg/d)
1soil 7-31 = ingestion rate of soil all other ages (100 mg/d)
6.67
Soil cleanup level for 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ.
December 2009
Page B-53
-------
TABLE B.10 State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil: Region 10
State
Soil
Cone
(PPt)
Date
End-
point
Basis
Toxicity Reference
Value
Information Source
Context Notes
Evaluation Criteria
Nature of Peer
Review
Transparency-
Public Availability
Scientific Basis
Incorporation of Most
Recent Science
WA
(cont'd)
4
Sep-97
c
EPA (1997b), ROD, OU 01, Old Navy
Dump/Manchester Laboratory (USEPA/NOAA),
Manchester
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r
1097201. Ddf):
U.S. ACE (2004), First Five-Year Review Report
for Manchester Annex Superfund Site, Kitsap
County
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f04-
10009.pdf).
Landfill screening level, for 2,3,7,8-TCDD,
1(J6 cancer risk; MTCA Method C for
industrial scenario.
Available online
(RODS database).
Industrial equation for carcinogenic effects of hazardous
substances due to ingestion:
Soil cleanup level = RISK x ABW * AT * UCF
CPF x SIR x ABI x ED x EF
where:
RISK = acceptable cancer risk level, 1 in 100,000
ABW = average body weight over exposure duration, 70 kg
AT = averaging time, 75y
UCF = unit conversion factor, 1(f mg/kg
CPF = carcinogenic potency factor
SIR = soil ingestion rate, 50 mg/d
ABI = gastrointestinal absorption fraction, 0.1
ED = exposure duration, 20 y
EF = exposure frequency, 0.4
270
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, cleanup level.
6.7
Jul-94
EPA (1994c), ROD, OU 02, Naval Air Station,
Whidbey Island (Ault Field)
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r
1094077.pdf);
DoN (2004), Final Five-Year Review Operable
Units 1 through 5 Naval Air Station, Whidbey
Island, Oak Harbor
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f04-
10003.pdf).
Residential scenario for dioxin; 10~6 risk level.
Neither five-year review mention any changes
in dioxin levels.
Available online
(RODS database).
400
May-93
EPA (1993c), ROD, OU 01, EPA Superfund
Record of Decision: American Crossarm &
Conduit Co., Chehalis
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r
1093060.pdf):
EPA (2004g), Second Five-Year Review Report
for American Crossarm & Conduit Co. Superfund
Site, Chehalis
(http://www. epa. aov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f04-
10004.pdf).
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Residential scenario
for incidental soil ingestion for dioxin, RME,
calculated over a lifetime (75 y), upper-bound
95th percentile, Region 10 assumptions.
Neither five-year review mention any changes
in dioxin-contaminated soil.
Available online
(RODS database).
200
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Industrial scenario
for dioxin; RME for landfill.
2,000
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Industrial scenario
for dioxin; RME for mill.
50,000
For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Industrial scenario
for dioxin; RME for treatment areas.
December 2009
Page B-54
-------
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/guidance/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/Riggs Remedy 94.pdf.
ADEM (Alabama Department of Environmental Management), 2008, Alabama Risk-Based
Corrective Action Guidance Manual (April);
http://www.adem.state.al.us/LandDivision/Guidance/ARBCAApril2008final.pdf.
ADHS (Arizona Department of Health Sciences), 1999, Deterministic Risk Assessment
Guidance (March 15); http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/oeh/pdf/guidance.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.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r20080900Q2438.pdf.
Anderson M., (2009), 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.adeg.state.ar.us/regs/files/reg23 final 080526.pdf.
ARDEQ (Arkansas Department, of Environmental Quality), 2009a, Arkansas Corrective Action
Strategy, Technical Branch, Hazardous Waste Division;
http://www.adeg.state.ar.us/hazwaste/branch tech/risk assessment.htm.
ARDEQ, 2009b, Hazardous Waste Division-Technical Branch;
http://www.adeg.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, 2006, Health Consultation: A Review of Soil Data, Marion Pressure Treating Co.,
Marion, Union Parish, LA;
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/Marion%20Pressure%20Treating%20Companv/Mari
onPressureTreatingCoHC013106.pdf.
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 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.
December 2009
Page B-55
-------
AZDEQ (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality), 2007, Title 18. Environmental Quality
Chapter 1. Remedial Action (May 5); http://www.azsos.gov/public services/Title 18/18-
07.htm.
Bailey M., 2009, personal communication from M. Bailey (EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA) to
K. Deener (EPA NCEA, Washington, DC) (July 10).
Bates E., Akindele F., Sprinkle D., 2002, American Creosote Site Case Study:
Solidification/Stabilization of Dioxins, PCP and Creosote for $64 per Cubic Yard,
Environmental Progress, 21(2):79-84 (July).
Binders., Sokal D., Maughan D., 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, personal communication from J. Borovich (Remediation Section, NDEQ) to
M. Beringer (EPA Region 7, Kansas City, KS) (July 13).
Byrd S., 2009, personal communication from S. Byrd (SC Department of Health and
Environmental Control [DHEC], Columbia, SC) to K. Deener (EPA National Center for
Environmental Assessment [NCEA], Washington, DC) (Aug. 5).
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.gov/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 (dated as Nov. 2004
with Jan. 2005 revision); http://www.oehha.ca.gov/risk/pdf/screenreport010405.pdf.
CalEPA, 2005b, Use of California Human Health Screening Levels in Evaluation of
Contaminated Properties (Jan.);
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/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/May2005Hotspots.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.gov/water/phg/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.gov/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/2009FebruaryStat.pdf.
CalEPA, 2009c, Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Values, Appendix H, OEHHA,
CA (July); http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2009/AppendixHexposure.pdf.
CalEPA, 2009d, Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note 2, Interim, Remedial Goals for
Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds for Consideration at California Hazardous Waste
Sites, D.L. Berry and K. Klein, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (May);
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/AssessingRisk/upload/HHRA Note2 dioxin-2.pdf.
December 2009
Page B-56
-------
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).
CEHTUF (Center for Environmental and Human Toxicology at the University of Florida), 2005,
Technical Report: Development of Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs), prepared by
University of Florida, Gainseville, FL, for Division of Waste Management, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (Feb.);
http://toxicology.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.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/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.gov/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/fiveyear/f05-
06008.pdf.
Clausing P., Brunekreef B., 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, cd ph e. state. co. u s/h m/csev. pdf.
CWLP (City Water, Light & Power), 2005, Supplement to Part 1 of PSD Permit Application,
Additional Impact Analysis for Metals, Springfield, IL;
http://vosemite.epa.gov/r5/r5ard.nsf/c408a2009710018f8625716f004d9038/df97Q27430f
55b6d862571 a3005a188e/$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 18); 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 18);
http://www.epa.gov/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.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r20070300Q1944.pdf.
DoA, 2007b, Record of Decision: Site 180 (PICA 093) Waste Burial Area, Final, Picatinny, NJ
(Sept.); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r20070200Q2538.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.
December 2009 Page B-57
-------
De Rosa C.T., 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.
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-
easygoer.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.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r20060400013Q6.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 Natl Lab (Site 300) (USDOE), EPA
ID: CA2890090002, OU 08, Tracy, CA, 02/23/2001, EPA/ROD/R09-01/606 (Feb. 23);
http://www.epa.gov/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.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0404088.pdf.
DOE, 2007, Five Year Review ofCERCLA Response Actions at the Idaho National Laboratory,
DOE/NE-ID-11201, DOE-NE Idaho Operations Office (Feb.); .
http://vosemite.epa.gov/r10/CLEAN U P. NSF/sites/l N EEL/SFILE/DOE-N E-l D-11201-
R3.pdf (via
http://vosemite.epa.gov/r10/cleanup.nsf/4c5259381f6b967d88256b5800611592/e0374e
8ab1 a731 a98825651 a004e2031 ?QpenDocument).
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 (Sept.); 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.gov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f04-10003.pdf.
Drustrup B., 2009, 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/Reguest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarifv%201
000ppt.pdf (accessed June and December, 2009).
December 2009 Page B-58
-------
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.);
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://ru Ies. sos. state. qa. us/docs/39113119/AP. pdf.
Garoutte J., 2009, 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/pbvolume1mar2009.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, personal communication from S. Griffin (EPA Region 8, Denver, CO) to
K. Deener (EPA NCEA, Washington, DC) (July 16).
Haney J., 2009, personal communication from J. Haney (Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality [TCEQ], Austin, TX) to A. Davidson (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL)
(Dec. 3).
Hansen E., 2009. personal communication from E. Hansen (MN Pollution Control Agency) to
K. Deener (EPA NCEA, Washington, DC) (Oct. 28).
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 Department of Health, Hazard Evaluation and Emergency
Response (HEER), Honolulu, HI, for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Division of Environmental Quality, Saipan, CNMI (Oct.);
http://www.deg.gov.mp/artdoc/Sec8art133ID453.pdf.
HDOH, 2006, Proposed Dioxin Action Levels for East Kapolei Brownfield Site (subject),
memorandum from R. Brewer (Environmental Risk Assessment HEER Office) to
D. Bernstein (Brownfields Coordinator HEER Office) through Barbara Brooks
(Toxicologist, HEER), East Kapolei, O'ahu, HI (March 23);
http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/dioxinactionlevelsmarch2005.pdf.
HDOH, 2008, Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater - Hawai'i Edition, Volume 1: User's Guide, Environmental Management
Division, Honolulu, Hawai'i; 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.
Hess T., 2009, personal communication from T. Hess (MS Department of Environmental
Quality, Jackson, MS) to K. Deener (EPA NCEA, Washington, DC) (Aug. 10).
Hirschhorn J.S., 1997a, Cleanup Levels for Dioxin Contaminated Soils, Remediation Journal,
7(3):63-80 (Summer).
Hirschhorn J.S., 1997b, Two Superfund Environmental Justice Case Studies;
http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/Cleanup/two superfund environmental iust.htm
(June).
HSOH (2008), see GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008): Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites
with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater;
December 2009
Page B-59
-------
http://www.hawaiidoh.org/references/HDQH%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, Iowa 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/risctechguidance.pdf.
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.gov/idem/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 (Jun.);
http://www.kdheks.gov/remedial/download/RSK Manual 07.pdf.
Kimbrough R.D., Falk H., Stehr P.I., 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. I rc. state. ky. u s/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 (Mar. 20);
http://www.deg.louisiana.gOv/portal/portals/0/planning/regs/pdf/HW083fin.pdf.
Lund, S., 2009, personal communication from S. Lund (GA Department of Natural Resources,
Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, GA) to K. Deener (EPA NCEA, Washington,
DC (Oct. 8).
MacDonald D., Smith S., Wong M., Murdoch P., 1992, The Development of Canadian Marine
Environmental Quality Guidelines, prepared for Interdepartmental Working Group on
December 2009
Page B-60
-------
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, CMR40(Dec. 14);
http://www.mass.gov/dep/service/regulations/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/cleanu p/laws/prop s2. htm.
MADEP, undated C, Documentation for the S-3 Standards;
http: //www, m ass. g ov/de p/cl ea n u p/l aws/p ro p s3.htm.
MADEP, undated D, UCLs (Upper Concentration Limits);
http: //www, m ass. g ov/de p/cl ea n u p/l aws/u cl s. htm.
Mariner P.E., Jin M., Jackson R.E., 1997, An Algorithm for the Estimation ofNAPL Saturation
and Composition from Typical Soil Chemical Analysis, Ground Water Monitoring and
Remediation. 17(2):122-129.
Martin J., 2009, personal communication from J. Martin (Superfund Branch, KY Department for
Environmental Protection) to G. Taylor (EPA Region 4, Atlanta GA) (Aug. 5).
MDNR (Missouri Department of Natural Resources), 2006, MRBCA Technical Guidance
(Appendices) (Apr.); 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/rags.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, Public Review Draft (July
17)',
http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/publications/guidance/rags/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 iulv 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 (Aug. 31); http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deg/deg-whm-hwp-dow-
excerpt of dec tsd 251913 7.pdf.
MIDEQ, 2001, Part 201 Generic Soil Direct Contact Criteria Technical Support Document,
Lansing, Ml; http://www.deg.state.mi.us/documents/deg-whm-hwp-
excerpt of dec tsd.pdf (accessed July 2009; in August 2009, the weblink does not
appear to be functional).
December 2009
Page B-61
-------
MIDEQ, 2004, Department of Environmental Quality: Dioxin Contamination in the Midland Area
July 2, 2004; http://www.michiqan.gov/documents/deq/deq-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.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-rrd-QpMemo 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.qov/documents/deq/deq-rrd-QpMemo 1-
Attachment1Table2SoilResidential 283553 7.pdf; from Technical Support Document,
Part 201 Generic Cleanup Criteria and Screening Levels, Part 213 Tier 1 Risk-Based
Screening Levels; http://www.michiqan.gOv/deq/0.1607.7-135-3311 4109 9846 30022-
101581--.00.html; http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deg/deg-rrd-QpMemo 1-
Attachment6 285488 7.pdf).
MNDOH (Minnesota Department of Health), 2003, Cancer Risk Assessment for Dioxins,
prepared by MDOH at the request of the Risk Evaluation/Air Modeling Unit,
Environmental Standards and Analysis Section, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(March 17); www.canceractionny.org/cancerriskassessment.htm.
Mott H.V., 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.
MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency), 1999, Draft Guidelines: Risk-Based Guidance for
the Soil - Human Health Pathway, Volume 2, Technical Support Document, Working
Draft, MPCA Site Remediation Section (Jan.);
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/cleanup/pubs/srv3 99.pdf.
MPCA, 2008, Second Five-Year Review Report forRitari Post and Pole Superfund Site,
Sebeka, Wadena County, Minnesota, September 2008, prepared by MPCA, St. Paul,
MN (Sept. 26); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f20080500025Q3.pdf
MPCA, 2009, Risk-Based Guidance for the Soil - Human Health Pathway, Tier 1 and Tier 2
SRV Spreadsheets (June);
http://www.pca. state. mn.us/cleanup/riskbasedoc.html#pathwav.
MSDEQ (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality), 2002, Final Regulations Governing
Brownfield Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment in Mississippi (Feb. 28);
http://www.deg.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/pdf/Main HW-2/$File/HW-2.pdf?QpenElement.
MTDEQ (Montana Department of Environmental Quality), 2007, Table 1: Tier 1 Surface Soil
(0-2 ft) 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 byTetraTech EM
Inc., Helena, MT (July 2007);
http://www.deg.state.mt.us/StateSuperfund/KPT/FinalFSJulv2008/FinalFSreportComplie
d.pdf.
MTDEQ, 2009, Attachment C, Soil Screening Process (Dec.);
http://www.deg.state.mt.us/StateSuperfund/vcraguide.asp.
Murray F.J., 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,
December 2009
Page B-62
-------
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, DC (Sept.);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008030002103.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.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e2008090002747.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/quidance/pdf/HWScleanup5-05draft.pdf.
NCDENR, 2009, Inactive Hazardous Sites Program Guidelines for Assessment and Cleanup
Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites Branch Health-Based Soil Remediation Goals (Oct.);
http://www.wastenotnc.org/sfhome/stateleadquidance.pdf;
htto J/www. wastenotnc.org/soiltable.odf (updated link and value; see preceding entry).
NCI/NTP (National Cancer Institute/National Toxicology Program), 1980, Bioassay of 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 rptsZtr198.pdf.
NDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection), 2009, Basic Comparison Levels
(Feb. 12); http://ndep.nv.gov/bmi/docs/bcl calculations table09.pdf. (Note that the table
title indicates NDEP Basic Comparison Levels 2008, but the footer of this document
identifies the date of February 12, 2009, as supported by the weblink.)
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
56e34ea8486256f2700698997/$FILE/ATTEBI5L/RG%20Protocol%20AuQust%202006.p
df.
NDEQ, 2008, Nebraska Voluntary Cleanup Program Guidance (Oct.);
http://www.deg.state.ne.us/Publica.nsf/23e5e39594c064ee852564ae004fa010/d243c2b
56e34ea8486256f2700698997/$FILEA/CP%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/organization/divisions/waste/hwrb/documents/rcmp.pdf.
Nightingale S., 2009, 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 (Mar.);
http://www.state, ni.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/guidance docs/NMED June 2006 SSG.pdf.
December 2009
Page B-63
-------
Nosek J.A., etal., 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-Mendei 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 Environmental Conservation) and NYDOH (New York State
Department of Health), 2006, New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program,
Development of Soil Cleanup Objectives, Technical Support Document (Sept.);
http://www.dec.nv.gov/docs/remediation hudson pdf/techsuppdoc.pdf.
NYDEC, 2009, TAGM 4046, Table 3; http://www.dec.nv.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/cprg/GCNTablesExcel.xls.
OHEPA, 2009, Closure Plan Review Guidance for RCRA Facilities, Division of Hazardous
Waste Management (Oct.); http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/32/pdf/2008CPRG.pdf.
OKDEQ (Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality), Land Protection Division, 2004, Site
Cleanup using Risk-Based Decision Making;
http://www.deg.state.ok.us/lpdnew/FactSheets/RiskbasedDecisionGuidanceFinal.pdf.
Olsen M., 2009, personal communication from M. Olsen (EPA Region 2, New York, NY) to
K. Deener (EPA NCEA, Washington, DC) (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.deg.state.or.us/lg/pubs/docs/RBDMGuidance.pdf.
ORDEQ, 2001, Quality Assurance Policy, Policy 760.00, Environmental Cleanup Division
(April 3);
http://www.deg.state.or.us/lg/pubs/docs/cu/CleanupProgramQualitvAssurancePolicy.pdf.
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/lg/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.deg.state.or.us/lg/pubs/docs/cu/PreCalculatedHotSpotLookupTables.pdf.
ORDEQ, 2008, Risk Based Concentrations, Land Quality Division, Portland, OR (Sept. 16);
http://www.deg.state.or.us/lg/pubs/docs/RBDMTable.pdf.
ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), 1997, Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for
Ecological Endpoints] as cited in U.S. ACE (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.
December 2009
Page B-64
-------
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), 2001, Medium-Specific
Concentrations (MSCs) for Organic Regulated Substances in Soil, Direct Contact
Numeric Values (Nov.24);
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/landrecwaste/lib/landrecwaste/land recycling/table 3a.p
df.
PADEP, 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 and 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., Kerger B.D., 2006, Identifying Soil Cleanup
Criteria for Dioxins 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.gov/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.gov/pubs/regs/regs/waste/remreg04.pdf.
Rios Jafolla N., 2009, personal communication from N. Rios Jafolla (EPA Region 3,
Philadelphia, PA) to K. Deener (EPA NCEA, Washington, DC) (July 27).
RMCOEH, UDFPM (Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health,
Department of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of Utah), undated, A
Comparison of Dioxin Levels Found in Residential Soils of Davis County Utah with
Those Found in Residential Soils in the Denver Front Range (date is 2001 or later, per
the most recent internal citation);
http://www.wasatchintegrated.org/PDF/Davis%20Dioxin%20Study.pdf.
Sample B.E, Opresko D.M, SuterG.W. II, 1996, Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996
Revisions, ES/ER/TM-86/R3, Health Sciences Research Division, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, TN, prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental
Management (June); http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm86r3.pdf.
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).
SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control), 2004, Evaluation
of the Koppers Inc. Site under the RCRIS Corrective Action Environmental Indicator
Event Code CA123 (Human Exposures) (Aug. 19), with attachment, Documentation of
Environmental Indicator Determination (Feb. 1999),
http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/pubs/eipdfs/Koppers%20CA725.%20dated%20
August%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.
December 2009
Page B-65
-------
SDDENR (South Dakota Department of the Environment and Natural Resources), 2009, Lookup
Table for Surface Soil (0-3.2 feet) (Nov. 24);
http://denr.sd.gov/des/qw/LookUpTables/Lookup Tables.aspx.
Stralka D., 2009, personal communication from D. Stralka (EPA Region 9, San Francisco, CA)
to K. Deener (EPA NCEA, Washington, DC) (July 31).
TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality), Remediation Division, 2005, TCEQ
Regulatory Guidance RG-366/TRRP-22: Tiered Development of Human Health PCLs;
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/comm exec/forms pubs/pubs/rg/rg-366 trrp 22.html.
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-
Trichlorophenoxyethanol Containing Dioxin and of Pure Dioxin in Swiss Mice, Nature.
278:548-9.
TRRP (Texas Risk Reduction Program), 2009, Protective Concentration Levels; Tables 1-5;
http://www.tceg.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/deg/deg-whm-hwp-dow-
slope factor 251918 7.pdf.
TXNRCC (Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Superfund Cleanup Section
Remediation Division), 2000, Proposed Remedial Action Document: Toups State
Superfund Site: Sour Lake, Hardin County, Texas (June);
http://www.tceg.state.tx.us/assets/public/remediation/superfund/register/pdf0100.pdf.
U.S. ACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 2000, Defense Distribution Depot Hill, Utah, Ogden
Site 1, Final Operable Unit 4 Hots pot, Record of Decision: Amendment for Operable
Unit 4, prepared by Montgomery Watson for the U.S. ACE, 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.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0800533.pdf.
U.S. ACE, 2003, Record of Decision for Phase III Parcels, Letterkenny Army Depot,
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, prepared by Weston Solutions, Inc., West Chester, PA,
for U.S. ACE 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. 14);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0303065.pdf.
U.S. ACE, 2004, First Five-Year Review Report for Manchester Annex Superfund Site, Kitsap
County (Sept. 30); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f04-10009.pdf.
U.S. ACE, 2006, Phase IVBRAC 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 U.S. ACE Baltimore District, Baltimore, MD (April); 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
(June 7); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r20060300Q1362.pdf.
December 2009
Page B-66
-------
U.S. ACE, 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.gov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f2007100001727.pdf.
U.S. ACE, 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.
U.S. AF (U.S. Air Force), 2002, 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://vosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/1d
ca993480c9ecd788257205002bf81e/$FILE/andersen%20RQD%20harmon%20annex.p
df.
U.S. AF, 2003a, Site SS-026 Explosive Ordinance Disposal Range: Record of Decision,
Plattsburgh Air Force Base, Installation Restoration Program, Plattsburgh, NY, (March);
with cover page EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Plattsburgh Air Force Base, EPA
ID: NY4571924774, OU 18, Plattsburgh, NY, 6/20/2003, EPA/ROD/R02-03/022
(June 20); http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0203022.pdf.
U.S. AF, 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, EPA/ROD/R09-04/002 (Dec. 1);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0904002.pdf.
U.S. AF, 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, 2005); http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0205015.pdf.
U.S. AF, 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 21);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0804104.pdf.
U.S. AF, 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,
06/07/1996, EPA/ROD/R08-96/124 (June 7);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0896124.pdf.
U.S. AF, 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.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008090002420.pdf.
U.S. AF, 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), Lang ley Air Force Base, Virginia
(Nov.); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008030002117.pdf.
December 2009
Page B-67
-------
U.S. AF, 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.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008030002441.pdf.
U.S. AF, 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/fulltext/r0786006.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, DC, 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, DC, 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, OU 01, Jefferson Township, OH, 06/29/1989, EPA/ROD/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/fulltext/r0589097.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 6), 1990, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Rogers Road Municipal
Landfill, EPA ID: ARD981055809, OU01, 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.gov/oswer/riskassessment/raqsb/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-
91/011B, 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,
04/28/1993, EPA/ROD/R06-93/086;
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 (Apr. 8); 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: American Crossarm &
Conduit Co., EPA ID: WAD057311094, OU01, Chehalis, WA, 06/30/1993,
EPA/ROD/R10-93/060 (May);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1093060.pdf.
December 2009
Page B-68
-------
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, DC.
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/R10-94/077 (July 2);
http://www.epa.qov/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 U.S. ACE (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, OU 01, 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://www.epa.gOv/superfund/health/conmedia/soil/index.htm#user
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.qov/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, OU 01, Anchorage, AK, 07/16/1996,
EPA/ROD/R10-96/141 (July 16);
http://www.epa.gov/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, 09/17/1996, 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/ EPA/ROD/R07-
97/030 (Dec. 13) http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0797030.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 1997a, Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST): Annual Update, FY
1997 (July), Office of Research and Development and Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Region 10), 1997b, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Old Navy Dump/Manchester
Laboratory (USEPA/NOAA), EPA ID: WA8680030931, OU 01, Manchester, WA,
09/30/1997, EPA/ROD/R10-97/201 (Sept. 30);;
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1097201.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 6), 1997c, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Lincoln Creosote, EPA ID:
LAD981060429, OU 01, Bossier, Louisiana, 11/26/1997, EPA/ROD/R06-98/047
(Nov. 26); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0698047.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 8), 1997d, EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Petrochem
Recycling Corp./Ekotek Plant, EPA ID: UTD093119196, OU 01, Salt Lake City, UT,
December 2009
Page B-69
-------
12/09/1997, EPA/ESD/R08-98/175 (Dec. 9);
http://www.epa.gov/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
(April 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/AM D/R05-98/101 (Feb. 2Q);
http://www.epa.gov/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.gov/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 (Mar. 31);
http://www.epa.qov/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 (Region 5), 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://www.epa.gov/Region4/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
(Feb. 14); http://www.epa.gov/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.
U.S. EPA (Region 9), 2001, EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Tucson
International Airport Area, AZD980737530, OU 02, Tucson, AZ, 05/04/2001,
EPA/ESD/R09-01 /612 (Apr. 4);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e0901612.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2002a, Surface Soil Samples Analytical Results Summary: Poles
Incorporated Dioxin/Furan Sampling, Oldtown, ID (Aug.);
http://vosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/9f3c21896330b4898825687b007a0f33/434
a255cbae5217d88256b560065cb04/$FILE/Soil%20Results.PDF.
December 2009
Page B-70
-------
U.S. EPA (Region 6), 2002b, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Marion Pressure Treating,
EPA ID: LAD008473142, OU 01, Marion, Louisiana, 06/28/2002, EPA/ROD/R06-02/009;
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0602009.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 5), 2002c, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Sangamo Electric Dump/
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge (USDOI), EPA ID: IL8143609487, OU 04,
Carterville, IL, 09/12/2002, EPA/ROD/R05-02/044 (Sept. 12);
http://www.epa.gov/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 (Feb. 19);
http://www.deq.state.ok.us/LPDnew/HW/02screentable.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2003c, Explanation of Significant Differences for the Record of Decision
for the Test Area North Operable Unit 1-10 (Apr.), with cover sheet 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
(Mar. 26); 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, OU 01, Fairbanks, AK, 06/17/2003, EPA/ESD/R10-
03/009 (Jun. 17); http://www.epa.gov/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.gov/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
(Sept. 18); 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.gov/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.gov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/hhmemo.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 9), 2004a, Primary Remediation Goal Table (Oct.);
http://www.epa.gov/region09/superfund/prg/files/04prgtable.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.gov/region09/superfund/prg/files/04usersguide.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,
EPA/ROD/R2004020001421 (April 6);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r20040200Q1421.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.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r20040200Q1417.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
December 2009
Page B-71
-------
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.gov/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.qov/superfund/sites/fivevear/f04-10004.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 2005a, Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, EPA/630/P-03/001F (March);
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordispIav.cfm?deid=116283, as cited in VADEQ,
2008c Voluntary 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.qov/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/fiveyear/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.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001445.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2006b, Poles, Incorporated Integrated Assessment (May 26);
http://vosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/9f3c21896330b4898825687b007a0f33/434
a255cbae5217d88256b560065cb04?QpenDocument.
U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2006c, 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.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001161.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2006d, 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, OU 01, Jacksonville, FL, 08/24/2006, EPA/ROD/R2006040001162
(Aug. 24); http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001162.pdf.
December 2009
Page B-72
-------
U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2006e, 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), 2006f, 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/fulltext/r2006060001482.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2006g, 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.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001242.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region4), 2007, Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection:
Picayune Wood Treating Site Picayune, Pearl River County, Mississippi (Sept.);
http://www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2007040001948.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/recordisplav.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(previous 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://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/CLEANUP.NSF/sites/fiveyr/$FILE/Arctic%20Surplus%20Firs
t%20121808.pdf.
U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2008e, Lower Roanoke River, Weyerhaeuser Operable Unit 2, Martin
County, NC, Part 2: The Decision Summary (Sept.);
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r20080400Q2458.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/ragsf/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/reg3hwmd/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 December 2009).
U.S. EPA (Region 9), 2009d, Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals]
http://www.epa.gov/region09/superfund/prg/ (page last updated May 27, 2009; accessed
December 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;
December 2009
Page B-73
-------
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-
concentration_table/Generic_Tables/pdf/ressoil_sl_table_run_APRIL2009.pdf (page last
updated June 8, 2009; accessed December 2009).
U.S. EPA (Region 3), 2009f, User's Guide (for the Risk-Based Concentration Table), Mid-
Atlantic Risk Assessment; http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-
concentration table/usersquide.htm#parameters (page last updated May 20, 2009;
accessed December 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. gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.cfm?deid=209690.
UT, 2006, Utah LUST Program Screening Levels for Soil and Groundwater (Summer);
http://www.undergroundtanks.utah.gov/docs/tank news sum06.pdf.
VADEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality), 2008c, Voluntary Remediation Program
Risk Assessment Guidance (Sept. 10); http://www.deg.virginia.gov/vrprisk/raguide.html.
VADEQ, 2009a, Table 2.9, Selection of Contaminants of Concern Soil: Restricted
(Commercial/Industrial), Voluntary Remediation Program (June 23);
http://www.deg.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/vrprisk/files/screen/vrp29.xls.
VADEQ, 2009b, Table 2.5, Selection of Contaminants of Concern Soil: Unrestricted
(Residential), Voluntary Remediation Program (July 8);
http://www.deg.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/vrprisk/files/screen/vrp25.xls
VADEQ, 2009c, Table 4.2, Cancer Toxicity Data (July 8);
http://www.deg.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/vrprisk/files/toxicitv/vrp42.xls.
Van den Berg M., et al., 1998, Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for
Humans and Wildlife, Environmental Health Perspectives. 106(16):775-792;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533232/.
Van den Berg M., et al., 2006, The 2005 World Health Organization Re-evaluation of Human
and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds,
Toxicological Sciences, 93(2):223-241 (July);
http://toxsci.oxfordiournals.org/cgi/reprint/93/2/223?iikev=pio0gXG6dghrndD&kevtype=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.gov/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://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/9406.pdf.
WADEC, 2009, Cleanup Levels and Risk Calculations (CLARC Database Search),
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecv/clarc/Reporting/CLARCReporting.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, 84:209-219.
WHO (World Health Organization), 2005, Project for the Re-evaluation of Human and
Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) of Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds,
December 2009
Page B-74
-------
Interational Programme on Chemical Safety, Chemicals Assessment (with link to Van
den Berg et al., 2006); 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, 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), 2009, Fact Sheet #12: Soil Cleanup
Level Look-up Table, Voluntary Remediation Program (Jun. 30);
http://deq.state.wv.us/volremedi/downloads/Current%20Fact%20Sheets/FS 12.pdf.
December 2009
Page B-75
------- |