Risk Evaluation for 1,4-dioxane Systematic Review Supplemental File: Data Quality Evaluation of Environmental Releases and Occupational Exposure Data Casrn: 123-91-1


v>EPA
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
United States	Office of Chemical Safety and
Environmental Protection Agency	Pollution Prevention
Risk Evaluation for
1,4-Dioxane
Systematic Review Supplemental File:
Data Quality Evaluation of
Environmental Releases and Occupational Exposure Data
CASRN: 123-91-1
June 2019

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
This document is a compilation of tables for the data extraction and evaluation for
1,4-Dioxane. Each table shows the data point or set or information element that was
extracted and evaluated from a data source in accordance with Appendix D of the Application
of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations. If the source contains more than one data set
or information element, the review provides an overall confidence score for each data set or
information element that is found in the source. Therefore, it is possible that a source may
have more than one overall quality/ confidence score.
Table of Contents
Releases to the Environment
Occupational Exposure
Facility
Page
3
52
134
Explanatory Notes
These explanatory notes provide context to understand the short comments in the data evaluation tables.
Domain
Metric
Description of Comments Field
Reliability
Methodology
Indicates the sampling/analytical methodology, estimation method, or
type of publication
Repre sentativene ss
Geographic Scope
Indicates the country of the study, publication, or underlying data
Applicability
Indicates whether the data are for a condition of use within scope of the
Risk Evaluation
Temporal Representativeness
Provides the year of study, publication, or underlying data
Sample Size
Describes the distribution of the sample or underlying data
Accessibility / Clarity
Metadata Completeness
Describes the completeness of the metadata
Variability and Uncertainty
Metadata Completeness
Indicates if study or publication addresses variability and uncertainty of
the data or information
2

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Releases to the Environment
3

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Nicnas,. 1998. 1, 4-Dioxane. Priority existing chemical assessment report No. 7.
Type of Data Source
Releases to the Environment; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID
3827412
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Commercial Use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	Lab use
Release Days per Year:	50
Waste Treatment Method:	Sewage Treatment Plant
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NICNAS
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
Medium
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
2
4
N/A
Australia
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
1998
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Limited discussion of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.5

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Nicnas,. 1998. 1, 4-Dioxane. Priority existing chemical assessment report No. 7.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID	3827412
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Release Days per Year:
Number of Sites:
Waste Treatment Method:
Commercial, Potential Consumer Use
Film processing (film cement use)
50
10
Sewage Treatment Plant
EVALUATION




Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF* Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1 1 NICNAS

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2
Metric 3
Metric 4
Metric 5
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium	x 1
High	x 2
Medium	x 2
N/A
2	Australia
2	occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
4	1998
N/A No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness	High	X 1	1 Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium x 1
2 Limited discussion of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.5

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
5

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Nicnas,. 1998. 1, 4-Dioxane. Priority existing chemical assessment report No. 7.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID	3827412
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Release Days per Year:
Number of Sites:
Waste Treatment Method:
Processing
Pharmaceutical manufacture
50
1
Sewage Treatment Plant
EVALUATION




Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF* Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1 1 NICNAS

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2
Metric 3
Metric 4
Metric 5
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium	x 1
High	x 2
Medium	x 2
N/A
2	Australia
2	occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
4	1998
N/A No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness	High	X 1	1 Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium x 1
2 Limited discussion of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.5

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
6

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Carex, Canada. 2017. Profiles & estimates: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source
Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
3978382
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Industrial Use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	Basic chemical mfg
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):	5 tonnes
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI)
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
2
2
N/A
Canada
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
2015
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
Does not address variability or uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^	High	1.4
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	2014. Toxic release inventory: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
Hero ID	3860452
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Release Source:
Disposal /Treatment Method:
Environmental Media:
Release or Emission Factor:
Release Estimation Method:
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr)
Disposal
All industries
Underground Injection Wells, Landfills, Air
Water, land, air
RY2015 TRI releases, multiple release and disposal categories
Self-reported by industry for TRI
1,291,650 lb/yr total on- and off-site disposal or other release
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating MWF* Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
US EPA, TRI, 'trusted source
Domain 2: Representative






Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
X
2
2
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
X
2
2
2015
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Low
X
1
3
No statistics
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness	Medium X 1	2 Includes most critical metadata, TRI methodology can be re-
viewed separately
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3 Does not address variability or uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.6

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: 1996. Solvents study.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Completed Exposure or
Hero ID 3860540
Risk Assessments;
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data



Life Cycle Stage:
Release Source:
Disposal /Treatment Method:
Environmental Media:
Release or Emission Factor:
Release Estimation Method:
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):
Number of Sites:
Waste Treatment Method:
Processing, Use, Disposal
Multiple, see p. 37
Incineration, energy recovery, fuel blending, WWT - tanks, POTW,
WWT, Unspecified disposal
Land, water, air
Contains reported volumes and total loading by waste type (waste wa-
ters, solids, organic waste)
Facility reporting, 1993 RCRA 3007 Questionairre
207 million kg/yr, see p. 41 for brekadown by management practice
27
Multiple
EVALUATION
Domain Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
X 1
1
US EPA Solvents Study, trusted source
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Geographic Scope
Metric 3: Applicability
Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness
Metric 5: Sample Size
High
High
Low
Low
X 1
x 2
x 2
x 1
1
2
6
3
US
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
1993 RCRA 3007 Questionairre
Distribution of samples is qualitative or characterized by no
statistics
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Limited discussion of variability and uncertainty
Continued on next page

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
1996. Solvents study.
Releases to the Environment; Completed Exposure or
3860540
Risk Assessments;

EVALUATION
Domain
Metric Rating
MWF* Score
Comments
Overall Quality Determination^ Medium
1.8


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Dow Chemical, Company. 1989. Dow Chemical information submitted to EPA pursuant to section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances
Contract Act (TSCA).
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3861185
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Release Source:
Disposal /Treatment Method:
Environmental Media:
Release or Emission Factor:
Release Estimation Method:
Waste Treatment Method:
P2 Control & percent Efficiency:
Processing, non-incorporative
Process solvent/stabilizer in chlorinated solvents
Aqueous waste stream
Water
Not specified
laboratory simulation and analysis
Condensor, then transferred to sol vent-waste separator; or organic va-
pors from degreasing opeartions may be treated by activated carbon
adsorption
Reports removal efficiency of activated sludge stream and carbon ad-
sorption, see p. 27
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Dow Chemical information request response
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
x 2
6
1985
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Medium
x 1
2
Distribution of samples is qualitative or characterized by no
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness	Medium x 1	2 includes most critical metadata
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness	Low	X 1	3 Does not address variability or uncertainty
Continued on next page
11

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:	Dow Chemical, Company. 1989. Dow Chemical information submitted to EPA pursuant to section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances
Contract Act (TSCA).
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3861185
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating MWF* Score
Comments
Overall Quality Determination^

Medium 1.9


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
12

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	1995. OPPT chemical fact sheets: 1, 4-Dioxane fact sheet: Support document.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3860496
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Release Source:
Environmental Media:
Release or Emission Factor:
Release Estimation Method:
Manufacturing, processing, and use
TRI-reporting industries
Air, water, land
1992 TRI - Total 1.13 million pounds released, 680 thousand pounds
to atmosphere, 450 thousand pounds to surface waters, and 33 hundred
pounds were released onto the land.
Self-reported by industry for TRI
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating MWF* Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
x 1
US EPA OPPT Chemical Fact Sheet, trusted source
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
X
2
2
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
X
2
6
1995 literature search
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Medium
X
1
2
Distribution of samples is characterized by a range with uncer
tain statistics. It is unclear if analysis is representative.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness	High	X 1	1 Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium x 1
2 Limited discussion of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
Medium
1.7

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
13

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
U.S, E. P. A.. 2015. TSCA work plan chemical problem formulation and initial assessment. 1,4-Dioxane.
Releases to the Environment; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
3809027
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Release Source:
Disposal /Treatment Method:
Environmental Media:
Release or Emission Factor:
Release Estimation Method:
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr)
Number of Sites:
Manufacturing, processing, and use
Combined
Incineration
Environmental releases of 1,4-dioxane to air and water may contribute
to ecological and general population exposures. The potential for release
of 1,4-dioxane to air is high due to the high vapor pressure of 1,4-dioxane
and disposal through incineration. Industrial and commercial use of 1,4-
dioxane and presence in consumer products suggest releases to water are
possible
Reports releases from TRI, notes generally decreasing total releases from
1988 to 2007
Self-reported by industry for TRI
Multiple estimates from TRI, see document
39 to 45
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
TSCA Work Plan Chemical
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
Scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
x 2
2
2015
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Medium
x 1
2
Distribution of samples is characterized by a range with uncer-

tain statistics. It is unclear if analysis is representative.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-

sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Continued on next page
14

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
U.S, E. P. A.. 2015. TSCA work plan chemical problem formulation and initial assessment. 1,4-Dioxane.
Releases to the Environment; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
3809027
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF* Score Comments

Metric 7; Metadata Completeness
High
X 1 1 clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.1

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Atsdr,. 2012. Toxicological profile for 1,4-dioxane.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
Hero ID	3982333
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Release Source:
Disposal /Treatment Method:
Environmental Media:
Release or Emission Factor:
Release Estimation Method:
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):
Manufacturing, processing, and use
All stages
TRI-reporting industries
Incineration, POTW
Environmental releases of 1,4-dioxane to air and water may contribute
to ecological and general population exposures. The potential for release
of 1,4-dioxane to air is high due to the high vapor pressure of 1,4-dioxane
and disposal through incineration. Industrial and commercial use of 1,4-
dioxane and presence in consumer products suggest releases to water are
possible
Reports releases from TRI, notes generally decreasing total releases from
1988 to 2007
Self-reported by industry for TRI
Multiple estimates from TRI, see document
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
ATSDR Toxicological Profile
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
Scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
x 2
2
2012
Metric 5:
Sample Size
High
x 1
1
TRI Sites
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity




Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Includes media, life cycle stage, and annual releases
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Continued on next page
16

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
Atsdr,. 2012. Toxicological profile for 1,4-dioxane.
Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
3982333


EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating MWF*
Score
Comments

Metric 7; Metadata Completeness
High x 1
1
States that TRI data isn't 100 percent reliable since only cer-
tain sites are required to report.
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.1


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Nih,. 2016. Report on carcinogens: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
Hero ID	3982327
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Release Source:
Environmental Media:
Release Estimation Method:
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):
Number of Sites:
Manufacturing, processing, and use
All stages
TRI-reporting industries
46 percent Air27 percent Surface water26 percent underground injection
Self-reported by industry for TRI
309,000 lb
53
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Department of Health and Human Services NTP
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
High
X 1
x 2
x 2
x 1
1
2
2
1
US
Scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
2016
TRI Sites
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Includes media and total releases
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
Does not address variability or uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.3
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
18

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Fujiwara, T.,Tamada, T.,Kurata, Y.,Ono, Y.,Kose, T.,Ono, Y.,Nishimura, F.,Ohtoshi, K.. 2008. Investigation of 1,4-dioxane
originating from incineration residues produced by incineration of municipal solid waste. Chemosphere.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
Hero ID	3579380
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Release Source:
Release or Emission Factor:
Number of Sites:
Disposal
Disposal
Incineration, landfill leachate
Up to 340 ug/L detected in leachate
2 landfills3 incineration sites
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating MWF* Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
x 1
Research paper from Chemosphere
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2
Metric 3
Metric 4
Metric 5
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium	X 1	2	Japan
High	x 2	2	Scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
High	x 2	2	2008
High	X 1	1	38 samples from landfill sites
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness	High	X 1	1 Includes total leachate produced/day, emission factors for
diosane form samples
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1 clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.1

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
19

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Chemistry Industry Association of, Canada. 2017. All substances emissions for 2012 and projections for 2015.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
Hero ID	3982361
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):
Number of Sites:
Manufacturing, processing, and use
All stages
4.8 tonnes in 2012 (Actual)6 tonnes in 2015 (projected)
2
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Chemistry Industry Assocation of Canada
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
Low
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
6
2
N/A
Canada
Unsure what scenario data is for
2012
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
Includes annual release for the two sites, but no other data
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
Does not address variability or uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
Medium
2.1
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
20

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Chemistry Industry Association of, Canada. 2017. All substances emissions for 2011 and projections for 2014.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
Hero ID	3982362
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):
Number of Sites:
Manufacturing, processing, and use
All stages
7.25 tonnes in 2011 (actual)7.3 tonnes in 2014 (projected)
1
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Chemistry Industry Assocation of Canada
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
Low
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
6
2
N/A
Canada
Unsure what scenario data is for
2011
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
Includes annual release for the site, but no other data
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
Does not address variability or uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
Medium
2.1
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
21

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Fl, D. E. P.. 2002. Gulf States Chemical: County Road 158: Lloyd, Florida: Jefferson County: Northeast district: Site lead:
Waste cleanup program: Approved for cleanup: February 28, 2002: HWC # 131.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
Hero ID	3986456
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Release Source:
Environmental Media:
Release or Emission Factor:
Disposal
Disposal
Runoff from leaking tanks, tank rinsate
Water
7.2 ug/L detected in sampling
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Florida DEP
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
High
X 1
x 2
x 2
x 1
1
2
2
1
US
Scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
2011
Multiple wells sampled
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Includes some sampling information, but not much information
about the processes performed at the plant
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
Does not address variability or uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.3
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
22

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
U.S, E. P. A.. 2006. Treatment Technologies for 1,4-Dioxane: Fundamentals and Field Applications.
Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
3809053
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Release Source:
Environmental Media:
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):
Number of Sites:
Waste Treatment Method:
P2 Control & percent Efficiency:
Manufacturing, processing, and use
All stages
2002 TRI Reporting industries
Water, air, land, off-site. Water is primary concern.
1,146,641 lb/yr total (lists amounts for each media)
11 listed in table
Advanced oxidation, bioremediation, adsorption (GAC)
Gives table with initial and final contaminant concentrations for different
sites and technologies
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF* Score Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1 1 EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3: Applicability
High
X
2
2
Scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness
Medium
X
2
4
2006
Metric 5: Sample Size
High
X
1
1
TRI Sites
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Medium
X
1
2
Includes media and total releases
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
States that TRI data isn't 100 percent reliable since only cer-

tain sites are required to report.
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.3

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
23

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Adeq,. 2012. Tucson International Airport Area (TIAA) overview: EPA cercla site.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 3982201
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data

Life Cycle Stage:
Waste Treatment Method:
Processing, and use
Advanced Oxidation Treatment system, Granular activated carbon
(GAC) to treat contaminated groundwater
EVALUATION
Domain Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
X 1
1
Arizona DEQ, EPA
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Geographic Scope
Metric 3: Applicability
Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness
Metric 5: Sample Size
High
Unacceptable
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
8
2
N/A
US
Groundwater remediation activities (out of scope)
2012
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
N/A - No Sampling
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
N/A - No Sampling
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.0.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
24

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Adeq,. 2017. National priorities list (NPL) sites (federal superfund): Tucson International Airport area (TIAA) overview.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 3982191
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data

N/A
N/A - No Sampling
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
N/A - No Sampling
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
2017. Pollution prevention search results, envirofacts database.
Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
3860453
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Release Source:
Disposal /Treatment Method:
Daily Release Quantity (kg/day):
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):
Number of Sites:
Waste Treatment Method:
P2 Control & percent Efficiency:
Use
Multiple Subcategories
NAICS code provided for each site
Pollution prevention method listed for each site
Pollution prevention method listed for each site
Lists current year and prior year releases
51 sites in the table with Dioxane releases
Pollution prevention method listed for each site
Pollution prevention method listed for each site, shows decrease in emis-
sions before and after
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
USEPA Envirofacts
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
High
X 1
x 2
x 2
x 1
1
2
2
1
US
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
Range: 2007-2015
TRI Sites
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Includes releases, NAICS, and P2/Efficiency
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
Does not address variability or uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.3
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
26

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Environment Canada, Health Canada. 2010. Screening assessment for the challenge 1,4-dioxane.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3981144
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Release Source:
Environmental Media:
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):
Disposal
Disposal
2006 TRI
air, water, underground injection
56 tonnes air, 22 tonnes water, 64 tonnes UI
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Environment Canada/Health Canada
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
x 2
2
2010
Metric 5:
Sample Size
High
x 1
1
TRI Sites
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.0


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
27

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Environment Canada, Health Canada. 2010. Screening assessment for the challenge 1,4-dioxane.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3981144
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Release Source:
Environmental Media:
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):
Disposal
Disposal
2006 NPRI Canada
air, water
13,800 kg air, 6,500 kg water
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Environment Canada/Health Canada
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
2
2
N/A
Canada
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
2010
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.1
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
28

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Matienzo, L. V.. 1989. Staff report on devefopment of treatment standards for non-RCRA solvent waste.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3982116
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Waste Treatment Method:
Disposal
Disposal
Describes different treatment methods for non-wastewater streams based
on solvent concentration in the stream
EVALUATION



Domain
Metric
Rating MWF* Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability



Metric 1:
Methodology
High x 1 1
California Department of Health Services
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3: Applicability
High
X
2
2
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness
Low
X
2
6
1989
Metric 5: Sample Size
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity





Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-





sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty





Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High


1.5

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
29

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Adeq,. 2017. National priorities list (NPL) sites (federal superfund): Air Force plant 44 (AFP-44)/Raytheon project area.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 3982188
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data

N/A
N/A - No Sampling
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
N/A - No Sampling
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
U.S, E. P. A.. 1978. OAQPS guideline series: Control of volatile organic emissions from manufacture of synthesized pharma-
ceutical products.
Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
3970050
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Release Source:
Environmental Media:
Release Estimation Method:
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):
Number of Sites:
P2 Control & percent Efficiency:
Use
Industrial Use - Pharmaceuticals
Dryers, reactors, distillation units, storage and transfer, filters, extrac-
tors, centrifuges, crystallizers (first 4 majority of emissions)
Air, contract haul
Cites EPA 1977 emission factors/equations for releases from storage
tanks. Also App B from process equipment.
2 metric tons to air, 41 metric tons to contract haulEmission estimates
from reactors for 4 companies with different control tech in Table 3-1
(in Mg/yr, not dioxane specific just VOCs). Other tables have emissions
from other steps in process, but do not list dioxane.
800 Pharmaceutical plants in the US and territories
Storage and transfer: vapor return lines, vent condensers, conserva-
tion vents, vent scrubbers, pressure tanks, carbon adsorbers, floating
roofs.Everything else: Condensers, scrubbers, and carbon adsorbers.
Methods for calculating efficencies in Ch.4
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
EPA OAQPS
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
x 2
6
1978
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Medium
x 1
2
Some data from 26 sites. Some information is general to all
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Continued on next page
31

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:	U.S, E. P. A.. 1978. OAQPS guideline series: Control of volatile organic emissions from manufacture of synthesized pharma-
ceutical products.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
Hero ID	3970050
EVALUATION




Domain

Metric
Rating
MWF* Score Comments

Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
X 1 1 Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness	High	X 1	1 clear documentation of variability and uncertainty - states gen-
eralizations are difficult since there is a lot of variability be-
tween plants and volumes of chemicals used
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.6

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
32

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	U.S, E. P. A.. 1992. The toxics release inventory. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
Hero ID	3982118
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Manufacturing, processing, and use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	All stages
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):	1,092,862 lbs total in 1988
EVALUATION






Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability






Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
EPA, TRI
Domain 2: Representative






Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Low
X
2
6
General overview of TRI, Gave a total release of dioxane for






one year
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
X
2
6
1992
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity





Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty





Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^	Low	2.3
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
33

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	1999. Revised Risk Assessment for the Air Characteristic Study Volume I Overview.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Published Models for Exposures or Releases;
Hero ID	1261630
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Release Source:
Release Estimation Method:
Disposal
Disposal
Waste management units, landfill
CHEMDAT8 Modeling
EVALUATION




Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF* Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1 1 EPA, OSW

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3: Applicability
High
X
2
2
Model for emissions from waste disposal
Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness
Medium
X
2
4
1999
Metric 5: Sample Size
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity





Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-





sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty





Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High


1.2

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
34

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
Ecjrc,. 2002. European Union risk assessment report: 1,4-dioxane. 2nd Priority List.
Releases to the Environment; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
196351
EXTRACTION
Parameter

Data



Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Environmental Media:
Release or Emission Factor:
Release Estimation Method:
Daily Release Quantity (kg/day):
Release Days per Year:
Number of Sites:
Manufacture, Processing
Manufacture, Processing
air, water, incineration
emission factors for different industries (Tables 3.2, 3.3, 3.5)
derived from US emissions factors, TRI and industry data
daily releases for different industries (Tables 3.2, 3.3, 3.5)
days/year for different industries (Tables 3.2, 3.3, 3.5)
5
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
European Chemicals Bureau
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
X 1
x 2
x 2
x 1
2
2
4
2
EU
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
2002
Some datasets are represented as ranges with averages and 90th
percentile, some are just ranges. The report provides recom-
mended final values, but it is unclear how they got them.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Some datasets are represented as ranges with averages and 90th
percentile, some are just ranges. The report provides recom-
mended final values, but it is unclear how they got them.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.6

Continued on next page
35

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
Ecjrc,. 2002. European Union risk assessment report:
Releases to the Environment; Completed Exposure or
196351
1,4-dioxane. 2nd Priority List.
Risk Assessments;

EVALUATION
Domain
Metric Rating
MWF* Score
Comments

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Aca,. 2015. Re: TSCA Work Plan Chemical Problem Formulaton and Initial Assessment for 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3809105
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Disposal /Treatment Method:
Environmental Media:
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):
Number of Sites:
Manufacturing, processing, and use
All stages
incineration, UI, waste broker
water, air, land
87,166 lb/y to airl9,134 to surface waterl,035,300 to UI and waste broker
41
EVALUATION






Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
2015 PF (US EPA)
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
N/A
X
X
X
1
2
2
1
2
2
N/A
US
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
2015
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High


1.0


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
37

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: 2017. Pollution prevention search results, envirofacts database.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
Hero ID 3860453
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):
Number of Sites:
P2 Control & percent Efficiency:
Processing, Use, Disposal
Processing, Use, Disposal
Total releases for specific facilities, shows previous year and percent re-
duction.
51
List pollution prevention info and percent reduction between 2 years
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
EnviroFacts
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
2
2
N/A
US
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
2009-2015
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Povides total release and some P2 information.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
Just lists data.
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.4

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
U.S, E. P. A.. 1992. The toxics release inventory. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials.
Type of Data Source
Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
Hero ID
3982118
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Disposal
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	Disposal
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):	1,092,862 lb/yr
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
EPA, TRI
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
Low
Low
N/A
X
X
X
1
2
2
1
6
6
N/A
US
Unsure what scenario data is for
1987-1988
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Low
X
1
3
Provides total release for two years
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
X
1
3
Just lists data.
Overall Quality Determination^
Low


2.5


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	U.S, E. P. A.. 2017. Preliminary Information on Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution, Use, and Disposal: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3986663
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):
Number of Sites:
Manufacturing, processing, use
Manufacturing, processing, use
4,224,670 lbs
25 mfgO import!3 proc21 other uses (2015 TRI)
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
EPA Use Dossier
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
2
2
N/A
US
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
2017
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Lists data sources
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Limited discussion of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.1

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
40

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	N. C. State University. 2017. Identification and reduction of pollution sources in textile wet processing.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
Hero ID	3986892
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Release or Emission Factor:
Use
Industrial Use -
0.65 lb/hr
Textiles

EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF* Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
X 1
2
Department of Textile ChemistrySchool of TextilesNorth Car-
olina State University
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
Low
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
2
6
N/A
US
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
1986
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.6

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
41

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
EXTRACTION
Parameter Data
Life Cycle Stage: Use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Use
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
USGS, USDOI, EPA
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
x 2
8
More for fate modeling than releases. Use is for waste-oil re-

finery (out of scope)
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Medium
x 2
4
2002
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-

sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4.0 Metric Mean Score: 2.0.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
Usgs,. 2002. Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in the Vicinity of a Former Waste-Oil
Refinery near Westville, Indiana, 1997" 2000.
Releases to the Environment; Published Models for Exposures or Releases;
3827393
42

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
U.S, E. P. A.. 2016. Micro auto gasification system: Emission characterization.
Type of Data Source
Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
Hero ID
3970140
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage: Disposal
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Military waste (out of scope)
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
EPA
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
x 2
8
Release data for military waste (food waste, standard waste,

etc). Most dioxane samples non-detect
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
x 2
2
2016
Metric 5:
Sample Size
High
x 1
1
8 tests, multiple waste types
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-

sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4.0 Metric Mean Score: 1.7.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
43

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
European Commission Joint Research, Centre. 2002. Summary risk assessment report: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source
Releases to the Environment; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID
3970671
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Manufacturing, Processing
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	Manufacturing, processing
Release or Emission Factor:	Summary of release information from 2002 EU Risk Assessment (HERO
ID: 196351)
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
European Chemicals Bureau
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
Medium
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
2
4
N/A
EU
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
2002
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^	High	1.4
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
44

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 1990. Madison County Sanitary Landfill: 1998 Northeast Rocky Ford Rd (County Rd 591): Madison, FL:
County: Madiosn: District: Northeast: Site Lead: EPA: HWC# 076.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 3982214
EXTRACTION
Parameter Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Disposal /Treatment Method:
Release or Emission Factor:
P2 Control & percent Efficiency:
Disposal
uncertain
landfill
more than 3.2 ug/L present in onsite extraction wells
neeed to put in new treatment system that can treat dioxane
EVALUATION
Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 EPA
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
us
Metric 3:
Applicability
Medium
X
2
4
Disposal, but missing a lot of useful information
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
X
2
2
2016
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A
N/A No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A
N/A No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
45

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 1986. Peak Oil-Bay Drum Company: State Rd 574 and Faulkenburg Rd: Tampa, FL: County: Hillsborough:
District: Southwest: Site lead: EPA HWC# 021.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 3982213
EXTRACTION
Parameter Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Release Source:
Release or Emission Factor:
Disposal
Disposal
Drum Recycling, then a depository for roofing shingles and construction
debris
Up to 390 ug/L in area monitoring wells
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
EPA
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
x 2
8
Releases related to 1,1,1-TCA, out of scope
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
x 2
2
2016
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Low
x 1
3
2 samples
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
only gives one data point
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
no discussion
Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4.0 Metric Mean Score: 2.3.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
46

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Nc, Denr. 1995. Case study: Hoechst Celanese Corporation.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 3982112
EXTRACTION
Parameter

Data

Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Use
Textiles

EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
x 1
1
NCDENR
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
Unacceptable
Low
N/A
x 1
x 2
x 2
1
8
6
N/A
US
Releases related to 1,1,1-TCA, out of scope
1995
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4.0 Metric Mean Score: 2.7.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
47

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
U.S, E. P. A.. 1995. 1995 Toxics release inventory public data release overview.
Type of Data Source
Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
Hero ID
3982106
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Manufacturing, processing, and use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	All stages
Release or Emission Factor:	TRI releases from 1995
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
EPA
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
Low
High
X 1
x 2
x 2
x 1
1
2
6
1
US
TRI data include occupational scenarios within scope, al-
though data not broken down by sites or industries.
1995
TRI Sites
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
TRI data only include release media; no other metadata in-
cluded.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
Medium

1.7

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
48

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Sherry, S.,Belliveau, M.,Donegan, D.,Gianolini, K.,Sivas, D.. 1985. High tech and toxics: A guide for local communities.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 3982107
EXTRACTION
Parameter

Data

Life Cycle Stage:
Release Source:

Disposal
BASF facility in Bedofrd, MA

EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating MWF* Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium x 1 2
Golden Empire Health Planning Center
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
us
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
X
2
8
Does not provide engineering information. More relevant for
community exposures
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
X
2
6
1985
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A
N/A No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A
N/A No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4.0 Metric Mean Score: 2.8.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
49

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
U.S, E. P. A.. 1993. Categories of released chemicals reported to the Toxic Release Inventory: 1990 data.
Type of Data Source
Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data;
Hero ID
3982108
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Manufacturing, processing, and use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	All stages
Release or Emission Factor:	TRI releases from 1990
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
EPA
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
Low
High
X 1
x 2
x 2
x 1
1
2
6
1
US
TRI data include occupational scenarios within scope.
1990
TRI Sites
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
TRI data only include release media; no other metadata in-
cluded.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
Medium

1.7

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
50

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Sapphire, Group. 2007. Voluntary Children"s Chemical Evaluation Program [VCCEP]. Tiers 1, 2, and 3 Pilot Submission
For 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID 3809038
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Release or Emission Factor:
Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr):
Number of Sites:
Manufacturing, processing, and use
All stages
233,349 lb. wasreleased directly to the environment (38.4 percent to
water, 49.3 percent to air and 12.4 percent to land)
821,067 lbs (2004)
51
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
X 1
2
Ferro Corp submission for VCCEP
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
TRI data include occupational scenarios within scope, al-

though data not broken down by sites or industries.
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Medium
x 2
4
2007
Metric 5: Sample Size
High
x 1
TRI Sites
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
TRI data only include release media; no other metadata in-
cluded.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.6

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Occupational Exposure
52

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Niosh,. 1977. Criteria for a recommended standard occupational exposure to dioxane.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	62937
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Physical Form:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Sites:
Number of Workers:
Exposure Duration:
Manufacture
Manufacture of Dioxane
Liquid
1,000 - 2,000 ppm200 - 300 ppm
4
2,500 in the US exposed (not including 1,1,1-trichloroethane mfg)
3-5 minl5 min
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
High
x 1
1
NIOSH report
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Medium
x 2
4
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation -





"exposure data" is from toxicology studies, not worker expo-





sure during manufacture
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
x 2
6
1977
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High x 1
1
Assessment or report clearly documents its data sources, as-
sessment methods, results, and assumptions.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High x 1
1
The assessment addresses variability and uncertainty in the
results. Uncertainty is well characterized
Overall Quality Determination^
Medium
1.8


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
53

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Nicnas,. 1998. 1, 4-Dioxane. Priority existing chemical assessment report No. 7.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID 3827412
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Physical Form:
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Type of Measurement or Method:
Worker Activity:
Type of Sampling:
Engineering Control & percent Exposure Reduction:
Commercial Use
Lab use
Not specified
Inhalation
1.8 ppm (highest)
TWA
solvent extraction and TLC
personal monitoring
film cupboards/hoods, dilution ventilation
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NICNAS
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
Medium
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
2
4
N/A
Australia
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
1998
N/A. Assessment uses modeling to estimate occupational ex-
posures; report does not include any monitoring data.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Limited discussion of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.5

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
54

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Nicnas,. 1998. 1, 4-Dioxane. Priority existing chemical assessment report No. 7.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID	3827412
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Physical Form:
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Type of Measurement or Method:
Worker Activity:
PPE:
Commercial, potential consumer use
Film Cement
Not specified
Inhalation
 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
55

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	ToxNet Hazardous Substances Data, Bank. 2017. HSDB: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3970270
EXTRACTION
Parameter

Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Physical Form:
Route of Exposure:
Number of Workers:

Industrial Use
Not specified
Inhalation, dermal
50-99 per plant429,330 in the US
EVALUATION


Domain
Metric
Rating MWF* Score Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High X 1 1 2012 TSCA IUR Data (per plant data), NIOSH NOES (Total
worker data)
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Geographic Scope	High x 1	1 US
Metric 3: Applicability	High	x 2	2 Industrial Use
Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low	x 2	6 NIOSH NOES from 1981-1983
Metric 5: Sample Size	Medium X 1	2 2012 TSCA IUR Data (per plant data), NIOSH NOES (Total
worker data)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low x 1
3
No discussion/not applicable
Overall Quality Determination^
Medium
1.8


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Hhs,. 1978. Occupational health guideline for dioxane.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3978118
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Physical Form:
Engineering Control & percent Exposure Reduction:
Industrial Use
Textile processing; Wood pulping; Histology; Scintillation
Not specified
Textile processing, Wood pulping: Local exhaust ventilation, general di-
lution ventilationHistology: local exhaust ventilationScintillation: Gen-
eral dilution ventilation
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NIOSH and OSHA
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
Low
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
2
6
N/A
US
Wetting and dispersing agent in textiles, wood pulping, prepa-
ration of histological samples, and liquid scintillation medium
1978
N/A - no sampling data
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
No discussion/not applicable
Overall Quality Determination^
Medium

1.8


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
57

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Carex, Canada. 2017. Profiles & estimates: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3978382
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Physical Form:
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Type of Measurement or Method:
Worker Activity:
Number of Workers:
Industrial Use
Packaging final products
Not specified
Inhalation
40 mg/m3
European Model
Mixing and bagging final products
3,600 Canadians exposed in the workplace
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
CAREX Canada
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
2
2
N/A
Canada
Industrial Use
2016
N/A - no sampling data
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Mentions a "European occupational exposure assessment" for
the models, but doesn"t specify the assessment or the models
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
No discussion/not applicable
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.5
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
58

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Carex, Canada. 2017. 1,4-Dioxane- Occupational Estimate.
Type of Data Source
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
3978383
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Industrial Use
Physical Form:	Not specified
Number of Workers:	Basic Chem MFG - 200Plastic product MFG - 200
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
CAREX Canada
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
2
2
N/A
Canada
Industrial Use
2017
N/A - no sampling data
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Assessment or report clearly documents results, methods, and
assumptions. Data sources are generally described but not
fully transparent.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
The assessment does not address variability or uncertainty.
Overall Quality Determination^	High	1.5
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
59

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Buffler, P. A.,Wood, S. M.,Suarez, L.,Kilian, D. J.. 1978. Mortality follow-up of workers exposed to 1,4-dioxane. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	62914
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Physical Form:
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Sites:
Worker Activity:
Number of Workers:
Manufacturing
Not specified
Inhalation
<25 ppm (estimation)
1
Describes exposure to three groups - 1) control operators who monitor
operations in open-air plant from enclosed room, also take samples; 2)
loading operators (to tank cars); 3) maintenance personnel who repair
equipment
100
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Journal of Occupational Medicine, trusted source
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
Low
High
X 1
x 2
x 2
x 1
1
2
6
1
US
direct occupational scenario
1978
Full characterization
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clearly documented
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.4

Continued on next page
60

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:	Buffler, P. A.,Wood, S. M.,Suarez, L.,Kilian, D. J.. 1978. Mortality follow-up of workers exposed to 1,4-dioxane. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	62914
EVALUATION
Domain	Metric	Rating MWF* Score	Comments
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
61

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Buffler, P. A.,Wood, S. M.,Suarez, L.,Kilian, D. J.. 1978. Mortality follow-up of workers exposed to 1,4-dioxane. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID 62914
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Physical Form:
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Sites:
Worker Activity:
Number of Workers:
Processing
Not specified
inhalation
<25 ppm (estimation)
1
Dioxane processing subunit within vinyl-chloride vinyldiene department
65
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Journal of Occupational Medicine, trusted source
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
Low
High
X 1
x 2
x 2
x 1
1
2
6
1
US
direct occupational scenario
1978
Full characterization
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clearly documented
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.4
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
62

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Jezewska, A.,SzewczyAska, M.,WoA°nica, A.. 2014. [Occupational exposure to airborne chemical substances in paintings
conservators]. Medycyna Pracy.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	2539080
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Physical Form:
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Samples:
Number of Sites:
Type of Measurement or Method:
Worker Activity:
Type of Sampling:
Use
Painting Studio
Vapor
inhalation
110 to 1,055 mg/m3 depending on activity
5
2
GC-FID
cleaning of the frame, cleaning of image
Sampling tube, methods listed
EVALUATION







Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score

Comments
Domain 1: Reliability







Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
X
1
2
OECD source. OECD
nations expected to use acceptable






methods.

Domain 2: Representative







Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
Medium
X
1
2
OECD, Poland

Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
X
2
8
Out of scope

Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
X
2
2
2014

Metric 5:
Sample Size
Low
X
1
3
Unclear - most of paper
is not in English
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity






Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
Unacceptable
X
1
4
Most of paper is not in
English; therefore, needed metadata






are not provided.

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
Unclear - most of paper is not in English
Continued on next page
63

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:	Jezewska, A.,SzewczyAska, M.,WoA°nica, A.. 2014. [Occupational exposure to airborne chemical substances in paintings
conservators]. Medycyna Pracy.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	2539080
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating MWF* Score Comments
Overall Quality Determination^

Unacceptable 4.0 Metric Mean Score: 2.7.

** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
64

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	2017. Chemical data reporting: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3860451
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Manufacturing
Physical Form:	liquid
Number of Sites:	1
Number of Workers:	50 to 99
EVALUATION
Domain	Metric	Rating MWF* Score	Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology	High	x 1	1 US EPA CDR, trusted source
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
X
2
2
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
X
2
2
2017
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Medium
X
1
2
Distribution of samples is characterized by a range with uncer
tain statistics. It is unclear if analysis is representative.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness	Low	X 1	3 CDR Site data - underlying methods, sources, assumptions not
transparaent
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3 No discussion/not applicable
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.6

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
65

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
TSCA Work Plan Chemical
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
x 2
2
2015
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Medium
x 1
2
Distribution of samples is characterized by a range with uncer-
tain statistics. It is unclear if analysis is representative.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clearly documented - this data point exists within a range (see
other data from this source)
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.1

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
TSCA Work Plan Chemical
Domain 2: Representative

1.1

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 2015. TSCA work plan chemical problem formulation and initial assessment. 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID 3809027
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Physical Form:
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Type of Measurement or Method:
Use
Cleaning agent
Vapor
Inhalation
TWA: typical - 15 mg/m3; worst case 50 mg/m3
TWA
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
TSCA Work Plan Chemical
Domain 2: Representative

1.1

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 2015. TSCA work plan chemical problem formulation and initial assessment. 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID 3809027
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Physical Form:
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Type of Measurement or Method:
Use
Paint
Vapor
Inhalation
TWA: typical - 2 mg/m3; worst case 11 mg/m3
TWA
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
TSCA Work Plan Chemical
Domain 2: Representative

1.1

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 2015. TSCA work plan chemical problem formulation and initial assessment. 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID 3809027
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Physical Form:
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Type of Measurement or Method:
Use
Lab Solvent
Vapor
Inhalation
TWA: typical - 5 mg/m3; worst case 25 mg/m3
TWA
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
TSCA Work Plan Chemical
Domain 2: Representative

1.1

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
U.S, E. P. A.. 2017. Information on the various spray polyurethane foam products.
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
3970070
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Physical Form:
Route of Exposure:
Worker Activity:
Engineering Control & percent Exposure Reduction:
PPE:
Use
Spray polyurethane foam
Aerosol, Vapor, Dust
Inhalation, dermal
" During application " After application " During heat-generating pro-
cesses such as drilling, welding, or sanding " During fires
-Ventilation and contianment practices-Special procedures for permit re-
quired confined spaces
- 2 Component HP: Supplied air respirator, eye protection, chemical re-
sistant clothing and gloves- 2-Component LP: Air purifying respirator,
eye protection, chemical resistant clothing and gloves- OCF: eye protec-
tion, chemical resistant clothing and gloves
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating MWF* Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
EPA
Domain 2: Representative






Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
X
2
2
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
X
2
2
2016
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity





Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-






sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty





Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
Low
X
1
3
Document does not address variability or uncertainty
Continued on next page
71

-------

PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

— continued from previous page
Source Citation:
U.S, E. P. A.. 2017. Information on the various spray polyurethane foam products.
Type of Data Source
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
3970070
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments
Overall Quality Determination^	High	1.2
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
72

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Nrc,. 1981. Prudent practices for handling hazardous chemicals in laboratories.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3982104
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Route of Exposure:
Engineering Control & percent Exposure Reduction:
PPE:
Use
Laboratory
Inhalation, dermal
Recommended: Hood
Recommended: Nitrile rubber for gloves and other materials
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating MWF* Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
National Research Council
Domain 2: Representative






Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
X
2
2
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
X
2
6
1981
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity





Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-






sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty





Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
Clearly documented
Overall Quality Determination^
High


1.5

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
73

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Oehha,. 2007. Occupational health hazard risk assessment project for California: Identification of chemicals of concern,
possible risk assessment methods, and examples of health protective occupational air concentrations.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID	3982225
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Manufacturing, processing, use
All life cycle stages
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF* Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology	High	X 1	1 California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environ-
mental Health
Domain 2: Representative






Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
X
2
8
Doesn't provide data applicable to risk assessment (primarily






provides recommended exposure limits)
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Medium
X
2
4
2007
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity





Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-






sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty





Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-






sumptions
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable


4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.0.

** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
74

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
EXTRACTION
Parameter Data
Life Cycle Stage: Processing/use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Processing/use
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments

Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Florida Department of Health

Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US

Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
x 2
8
Exposure data for general population.
Didn"t end up sampling

for 1,4-dioxane

Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
x 2
2
2009

Metric 5:
Sample Size
High
x 1
1
Full characterization

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources,
methods, results and as-

sumptions

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources,
methods, results and as-

sumptions

Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 1.7.

** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
Atsdr,. 2009. Health consultation: Indoor air quality: Raytheon area: St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida: EPA facility
ID: FLD004100152, Part 2.
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
3982212
75

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Osha,. 2004. Personal protective equipment.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 3978348
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
PPE:
Manufacturing, processing, use
All life cycle stages
General information about types of PPE use in industry. Not chemical
or process-specific.
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments

Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
OSHA

Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US

Metric 3:
Applicability
Low
x 2
6
Very general description of recommendations
for PPE in in-

dustry. Nothing specific to dioxane.

Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Medium
x 2
4
2004

Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A

N/A
No Comment.

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods,
results and as-

sumptions

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods,
results and as-

sumptions

Overall Quality Determination^
Medium

1.8

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	U.S, E. P. A.. 1978. OAQPS guideline series: Control of volatile organic emissions from manufacture of synthesized pharma-
ceutical products.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3970050
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	Industrial Use - Pharmaceuticals
Number of Sites:	800 Pharmaceutical plants in the US and territories
Number of Workers:	Usually < 25 employees per site
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
High
x 1
1
EPA OAQPS
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
x 2
6
1978
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness	High X 1	1 Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness	High X 1	1 clear documentation of variability and uncertainty - states gen-
eralizations are difficult since there is a lot of variability be-
tween plants and volumes of chemicals used
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.5

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
77

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Ecjrc,. 2002. European Union risk assessment report: 1,4-dioxane. 2nd Priority List.
Type of Data Source
Occupational Exposure; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID
196351
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage: Manufacturing, processing, use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): All life cycle stages
PPE: Exposure assessed without taking into account influence of PPE. But,
PPE is likely to reduce exposure by 85 percent for dermal and 90 percent
for inhalation
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
European Chemicals Bureau
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
X
X
X
X
1
2
2
1
2
2
4
2
EU
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
2002
Some datasets are presented as ranges with arithmetic averages
and 90th percentile. Some are just presented as ranges with
no additional data.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.4

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
Ecjrc,. 2002. European Union risk assessment report: 1,4-dioxane. 2nd Priority List.
Occupational Exposure; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
196351
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Samples:
Type of Measurement or Method:
Worker Activity:
Type of Sampling:
Exposure Duration:
Exposure Frequency:
Manufacture
Manufacture of Dioxane
Inhalation
Provides data from different tasks (storage, repair, sytheses, etc) (Table
4.1). Also estimates exposure using modeling.
5 sets of data, with n ranging from 1 to 305 for each set
EASE Model and sampling
Production, sampling, drumming, cleaning, and maintenance.
area and personal sampling
6-8 hr for full shift, 0-0.5 hr for short term
225 days/year
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
European Chemicals Bureau
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
Medium
X 1
2
EU
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Medium
x 2
4
2002
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Medium
x 1
2
Some datasets are presented as ranges with arithmetic averages
and 90th percentile. Some are just presented as ranges with
no additional data.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
X
1 1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
X
1 1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty


Continued on next
page

79

-------

PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE


— continued from previous page

Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
Ecjrc,. 2002. European Union risk assessment report: 1,4-dioxane. 2nd Priority List.
Occupational Exposure; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
196351

EVALUATION
Domain
Metric Rating MWF* Score
Comments
Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.4

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
80

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Ecjrc,. 2002. European Union risk assessment report: 1,4-dioxane. 2nd Priority List.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID	196351
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Sites:
Type of Measurement or Method:
Worker Activity:
Exposure Duration:
Exposure Frequency:
Processing/use
Formulation of products containing 1,4-dioxane
Inhalation and dermal
worst case inhalation: 180 mg/m3Typical inhalation: 40 mg/m3Dermal:
420 mg./m3
1
EASE model
adding ofthe substance to a mixture, mixing and finally drumming or
bagging of the product. In case ofl ,4-dioxane the highest exposure prob-
ably occurs during adding of the substance and drummingof the product.
6-8 hr for full shift
225 days/year
EVALUATION
Domain	Metric	Rating MWF* Score	Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology	High	X 1	1 European Chemicals Bureau
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
Medium
X
1
2
EU
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
X
2
2
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Medium
X
2
4
2002
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Medium
X
1
2
Some datasets are presented as ranges with arithmetic
and 90th percentile. Some are just presented as ranges with
no additional data.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Continued on next page
81

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:	Ecjrc,. 2002. European Union risk assessment report: 1,4-dioxane. 2nd Priority List.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID	196351
EVALUATION
Domain	Metric	Rating MWF* Score	Comments
Overall Quality Determination^	High	1.4
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
82

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Ecjrc,. 2002. European Union risk assessment report: 1,4-dioxane. 2nd Priority List.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID	196351
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Samples:
Type of Measurement or Method:
Worker Activity:
Type of Sampling:
Exposure Duration:
Exposure Frequency:
Use
End use of 1,4-dioxane or the product contianing 1,4-dioxane
Inhalation and dermal
Exposure data available, estimates from modeling
5 data sets, n=l to 305 for each
EASE and sampling
medicine mfg, pharmaceutical production, use as a solvent
stationary and personal samples
6-8 hr for full shift, 0-0.5 hr for short term
225 days/year
EVALUATION
Domain	Metric	Rating MWF* Score	Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology	High	X 1	1 European Chemicals Bureau
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2
Metric 3
Metric 4
Metric 5
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium	x 1
High	x 2
Medium	x 2
Medium	x 1
2 EU
2	Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
4 2002
2	Some datasets are presented as ranges with arithmetic averages
and 90th percentile. Some are just presented as ranges with
no additional data.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High x
1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High x
1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.4


Continued on next
page


83

-------

PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE


— continued from previous page

Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
Ecjrc,. 2002. European Union risk assessment report: 1,4-dioxane. 2nd Priority List.
Occupational Exposure; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
196351

EVALUATION
Domain
Metric Rating MWF* Score
Comments


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Aca,. 2015. Re: TSCA Work Plan Chemical Problem Formulaton and Initial Assessment for 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3809105
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Manufacturing, processing, use
All life cycle stages
Inhalation
summarizes exposure data from ECB 2002 (HERO ID 196351)
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating MWF* Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
2015 PF (US EPA)
Domain 2: Representative






Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
X
2
2
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
X
2
2
2015
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity





Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-






sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty





Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High


1.0

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
85

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Cameo, Chemicals. 2016. Chemical datasheet: dioxane.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3981005
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Manufacturing, processing, use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	All life cycle stages
PPE:	Generic PPE recommendations
EVALUATION
Domain	Metric	Rating MWF* Score	Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology	High x 1	1 CAMEO Chemicals (NOAA)
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
us
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
X
2
2
General information that likely applies to all scenarios
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
X
2
2
2017
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity


Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A
N/A No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty


Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A
N/A No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^	High	1.0
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
86

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Fishbein, L.. 1981. Carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of solvents I Glycidyl ethers, dioxane, nitroalkanes, dimethylformamide
and allyl derivatives. Science of the Total Environment.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 61633
EXTRACTION
Parameter Data
Life Cycle Stage: Manufacturing, processing, use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): All life cycle stages
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
x 1
1
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Sciences, Food & Drug Ad-

ministration
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
x 2
8
Primarily use as a stabilizer for TCE, which is out of scope.

Mostly health information.
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
x 2
6
1981
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A
N/A No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A
N/A No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4.0 Metric Mean Score: 2.7.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
87

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Niosh,. 1994. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards.
Type of Data Source
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
2328101
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Manufacturing, processing, use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	All life cycle stages
PPE:	Generic PPE recommendations
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NIOSH
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
Low
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
2
6
N/A
US
General information that likely applies to all scenarios
1994
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^
Medium

1.7

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
88

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Kupczewska-Dobecka, M.,Czerczak, S.,Jakubowski, M.,Maciaszek, P.,Janasik, B.. 2010. [Application of predictive model to
estimate concentrations of chemical substances in the work environment]. Medycyna Pracy.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Published Models for Exposures or Releases;
Hero ID 2583051
EXTRACTION
Parameter Data
Life Cycle Stage: Manufacturing, processing, use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): All life cycle stages
Type of Measurement or Method: Potentially information about EASE Model, but not in English
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
EASE Model, used by EU
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
Unacceptable
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
8
2
N/A
EU
Unknown - paper in different language, but likely applicable.
In any case, this source is not useful.
2010
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.2.

** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
89

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Burton, N. C.,Driscoll, R. J.. 1997. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-95-0293-2655, Dana Corporation, Spicer Axle
Division, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	3859373
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Samples:
Worker Activity:
Type of Sampling:
Exposure Duration:
Analytic Method:
Use
MWF
0.14 to 0.23 mg/m3 (area)0.24 to 0.53 (PBZ)These are exposures to
MWF, not dioxane specifically
6 PBZ, 4 area
Threader, broaching, Apex drill, lunch tables (for area)Transfer lines,
roughing, four-way, multiple, screw machine-lathing, and apex drill (for
pbz)
area and personal sampling
7 hours sample time
NIOSH Method 0500 - PVC filters at 2 L/min
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NIOSH HHE
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Medium
x 2
4
Scenario is within the scope, but samples are for MWF, not





Dioxane. Could possible still use data to estimate dioxane





exposures from MWF use
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
x 2
6
1997
Metric 5:
Sample Size
High
x 1
1
workers sampled at the factory
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity




Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-





sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty




Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Continued on next page
90

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:	Burton, N. C.,Driscoll, R. J.. 1997. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-95-0293-2655, Dana Corporation, Spicer Axle
Division, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	3859373
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating MWF* Score
Comments

Overall Quality Determination^

Medium 1.7


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
91

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Haz, Map. 2017. Haz-Map: Agent name: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 3970253
EXTRACTION
Parameter

Data

Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
All stages
All stages

EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
x 1
1
TOXNet/Hazmap
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
High
Unacceptable
x 1
x 2
1
8
US
Some physical property and health information, but not expo-
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
N/A
x 2
2
N/A
2016
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4.0 Metric Mean Score: 2.0.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
92

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage: All stages
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): All life cycle stages
Exposure Concentration (Unit): Summary of exposure data from 2002 EU Risk Assessment (HERO ID:
196351)
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
European Chemicals Bureau
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
X
X
X
X
1
2
2
1
2
2
4
2
EU
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
2002
Some datasets are presented as ranges with arithmetic averages
and 90th percentile. Some are just presented as ranges with
no additional data.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.4

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Echa,. 2017. Uses by professional workers: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
3970673
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage: Manufacturing, processing, use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Manufacturing, processing, use
Worker Activity: List of generic uses and generic worker activites, but no data.
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
ECHA/REACH
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
Unacceptable
Medium
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
8
4
N/A
EU
Generic use descriptions, no useful information
Unknown, but probably recent
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.5.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
94

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Iarc,. 1999. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
3970850
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage: All stages
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): All life cycle stages
Route of Exposure: inhalation, oral. Poor skin penetration
Exposure Concentration (Unit): No data were available to the Working Group
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
IARC
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
Unacceptable
Medium
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
8
4
N/A
US
No exposure or release data. Lots of human health data
1999
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.3.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
95

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Niosh,. 2013. 1, 4- Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 3978115
EXTRACTION
Parameter

Data

Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
All stages
All stages

EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
x 1
1
NIOSH
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
Unacceptable
Medium
N/A
x 1
x 2
x 2
1
8
4
N/A
US
Physical properties
Unknown, but probably recently updated
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4.0 Metric Mean Score: 2.3.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
96

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Niosh,. Dioxane.
Type of Data Source
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
3978116
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage: All stages
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): All stages
Route of Exposure: inhalation, skin absorption, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NIOSH
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
Unacceptable
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
8
2
N/A
US
Pocket guide, physical properties and health information
2016
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.0.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
97

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Niosh,,Dpse,. 1994. Dioxane, Part 2.
Type of Data Source
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
3978117
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage: All stages
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): All life cycle stages
Type of Measurement or Method: NIOSH Method 1602
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
x 1
1
NIOSH
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
x 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
x 2
8
NIOSH method for sampling dioxane, but no exposure data
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
x 2
6
1994
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4.0 Metric Mean Score: 2.7.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
98

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Echa,. Links to registration dossiers.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 4121210
EXTRACTION
Parameter

Data

Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
All stages
All life cycle stages

EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
ECHA/REACH
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
Unacceptable
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
8
2
N/A
EU
Generic worker descriptions, but not useful
2017
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.2.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
99

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Niosh,. 2011. NIOSH manual of analytical methods: Formic acid.
Type of Data Source
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
3986439
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage: All stages
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): All life cycle stages
Type of Measurement or Method: NIOSH Method 2011 for Formic Acid
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NIOSH
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
x 2
8
NIOSH method for sampling formic acid. Uses dioxane as an

optional reagent, but no exposure data
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
x 2
6
1994
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.7.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
100

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Niosh,. 2010. Monitoring data in workers from health evaluations.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	3986437
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Samples:
Number of Sites:
Type of Measurement or Method:
Worker Activity:
Exposure Duration:
Use
Deepwater Horizon Response workers
all but one non-detect (0.2 ppb)
17
6 locations
EPA TO-15 Summa; General Area sampling
Various activities related to oil spill cleanup (dispersant operations and
in-situ burning)
30-480 min
EVALUATION
Domain	Metric	Rating	MWF* Score	Comments
Domain 1: Reliability






Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
NIOSH
Domain 2: Representative






Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
X
2
8
Out of scope
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
X
2
2
2010
Metric 5:
Sample Size
High
X
1
1
Samples of various activities
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity





Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty





Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^	Unacceptable	4.0 Metric Mean Score: 1.9.
Continued on next page
101

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
Niosh,. 2010. Monitoring data in workers from health evaluations.
Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
3986437

EVALUATION
Domain
Metric Rating MWF* Score
Comments

** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
102

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
T. Ryan, D. Hubbard. 2016. 3-D Printing Hazards: Literature Review & Preliminary Hazard Assessment.
Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
5080530
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Samples:
Number of Sites:
Type of Measurement or Method:
Worker Activity:
Exposure Duration:
Engineering Control & percent Exposure Reduction:
Use
Printing
inhalation
27 ppbv
1
1
1.4-L TO-15 canister
placed directly adjacent to the 3-D printer, with a short (1 ft) piece
of Tygon tubingfixed to the inlet of the canister extendinginto the 3-
D printer point of operation,underneath the hinged, unventilatedand
interlocked guard.
8 hours
Provide local exhaust ventilation system. Ventilation should be sufficient
to effectively remove andprevent buildup of any dusts or fumes that may
be generated during handling or thermal processing.
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Study authors are qualified, sampling method well described,

and authors used an accredited IH lab for analysis.
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
3D Printing
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
x 2
2
2016
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Medium
x 1
2
only one sample
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Describes sample point
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Continued on next page
103

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
T. Ryan, D. Hubbard. 2016. 3-D Printing Hazards: Literature Review & Preliminary Hazard Assessment.
Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
5080530
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF* Score Comments

Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium
X 1 2 Limited discussion of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.2

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
104

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Osha,. 2016. Chemical exposure health data: Full data set.
Type of Data Source
Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID
3986510
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage: unknown
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): unknown
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
OSHA
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
x 2
8
Looks like it should be an excel file with exposure data, but

it's all smooshed together in a text file and not useful
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Medium
x 2
4
unknown, but probably recent
Metric 5:
Sample Size
High
x 1
1
CEHD
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.1.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
105

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: CalEpa,. 2005. Appendix D.3 Chronic RELS and toxicity summaries using the previous version of Hot Spots Risk Assessment
guidelines (OEHHA 1999).
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 3982628
EXTRACTION
Parameter

Data

Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
All stages
All life cycle stages

EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
OEHHA
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
Unacceptable
Medium
High
X 1
x 2
x 2
x 1
1
8
4
1
US
Human Health, physical properties data
1999
CEHD
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.1.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
106

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	Lubricant
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
X 1
2
National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
Medium
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
2
4
N/A
US
Dry film lubricants for primariliy aerospace applications
1998
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.5

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
Ndcee,. 1998. Engineering and technical services for join group on acquisition pollution prevention (JG-APP) pilot projects:
Potential alternatives report JP-A-1-1: Alternatives to lead-containing dry film lubricants for antigalling/antifretting, anti-
seizing, and assembly aid application.
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
3982114

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Hanley, K.,Trout, D.,Burt, S.,Mouradian, R.. 1995. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-90-0277-2487, Johnson
Controls, Greenfield, Ohio.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID 3859370
EXTRACTION
Parameter Data
Life Cycle Stage: Use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): car seat mfg
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NIOSH
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
x 2
8
Use not in scope, related to 1,1,1-TCA. Polyurethane foam,

but not spray application
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
x 2
6
1995
Metric 5:
Sample Size
High
x 1
1
119 shift workers
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
qualitative assessment, not PBZ, Area samples, etc
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
qualitative assessment, not PBZ, Area samples, etc
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.6.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
108

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Krake, A. M.,Herrera-Moreno, V.. 1995. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-95-0296-2547, Automotive Controls
Corporation, Independence, Kansas.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	3859374
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Samples:
Number of Sites:
Worker Activity:
Exposure Duration:
Use
Vapor degreasing
Inhalation
1.5 to 13.3 ppm (pbz)11.8 ppm (STEL)2.5 to 51 ppm (Area)
21 pbzl2 area
1
various activities, tray cleaning
full-shift 15-min
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NIOSH
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
Unacceptable
Low
High
X 1
x 2
x 2
x 1
1
8
6
1
US
Vapor degreasing with 1,1,1-TCE, not in scope
1995
21 pbzl2 area
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.1.
Continued on next page
109

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:	Krake, A. M.,Herrera-Moreno, V.. 1995. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-95-0296-2547, Automotive Controls
Corporation, Independence, Kansas.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	3859374
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF* Score
Comments

** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
110

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Hills, B.,Klincewicz, S.,Blade, L. M.,Sack, D.. 1989. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-87-367-1987, BMY Corpora-
tion, A Division of Harsco Corporation, York, Pennsylvania.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	3859375
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Samples:
Number of Sites:
Worker Activity:
Exposure Duration:
Use
Touch-up paint
inhalation
n.d. to 1.7 ppm (pbz)
17 pbz
1
various activities
full-shift
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NIOSH
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
x 2
8
not in scope
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
x 2
6
1987
Metric 5:
Sample Size
High
x 1
1
17 pbz
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity




Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-





sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty




Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.1.
Continued on next page
111

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:	Hills, B.,Klincewicz, S.,Blade, L. M.,Sack, D.. 1989. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-87-367-1987, BMY Corpora-
tion, A Division of Harsco Corporation, York, Pennsylvania.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	3859375
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF* Score
Comments

** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
112

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Love, J. R. ,Kern, M.. 1981. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-81-065-938, METRO Bus Maintenance Shop,
Washington, DC.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	3859376
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Samples:
Number of Sites:
Type of Measurement or Method:
Use
Degreasing
inhalation
3 n.d.7 not analyzed for dioxane
10 area
1
Gas Chromatography w/flame ionization
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NIOSH
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
x 2
8
not in scope
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
x 2
6
1981
Metric 5:
Sample Size
High
x 1
1
10 samples
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity




Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
non-detects or not analyzed
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty




Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
non-detects or not analyzed
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.6.
Continued on next page
113

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:	Love, J. R. ,Kern, M.. 1981. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-81-065-938, METRO Bus Maintenance Shop,
Washington, DC.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	3859376
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF* Score
Comments

** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
114

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Fidler, A. T.,Crandall, M. S.,Kerndt, P. R.. 1988. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-86-051-1911, National Cover
of Atlanta, Inc., Lawrenceville, Georgia.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	3859377
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Samples:
Number of Sites:
Worker Activity:
Exposure Duration:
Use
Silkscreening
inhalation
n.d to 3.89 ppm (pbz)n.d. to 3.5 ppm (STEL)n.d. to 0.42 ppm (area)
34 pbz3 STEL24 area
1
various activities
Full-shift
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NIOSH
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
x 2
8
not in scope
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
x 2
6
1988
Metric 5:
Sample Size
High
x 1
1
60 samples
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity




Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-





sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty




Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.1.
Continued on next page
115

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:	Fidler, A. T.,Crandall, M. S.,Kerndt, P. R.. 1988. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-86-051-1911, National Cover
of Atlanta, Inc., Lawrenceville, Georgia.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	3859377
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF* Score
Comments

** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
116

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Reh, B. D.. 1995. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-94-0298, Gen Corp Automotive, Wabash, Indiana.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID 3970466
EXTRACTION
Parameter Data
Life Cycle Stage: Use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): 1,1,1-TCE use in auto mfg
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
x 1
1
NIOSH
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
Unacceptable
Low
N/A
x 1
x 2
x 2
1
8
6
N/A
US
not in scope
1995
N/A - No data for dioxane
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Niosh,. 1987. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-84-108-1821, Niemand Industries, Inc., Statesville, NC.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID 3974954
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Samples:
Exposure Duration:
Use
adhesive for paperwound packaging
7-14 ppm
22
8-hr TWA
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NIOSH
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
x 2
8
not in scope
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
x 2
6
1987
Metric 5:
Sample Size
High
x 1
1
22 samples
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-

sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Atsdr,. 2012. 1,4- Dioxane - ToxFAQs.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 3978119
EXTRACTION
Parameter Data
Life Cycle Stage: General public exposures
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
ToxFAQs
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
Unacceptable
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
8
2
N/A
US
Consumer exposure information
2012
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Niosh,. 2014. International chemical safety cards (ICDC): 1, 4-dioxane.
Type of Data Source
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
3978147
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage: All stages
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): All life cycle stages
Route of Exposure: inhalation, dermal
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
x 1
1
NIOSH
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
x 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
x 2
8
No engineering information.
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
x 2
2
2015
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
N/A

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Sapphire, Group. 2007. Voluntary Children"s Chemical Evaluation Program [VCCEP]. Tiers 1, 2, and 3 Pilot Submission
For 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID	3809038
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Sites:
Worker Activity:
Number of Workers:
All stages
All life cycle stages
Table 6-1 (p.128) provides multiple datasets of PBZ sampling
52 companies (2004 TRI)
various activities
<10,000
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
X 1
2
Ferro Corp submission for VCCEP
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
In scope, many of the sources for pbz data are other HERO





sources already extracted
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Medium
x 2
4
2007
Metric 5: Sample Size
High
x 1
Multiple
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.3


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
121

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
M. T. Okawa, M. J. Coye. 1982. Health Hazard Evaluation Report, No. HETA-80-144-1109, Film Processing Industry,
Hollywood, California.
Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
1316845
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Samples:
Number of Sites:
Type of Measurement or Method:
Worker Activity:
Number of Workers:
Type of Sampling:
Exposure Duration:
Film Cement
Film Cement
inhalation
less than 1 ppm
4 pbz, 1 area
2
pbz, area
splicing
4
pbz, area
6 hr
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NIOSH
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
Film cement, film splicing
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
x 2
6
1982
Metric 5:
Sample Size
High
x 1
1
2 sites, 3 workers
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1 1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1 1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty

Continued on next page
122

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:	M. T. Okawa, M. J. Coye. 1982. Health Hazard Evaluation Report, No. HETA-80-144-1109, Film Processing Industry,
Hollywood, California.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	1316845
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating MWF* Score
Comments
Overall Quality Determination^

High 1.4


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
123

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	BASF. 2016. Analytical Reports and Data Summaries from Worker Monitoring at the US Facility for 1,4-Dioxane Production.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	5079874
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Samples:
Number of Sites:
Type of Measurement or Method:
Exposure Duration:
Analytic Method:
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Inhalation
provided in report, most less than 2 ug/sample
28
1
absorbant tubes, OVM badges
lists time in minutes for each sample
NIOSH 1602
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
AIHA Accredited Laboratory for Industrial Hygiene, NIOSH
1602
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
Medium
High
X 1
x 2
x 2
x 1
1
2
4
1
US
Domestic Manufacture
up to 2011
Representative sample size
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Provides method, supporting data
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
some discussion of variability
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.3

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
124

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	BASF. 2017. Information in response to the "Preliminary information on manufacturing, processing, distribution, use, and
disposal: 1,4-dioxane" document.
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
Hero ID	3827415
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Samples:
Number of Sites:
Worker Activity:
Exposure Duration:
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Inhalation
0.39 ppm (15-min STEL)< 0.056 ppm (8-hr TWA) 38 ppm (15-min
STEL)0.23 ppm (8-hr TWA)
4
1
Routine duties, neutralization, evaporator dump
15 min STEL, 8 hr TWA
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
X 1
2
Monitoring by BASF
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
Domestic Manufacture
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
x 2
2
2017
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Medium
x 1
2
small sample size (4 points)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity




Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
No discussion of methods, results, assumptions, etc.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty




Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
No discussion.
Overall Quality Determination^
Medium
1.7
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
125

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
J. Huber. 2018. Roofing: A Guide to the Options.
Type of Data Source
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
5080509
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	Spray polyurethane foam
Worker Activity:	a typical two-story, 2,300-square-foothouse with a medium-pitch roof "
has a roof area of about 1,500 squarefeet
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
Low
X 1
3
General estimates for roofing. Data sources not specified.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
2
2
N/A
US
Spray Polyurethane Foam
2018
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
No discussion of methods, results, assumptions, etc.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
No discussion.
Overall Quality Determination^
Medium

1.8

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
126

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
HomeAdvisor. 2018. How Much Do Asphalt Shingles & Roofs Cost To Install Or Replace?.
Type of Data Source
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
5080525
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	Spray polyurethane foam
Worker Activity:	an average size house is 1,500 square feet of roofing
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
Low
X 1
3
General estimates for roofing. Data sources not specified.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
2
2
N/A
US
Spray Polyurethane Foam
2018
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
No discussion of methods, results, assumptions, etc.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
No discussion.
Overall Quality Determination^
Medium

1.8

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
127

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
OMG Roofing Products. 2018. Product Data Specifications: OMG Olybond500 Insulation Adhesive.
Type of Data Source
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
5080523
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	Spray polyurethane foam
Worker Activity:	Mix A-side and B-side in 1:1 ratio
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
X 1
2
Company Product Specification Sheet
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
2
2
N/A
US
Spray Polyurethane Foam
2018
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
No discussion of methods, results, assumptions, etc.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
No discussion.
Overall Quality Determination^	High	1.6
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
128

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
GAF. 2014. Safety Data Sheet: OlyBond Part B (Amber/Red).
Type of Data Source
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
5080527
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	Spray polyurethane foam
Worker Activity:	0.1 percent 1,4-dioxane in B-Side
EVALUATION






Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
SDS
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
N/A
X
X
X
1
2
2
1
2
2
N/A
US
Spray Polyurethane Foam
2014
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Low
X
1
3
No discussion of methods, results, assumptions, etc.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
X
1
3
No discussion.
Overall Quality Determination^
High


1.5


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
129

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
M. Stites. 2018. [RE: Discussion Follow-up].
Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
5099258
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Physical Form:
Route of Exposure:
Exposure Concentration (Unit):
Number of Samples:
Number of Sites:
Type of Measurement or Method:
Worker Activity:
Type of Sampling:
Exposure Duration:
Engineering Control & percent Exposure Reduction:
PPE:
Analytic Method:
Use
Dry Film Lubrication
liquid
inhalation
<0.031 to 50 ppm
25
1
personal/area
Manufacture, Application - also provides specific activity descriptions
personal/area
varied
Local exhaust hood
Tyvek lab coat, butyl gloves, " face respirator with organic vapor car-
tridges, safety glasses with side shields, butyl gloves
NIOSH 1602/Direct Read (MiniRAE 2000)
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
X 1
2
Monitoring by DoE/KCNSC
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
Dry film lubricants
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
x 2
2
2010 - 2014
Metric 5:
Sample Size
High
x 1
1
Having individual samples allows full characterization of dis-
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Medium x 1
Includes the most critical information, but lacks some meta-
data (exposure frequency, some sample durations are unclear)
Continued on next page
130

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
M. Stites. 2018. [RE: Discussion Follow-up].
Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data;
5099258

EVALUATION
Domain
Metric Rating
MWF* Score Comments
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low
X 1 3 Data do not inform variability in exposures
Overall Quality Determination^ High
1.4

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
M. Stites. 2018. [FW: 1,4-Dioxane].
Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
5099257
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Number of Sites:
Number of Workers:
Type of Sampling:
Engineering Control & percent Exposure Reduction:
Use
Dry Film Lubrication
8
up to 10: Approximately 3-4 employees work in the chemical material
area where the dry film lubricant is formulated. Another 5-6 employees
work in the paint shop where the dry film lubricant is spray applied.
8-hr TWA
Engineering controls (powered vented hoods) are employed which pro-
vide inhalation protection and dermal protection is provided by requiring
chemical resistant gloves, safety glasses with side shields and lab apron
when handling 1,4-Dioxane. Any exposure that might occur is well be-
low regulatory action levels (reference previously provided personal and
area monitoring data).
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
X 1
2
Information provided by DoE/KCNSC
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
2
2
N/A
US
Dry film lubricants
2018
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Continued on next page
132

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
— continued from previous page
Source Citation: M. Stites. 2018. [FW: 1,4-Dioxane].
Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data
Hero ID 5099257
or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
EVALUATION
Domain Metric
Rating
MWF* Score Comments
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.2

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Facility
134

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Niosh,. 1977. Criteria for
a recommended standard occupational exposure to dioxane.
Type of Data Source
Facility; Reports for Data
or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
62937

EXTRACTION


Parameter

Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Process Description:
Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV):
Number of Sites:
Possible Physical Form:
Manufacture
Manufacture
Manufacture of dioxane via dehydrogenation of ethylene glycol
10 million pounds (1 large)5 million pounds (1 large)l million pounds
(1 small)
2 large and 2 small facilities
Liquid
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating MWF* Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
NIOSH report
Domain 2: Representative






Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
X
2
2
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
X
2
6
1977
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity





Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-






sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty





Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High


1.5

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
135

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Nicnas,. 1998. 1, 4-Dioxane. Priority existing chemical assessment report No. 7.
Type of Data Source
Facility; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID
3827412
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Commercial Use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	Laboratory use
Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV):	500 kg
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NICNAS
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
Medium
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
2
4
N/A
Australia
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
1998
N/A. Assessment uses modeling to estimate occupational ex-
posures; report does not include any monitoring data.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Limited discussion of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.5

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
136

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Nicnas,. 1998. 1, 4-Dioxane. Priority existing chemical assessment report No. 7.
Type of Data Source Facility; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID 3827412
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Process Description:
Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV):
Number of Sites:
Chemical Concentration:
Commercial, Potential Consumer Use
Film Cement
Film is cut with special tool, the adhesive applied with a small brush
(manually). Film joined and heated to 35 deg C to dry
12 L (1 site)
Up to 10 film labs in Aus
10-50 percent
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NICNAS
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
Medium
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
2
4
N/A
Australia
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
1998
N/A. Assessment uses modeling to estimate occupational ex-
posures; report does not include any monitoring data.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Limited discussion of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.5

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
x 1
1
NICNAS
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
Medium
X 1
2
Australia
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Medium
x 2
4
1998
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A

N/A
N/A. Assessment uses modeling to estimate occupational ex-

posures; report does not include any monitoring data.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium x 1
2
Limited discussion of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.5

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
ToxNet Hazardous Substances Data, Bank. 2017. HSDB: 1,4-Dioxane.
Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
3970270
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Process Description:
Number of Sites:
Chemical Concentration:
Manufacture
Manufacture of dioxane via dehydrogenation of ethylene glycol
Manufactured commercially by dehydration and ring closure of diethy-
lene glycol. Concentrated sulfuric acid is catalyst. Continurous process,
dioxane vaporized and passed through an acid trap and two distillation
columns to remove water and purify.
1
90 percent
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating MWF* Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
Process Description: Ullman's Encyclopedia of Industrial






Chemistry Site: 2012 CDR
Domain 2: Representative






Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
X
2
2
Manufacturing
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
X
2
2
2012
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A


N/A
Not applicable
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity





Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
Cites sources clearly
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty





Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
Low
X
1
3
No discussion/not applicable
Overall Quality Determination^
High


1.2

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
139

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
1996. Solvents study.

Type of Data Source
Facility; Completed Exposure
or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID
3860540

EXTRACTION


Parameter

Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Process Description:
Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV):
Number of Sites:
Site Daily Throughput:
Possible Physical Form:
Processing, Use, Disposal
Multiple, see p. 37 for a breakdown of the 27 total sites
Mutliple, see p. 37 and 28. Contains one or two-sentence descriptions
of use of chemical within each industry
101,577 kg/yr use for all 27 sites; contains breakdown of use by industry
on p. 45
27, includes site locations
Can be estimated based on total use and # of sites
liquid solvent
EVALUATION






Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability






Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
US EPA Solvents Study, trusted source
Domain 2: Representative






Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
X
2
2
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
X
2
6
1993 RCRA 3007 Questionairre
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Low
X
1
3
Distribution of samples is qualitative or characterized by no






statistics
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity





Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-






sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty





Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
Medium
X
1
2
Limited discussion of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
Medium
1.8
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
140

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	2017. Chemical data reporting: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3860451
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Number of Sites:
Possible Physical Form:
Manufacturing, processing, and use
Manufacturing, use (non-incorporative activities), paints and coatings,
laundry and dishwashing products
1 (manufacturing); 25-99 (non-incorp use); unknown for other uses
liquid
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
US EPA CDR, trusted source
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
x 2
2
2017
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Medium
x 1
2
Distribution of samples is characterized by a range with uncer-
tain statistics. It is unclear if analysis is representative.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
CDR Site data - underlying methods, sources, assumptions not
transparaent
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Low
x 1
3
No discussion/not applicable
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.6


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
141

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	1995. OPPT chemical fact sheets: 1, 4-Dioxane fact sheet: Support document.
Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3860496
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Process Description:
Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV):
Number of Sites:
Manufacturing
manufac turing
contains information on various uses, see p. 2
between 10,500,000 and 18,300,000 pounds (as of 1990)
3 (as of 1992)
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
US EPA OPPT Chemical Fact Sheet, trusted source
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
x 2
6
1995 literature search
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Medium
x 1
2
Distribution of samples is characterized by a range with uncer-
tain statistics. It is unclear if analysis is representative.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium x 1
2
Limited discussion of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
Medium
1.7


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
142

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Anderson, R. H.,Anderson, J. K.,Bower, P. A.. Co-occurrence of 1,4-dioxane with trichloroethylene in chlorinated solvent
groundwater plumes at US Air Force installations: Fact or fiction. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management.
Type of Data Source Facility; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID 1065024
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV):
Possible Physical Form:
Chemical Concentration:
Manufacturing, processing, and use
manufacturing, use as stabilizer in chlorinated solvents
Between 1 and 10 million pounds annually
liquid
3.5 percent by volume for use as stabilizer
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
US Air Force Engineering Dept, trusted source
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
x 2
2
2012
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Medium
x 1
2
Distribution of samples is characterized by a range with uncer-
tain statistics. It is unclear if analysis is representative.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium x 1
2
Discusses variability, but not uncertainy
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.2

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 2015. TSCA work plan chemical problem formulation and initial assessment. 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Facility; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID 3809027
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Process Description:
Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV):
Number of Sites:
Possible Physical Form:
Manufacturing, processing, and use
entire life cycle
source contains description of manufacturing, processing, and multiple
uses
Between 1 and 10 million pounds annually (as of 2006)
Lists one manufacturing site (BASF), which also reports processing and
use of chemical
liquid, vapor
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
TSCA Work Plan Chemical
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
occupational scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
x 2
2
2015
Metric 5:
Sample Size
Medium
x 1
2
Distribution of samples is characterized by a range with uncer-
tain statistics. It is unclear if analysis is representative.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium x 1
2
Discusses variability, but not uncertainy
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.2

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Atsdr,. 2012. Toxicological profile for 1,4-dioxane.
Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3982333
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Process Description:
Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV):
Number of Sites:
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufactured in a closed system by acid catalyzed conversion of diethy-
lene glycol via dehydration and ring closure
1-10 million lbs in 2002
2 sites (DOW in TX and Ferro Corp in LA)
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
ATSDR Toxicological Profile
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
High
X 1
x 2
x 2
x 1
1
2
2
1
US
Scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
2012
TRI Sites
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Discusses variability, but not uncertainy
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.1
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
145

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Atsdr,. 2012. Toxicological profile for 1,4-dioxane.
Type of Data Source
Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
3982333
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Manufacturing, processing, and use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	entire life cycle
Number of Sites:	Source lists number of facilities by state that produce, process, or use
Dioxane. Also identifies lifecycle stage. Based on TRI data from 2007
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
ATSDR Toxicological Profile
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
High
X 1
x 2
x 2
x 1
1
2
2
1
US
Scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
2012
TRI Sites
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Discusses variability, but not uncertainy
Overall Quality Determination^	High	1.1
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
146

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Nih,. 2016. Report on carcinogens: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3982327
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV):
Number of Sites:
Manufacturing, processing, and use
entire life cycle
1-10 million lbs between 1994 and 2006
1 mfg, 26 US Suppliers (2009)
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Department of Health and Human Services NTP
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
2
2
N/A
US
Scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
2016
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.0


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also
unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
147

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Ec,. 2004. Recommendation from the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits for f ,4-dioxane.
Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3827409
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Process Description:
Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV):
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
acid-catalysed conversion ofdiethylene glycol by ring closure in a closed
system
10,000 tonnes/yr (global)
EVALUATION






Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability






Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
European CommissionEmployment, Social Affairs and Inclu-
sion
Domain 2: Representative






Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
Medium
X
1
2
Global mfg data (not just US mfg)
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
X
2
2
Scenario within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Low
X
2
6
Paper is from 2004, but global PV data is from 1995
Metric 5:
Sample Size
High
X
1
1
Global Data for all producers at the time
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity





Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-






sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty





Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
Medium
X
1
2
States that in general the global production is decreasing
Overall Quality Determination^
Medium
1.7
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
148

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Environment Canada, Health Canada. 2010. Screening assessment for the challenge 1,4-dioxane.
Type of Data Source
Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
3981144
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Manufacture, import, processing, use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	entire life cycle
Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV):	10,000-100,000 kg mfglO,000-100,000 kg importlO,000-100,000 kg used
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Environment Canada/Health Canada
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
2
2
N/A
Canada
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
2010
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^	High	1.1
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
149

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 1978. OAQPS guideline series: Control of volatile organic emissions from manufacture of synthesized pharma-
ceutical products.
Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 3970050
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Process Description:
Number of Sites:
Use
Industrial Use - Pharmaceuticals
Series of batch operations: reaction(s), product separation, purification,
and drying. Gives info on equipment used on page 2-1 and Ch 3, PFD
Figure 2-1
800 Pharmaceutical plants in the US and territories
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
x 1
1
EPA OAQPS
Domain 2: Representative

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High x 1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty - states gen-
eralizations are difficult since there is a lot of variability be-
tween plants and volumes of chemicals used
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.5
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
150

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Ecjrc,. 2002. European Union risk assessment report: 1,4-dioxane. 2nd Priority List.
Type of Data Source Facility; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID 196351
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Process Description:
Number of Sites:
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
dehydration and ring closure of diethylene glycol. Process temperature
varies from 130-200" C, under atmospheric pressure. The process is con-
tinuous
1 site in EU
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
European Chemicals Bureau
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
Medium
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
2
4
N/A
EU
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
2002
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High
1.4
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
151

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Ecjrc,. 2002. European Union risk assessment report: 1,4-dioxane. 2nd Priority List.
Type of Data Source
Facility; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID
196351
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Manufacturing, processing, use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	All life cycle stages
Chemical Concentration:	Gives various concentrations for different uses (pg. 37).
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
European Chemicals Bureau
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
Medium
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
2
4
N/A
EU
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
2002
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-
sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^	High	1.4
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
152

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Aca,. 2015. Re: TSCA Work Plan Chemical Problem Formulaton and Initial Assessment for 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3809105
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV):
Number of Sites:
Chemical Concentration:
Manufacturing, Processing
Manufacturing, Processing
1-10 million pounds (2006 CDR)
1 mfg25-99 Proc
>90 percent
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating MWF* Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
2015 PF (US EPA)
Domain 2: Representative






Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
X
2
2
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
X
2
2
2015
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity





Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
Clear documentation of data sources, methods, results and as-






sumptions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty





Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
High
X
1
1
clear documentation of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High


1.0

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
153

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Pubchem,. 2017. PubChem: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3970246
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Process Description:
Chemical Concentration:
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Dehydration and ring closure of diethylene glycol. Concentrated acid
used as a catalyst. Continuous process.
>90 percent
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
NIH - PubChem
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
2
2
N/A
US
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
2017
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Lists data sources
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Limited discussion of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.1

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
154

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	U.S, E. P. A.. 2017. Preliminary Information on Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution, Use, and Disposal: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3986663
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Process Description:
Number of Sites:
Manufacture, Import
Manufacture, Import
Cone. Sulfuric acid used as catalyst. Temps from 130 to 200 deg C,
pressure from 25-110 kPa. Continuous.
1 mfgl import
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
EPA Use Dossier
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
2
2
N/A
US
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
2017
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Lists data sources
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Limited discussion of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.1

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
155

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	U.S, E. P. A.. 2017. Preliminary Information on Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution, Use, and Disposal: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	3986663
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Number of Sites:
Chemical Concentration:
Manufacturing, processing, use
Manufacturing, processing, use
25 mfgO importl3 proc21 other uses (2015 TRI)
Provides table of SDS's with some conc. Information
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
EPA Use Dossier
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
1
2
2
N/A
US
Scenarios within the scope of the risk evaluation
2017
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
High
x 1
1
Lists data sources
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
Medium
x 1
2
Limited discussion of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.1

* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
156

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Ashford, R. D.. 2001. Ashford's Dictionary of Industrial Chemicals.
Type of Data Source
Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
3859379
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage: All stages
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): All life cycle stages
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Ashford's Dictionary of Industrial Chemicals
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Medium
Unacceptable
X 1
x 2
2
8
England
Just some basic physical properties information. Nothing use-
ful
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Low
N/A
x 2
6
N/A
1994
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.8.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
157

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Echa,. 2017. 1,4-Dioxane.

Type of Data Source
Facility; Reports for Data or
Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
3970664

EXTRACTION

Parameter

Data
Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture, Import
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Manufacture, Import
Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): MFG/import: 1,000+ tonnes (EU)
EVALUATION

Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
ECHA
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
Medium
X 1
2
EU
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
x 2
8
MFG/import estimate for the EU (1000+ tonnes), other gen-

eral hazard and use information.
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
x 2
2
2017
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.2.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
158

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: Oecd Exisiting Chemical Database. 1999. SIDs initial assessment profile: 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 3970845
EXTRACTION
Parameter Data
Life Cycle Stage: Manufacturing, processing, use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Manufacturing, processing, use
Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): 8,000 - 10,000 tons (worldwide production)
EVALUATION
Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 SIDS Initial Assessment profile
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
Medium
X
1
2
Australia
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
X
2
8
No useful information
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Medium
X
2
4
1999
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4.0 Metric Mean Score: 2.5.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
159

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: The Commission of the European, Communities. 2002. Commission recommendation on the results of risk evaluation and the
risk reduction strategies for the substances: o-anisidine, 1,4,-dioxane.
Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 3970846
EXTRACTION
Parameter Data
Life Cycle Stage: Manufacturing, processing, use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Manufacturing, processing, use
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
The Commission of the European Communities
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
Unacceptable
Medium
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
8
4
N/A
EU
Recommendations in response to 2002 EU Risk Assessment
2002
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^
Unacceptable

4.0
Metric Mean Score: 2.5.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
160

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
Franz, C.,Bennett, S.,DeLeo, P. C.,Collatz, M.,Kelly, K.,Nekoomaram, J.,Wieroniey, S.. 2015. Comments of the Adhesive
and Sealant Council, the American Coatings Association, the American Chemistry Council, the American Cleaning Institute,
the Consumer Specialty Products Association, and Waste Management on the 1,4-dioxane problem formulation and initial
assessment.
Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
3986506
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage: All stages
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): All life cycle stages
EVALUATION
Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Public Comment from Industry Groups
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
us
Metric 3:
Applicability
Unacceptable
X
2
8
General comments on previous problem formulation. No useful
information
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
X
2
2
2015
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A
N/A No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A
N/A No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4.0 Metric Mean Score: 2.0.
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the
score is presented solely to increase transparency.
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
161

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	MakerBot Industries LLC. 2015. Safety data sheet: PLA 3D printer filament/MakerBot PLA.
Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	5160198
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Chemical Concentration:
Use
Printing
>98 percent chemical that contains dioxane
EVALUATION
Domain	Metric	Rating MWF* Score	Comments
Domain 1: Reliability






Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X
1
1
SDS
Domain 2: Representative






Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X
1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
X
2
2
3D printing
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
High
X
2
2
2016
Metric 5:
Sample Size
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity





Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty





Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
N/A


N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^	High	1.0
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
162

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Y. He, S. Kilsby, C. J. Tuck, R. D. Wildman, S. D. R. Christie, S. Edmondson, H. Yang. 2013. Processing Biodegradable
Polycaprolactone through 3D Printing. 24th International SFF Symposium - An Additive Manufacturing Conference.
Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID	5080531
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Process Description:
Chemical Concentration:
Use
Printing
PCL flakes dissolved in 99.8 percent 1,4-dioxane. Ink samples settled for
24 hrs then stirred at 800rpm. Slides soaked in 2-propanol and dried.
2mL of ink injected in cartridges.
99.8 percent , but then mixed with PCL flakes to 5-10 percent PCL
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score

Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Research article

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
2
2
N/A
UK
3D printing
2013
No Comment.

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.

Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.2


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
163

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation: F. Ruggiero, P. A. Netti, E. Torino. 2015. Experimental Investigation and Thermodynamic Assessment of Phase Equilibria
in the PLLA/Dioxane/Water Ternary System for Applications in the Biomedical Field. Langmuir.
Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID 3538358
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Process Description:
Chemical Concentration:
Use
Printing
PLLA pellets added to dioxane and heated in a silicone oil bath. Con-
denser prevents dioxane vapors from escaping during heating.
Pure dioxane mixed with PLLA (0.5 percent , 1 percent , and 1.5 percent
w/v)
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score

Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Research article

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
2
2
N/A
Italy
3D printing
2015
No Comment.

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.

Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.2

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Type of Data Source
Hero ID
Y. He, R. D. Wildman, C. J. Tuck, S. D. Christie, S. Edmondson. 2016. An Investigation of the Behavior of Solvent based
Polycaprolactone ink for Material Jetting. Scientific Reports.
Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
3829109
EXTRACTION
Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Process Description:
Chemical Concentration:
Use
Printing
PCL flakes dissolved in 99.8 percent 1,4-dioxane. Ink samples settled for
24 hrs then stirred at 800rpm. Slides soaked in 2-propanol and dried.
2mL of ink injected in cartridges.
99.8 percent dioxane mixed with PCL (5 wt percent )
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score

Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
X 1
1
Research article

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
High
High
N/A
X 1
x 2
x 2
2
2
2
N/A
UK
3D printing
2016
No Comment.

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.

Overall Quality Determination^
High

1.2


* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
165

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Independent Lubricant Manufacturers, Association. 2014. RE: Proposition 65 warning regulation.
Type of Data Source
Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
3982411
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	MWF
Chemical Concentration:	<1 ppb
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
x 1
2
Public Comment from Industry Groups
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
High
High
High
N/A
x 1
x 2
x 2
1
2
2
N/A
US
MWF
2014
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^	High	1.2
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
166

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:
Spin,. 2017. SPIN substances in preparations in nordic countries 1,4,-dioxane.
Type of Data Source
Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data;
Hero ID
3981126
EXTRACTION

Parameter
Data
Life Cycle Stage:	Manufacturing, processing, use
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):	Manufacturing, processing, use
Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV):	PV for different Nordic countries by industry in 2010-2014
EVALUATION
Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
x 1
2
SPIN
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Scope
Applicability
Temporal Representativeness
Sample Size
Medium
Medium
High
N/A
x 1
x 2
x 2
2
4
2
N/A
Nordic Countries
Many industries listed are not in scope
2010-2014
No Comment.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 7: Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^	Medium	1.7
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
167

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Source Citation:	Sapphire, Group. 2007. Voluntary Children"s Chemical Evaluation Program [VCCEP]. Tiers 1, 2, and 3 Pilot Submission
For 1,4-Dioxane.
Type of Data Source Facility; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments;
Hero ID	3809038
EXTRACTION
Parameter	Data
Life Cycle Stage:
Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use):
Process Description:
Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV):
Number of Sites:
Chemical Concentration:
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
3 methods for mfg
mfg: 1 million lbs (2003)import: <50,000 lbs (2001)
1 site in US
99.90 percent
EVALUATION





Domain
Metric
Rating
MWF*
Score
Comments
Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
x 1
2
Ferro Corp submission for VCCEP
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Geographic Scope
High
X 1
1
US
Metric 3:
Applicability
High
x 2
2
In scope
Metric 4:
Temporal Representativeness
Medium
x 2
4
2007
Metric 5:
Sample Size
High
x 1
1
Multiple
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity




Metric 6:
Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty




Metric 7:
Metadata Completeness
N/A

N/A
No Comment.
Overall Quality Determination^	High	1.4
* MWF = Metric Weighting Factor
I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3.
168

-------