Six-Year Review 2 Health Effects Assessment: 

Summary Report

 

This document is intended to support EPA’s second Six-Year Review of existing national primary drinking water 

regulations. The data presented in this document reflect literature searches through December 2007 and health risk 

assessments completed by March 1, 2009.

Office of Water (4304T) EPA 822-R-09-006 October 2009 www.epa.gov/waterscience
Acknowledgements

This document was prepared in part under EPA Contract EP-C-07-022, Work Assignments 0-04, 

1-04, and 2-04. 

The EPA Work Assignment Managers for this project were Dr. Amal Mahfouz and Dr. Nancy 

Chiu of the Office of Science and Technology in the Office of Water. 

Technical input to this document was also provided by the following EPA staff: 

Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water:

Ambika Bathija, Ph.D. 

Octavia Conerly, M.S.P.H. 

Nancy Chiu, Ph.D. 

Joyce Donohue, Ph.D. 

Elizabeth Doyle, Ph.D. 

Steve Kueberuwa, M.S. 

Amal Mahfouz, Ph.D. 

Edward Ohanian, Ph.D. 

Santhini Ramasamy, Ph.D., DABT, MPH 

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air:

Neal Nelson, D.V.M., Ph.D. 

Jerome Puskin, Ph.D. 

Lowell Ralston, Ph.D. 
Table of Contents 

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1 

2. Overview of EPA Health Effects Assessment Methods............................................................. 4 

2.1 Noncarcinogens..................................................................................................................... 4 

2.2 Carcinogens........................................................................................................................... 7 

2.2.1 Classification................................................................................................................... 7 

2.2.2 Quantification.................................................................................................................. 8 

2.3 How EPA Sets the MCLG and MCL ................................................................................... 9 

2.3.1 Carcinogens.................................................................................................................... 9 

2.3.2 Noncarcinogens............................................................................................................ 10 

2.4 Key Differences in Human Health Assessment Methods Between EPA and Other 

Organizations Discussed in this Document............................................................................... 12 

3. Process for Evaluating Chemicals for the Six-Year Review 2 ................................................. 14 

3.1 Literature Search Process for the 41 List B Chemicals...................................................... 14 

3.2 Screening Process for List A Chemicals............................................................................ 15 

3.3 Screening Process for List B Chemicals............................................................................. 15 

4. Results - Identifying Candidates for Possible MCLG Changes................................................ 16 

4.1 Findings for List A Chemicals............................................................................................. 18 

4.2 Findings for List B Chemicals............................................................................................. 19 

4.2.1 Findings for Consideration of a Change to the MCLG................................................. 19 

4.2.2 Findings for No Consideration of a Change to the MCLG........................................... 21 

4.3 Consideration of Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity ............................................ 25 

4.3.1 Group 1: Chemicals with No Reproductive/Developmental Concern Based on Most 

Recent Agency Assessments Published After 1997............................................................... 25 

4.3.2 Group 2: Chemicals with No Concern Based on Agency Assessment Published Prior 

to 1997 that Adequately Addressed Reproductive/Developmental Toxicity......................... 26 

4.3.3 Group 3: Chemicals with No Concern Because Reproductive/Developmental Effects 

Seen Only at Doses at or Above the Effect Level for RfD .................................................... 27 

4.3.4 Group 4: Chemicals with No Concern Because Reproductive/Developmental Effects 

Occur at Doses Significantly Higher than the Intake at the MCL ......................................... 27 

4.3.5 Group 5: Chemicals with Significant Data Limitations Affecting Evaluation of 

Reproductive/Developmental Toxicity at the MCL............................................................... 28 

4.3.6 Group 6: Chemicals for which Reproductive/Developmental Effects Are a Potential 

Concern at the Current or Possible New MCLG.................................................................... 28 

5. Summary................................................................................................................................... 29 

References................................................................................................................................... 126 
List of Tables 

Table 1. EPA 1986 Cancer Classification System and Corresponding Three-Category Approach

................................................................................................................................................ 12 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals....................... 32 

Table 3. Summary of EPA Quantitative Cancer Assessments for List A and B Chemicals ........ 70 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A and B Chemicals........... 80 

Table 5. Summary for List B Chemicals .................................................................................... 112 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 1

Six-Year Review 2 Health Effects Assessment: 

Summary Report 

1. Introduction 

The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Section 1412(b)(9), 

require the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review and, if appropriate, 

revise each existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) no less often than 

every six years. The SDWA Amendments also specify that any revision of a national primary 

drinking water regulation will maintain or provide for greater protection of public health. The 

goal of the cyclical review is to determine whether it is appropriate to consider changes (i.e., to 

“revise” or “take no action”) to existing NPDWRs based on changes in health effects or 

analytical or technological feasibility that have occurred since the regulations were promulgated. 

In response to this mandate, EPA developed a Protocol for the Review of Existing National 

Primary Drinking Water Regulations (USEPA, 2002a; USEPA, 2003a) based on 

recommendations of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC, 2000) and input 

from stakeholders representing a wide variety of interest groups. EPA has updated this protocol 

for the second review effort (USEPA, 2009a). The protocol outlines the approach to be used to 

review and identify NPDWRs that may warrant revision. The key elements that are considered in 

the review process are health effects, analytical methods, occurrence and exposure, treatment 

technology, and other regulatory provisions (e.g., monitoring and reporting requirements). 

The Agency completed its first Six-Year Review (referred to here as “Six-Year Review 

1”) in July 2003 (USEPA 2002b; USEPA, 2003b). In the Six-Year Review 1, EPA evaluated the 

information available at that time on the health effects, occurrence and exposure, treatment 

technologies, analytical methods, and other regulatory considerations for the Total Coliform 

Rule (TCR) and for 68 specific chemicals covered under various NPDWRs. The assessment of 

health effects for those 68 chemicals was presented in the Six-Year Review, Chemical 

Contaminants – Health Effects Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2003c). In completing 

Six-Year Review 1, the Agency determined that it was not appropriate to revise any of the 68 

chemicals NPDWRs considered at that time and that it was appropriate to list TCR as a candidate 

for revision. 

EPA has been performing its second Six-Year Review (referred to here as “Six-Year 

Review 2”) of the drinking water contaminants regulated under the SDWA. The Office of 

Science and Technology (OST) within the EPA’s Office of Water (OW) has the primary 

responsibility for performing the health effects assessments for the Six-Year Review 2. There are 

a total of 711

 chemicals being reviewed under the Six-Year Review 2 effort. Sixty-six of the 68 

chemicals that were considered in the Six-Year Review 1 in 2003 are also included in the SixYear Review 2. Lead and copper are not included because of ongoing efforts initiated in 2006 to 

revise the Lead and Copper Rule. However, five chemicals not considered previously (arsenic; 

uranium; combined radiums (226 and 228); alpha particle emitters; and beta particle and photon 

 

1

 Chromium is counted as a single chemical (total chromium), but separate assessments for Cr(VI) and Cr(III) are 

presented in this document. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 2

emitters) for which new regulations have been promulgated more recently are included in this 

review. As of March 1, 2009, 30 of these 71 chemicals (listed below) had ongoing formal EPA 

health effects assessments. 

Chemicals with ongoing health effects assessments (List A) are: 

Acrylamide 

Alpha Particle Emitters 

Antimony 

Arsenic 

Asbestos 

Benzo(a)pyrene 

Beryllium 

Beta Particle and Photon 

Emitters 

Cadmium 

Carbon Tetrachloride 

Cyanide 

Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate 

 (DEHA) 

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 

 (DEHP) 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 

 (o-Dichlorobenzene) 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 

 (p-Dichlorobenzene) 

1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene 

 Dichloride) 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 

Dichloromethane (Methylene 

 Chloride) 

Ethylbenzene 

Fluoride 

Pentachlorophenol 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

 (PCBs) 

Combined Radiums (226 and 

228) 

Styrene 

2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) 

Tetrachloroethylene 

Thallium2

Trichloroethylene 

Uranium 

The remaining 41 chemicals with no ongoing EPA health effects assessment (List B) are: 

Alachlor 

Atrazine3

Barium 

Benzene 

Carbofuran 

Chlordane 

Chromium 

2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy- 

 acetic Acid) 

Dalapon (2,2- 

 Dichloropropionic Acid) 

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 

 (DBCP) 

1,1-Dichloroethylene 

1,2-Dichloropropane 

Dinoseb 

Diquat 

Endothall 

Endrin 

Epichlorohydrin 

Ethylene Dibromide (EDB; 

1,2-Dibromoethane) 

Glyphosate 

Heptachlor 

Heptachlor Epoxide 

Hexachlorobenzene 

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 

Lindane (gamma- 

 Hexachlorocyclohexane) 

Mercury (Inorganic) 

Methoxychlor 

Monochlorobenzene 

 (Chlorobenzene) 

Nitrate (as N) 

Nitrite (as N) 

Oxamyl (Vydate) 

Picloram 

Selenium 

Simazine4 

Toluene 

Toxaphene 

2,4,5-TP (Silvex; 2,4,5-

Trichlorophenoxypropionic Acid) 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

Vinyl Chloride 

Xylenes (Total) 

 

2

 EPA completed the risk reassessment for thallium in September of 2009 (USEPA, 2009b). Because the new 

assessment was not completed by March 1, 2009, the cutoff date for this review, the outcome of this assessment has 

not been included in the current review effort. EPA will consider the updated assessment in the next review cycle. 3

 Although no risk assessment is ongoing, on October 7, 2009 (USEPA, 2009c), EPA announced its intent to launch 

a comprehensive reevaluation of its 2006 risk assessment for atrazine, as described later in this document. 4

 Since the simazine risk assessment is based on atrazine data, any reassessment of simazine depends on the outcome 

of the reevaluation of the atrazine risk assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 3

For the 30 (List A) chemicals, EPA assessments (or National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 

assessments commissioned by EPA) are currently in progress or have recently been completed. 

Therefore, the review conducted for the Six-Year Review 2 process, as presented in this 

summary report for the List A chemicals, was limited to compiling existing and available 

external peer review draft EPA assessments, as well as NAS reports or Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) assessments completed since the last Six-Year 

Review. In collaboration with the OST, EPA’s Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) has 

begun the process of evaluation of new health data for the three radionuclides: alpha particle 

emitters, beta particle and photon emitters, and combined radiums (226 and 228). 

For the other 41 chemicals, a more detailed review was undertaken by OST, including the 

evaluation of risk-based values from selected additional risk assessment sources, and the 

evaluation of selected primary literature sources. 

The primary purpose of this document is to provide a screening-level review of the health 

effects component of the Six-Year Review 2 effort. The screening objective is to identify new 

quantitative and qualitative health information that could indicate a possible basis for revising 

the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and, perhaps, revising the maximum contaminant 

level (MCL) for the chemicals being considered, taking occurrence and technological factors into 

consideration. The second objective of the health effects component was to identify chemicals 

that may warrant a new formal Agency health effects assessment or further follow-up and 

evaluation based on significant new health information identified during the literature search 

(performed by OST). 

MCLGs are based on either the cancer classification (known or likely carcinogens 

typically have an MCLG of 0) or the oral reference dose (RfD). Therefore, the health effects 

technical review focused on whether there has been any change to the cancer classification 

and/or RfD values; suggesting a possible need for revision to the MCLG. A broad review of the 

health assessment literature was conducted to determine whether data are available that could 

result in revision to the MCLG. This review included review of recent EPA assessments, 

assessments by other organizations, and publications in the open literature. 

Section 2 provides an overview of EPA health effects assessment methods, for both 

carcinogens and noncarcinogens, that are relevant to the health effects assessments conducted 

under this Six-Year Review. 

Section 3 describes the overall process implemented to evaluate any new health effects of 

chemicals. 

Section 4 presents the results of the health effects review, including the identification of 

those chemicals for which OST identifies a possible change, or consideration of a change, to the 

current MCLG. 

Section 5 provides an overall summary of this document. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 4

2. Overview of EPA Health Effects Assessment Methods 

2.1 Noncarcinogens 

 For chemicals exhibiting a threshold for toxic effects, EPA establishes the MCLG based 

on an oral reference dose (RfD), and the MCL is often the same as the MCLG. A change in the 

RfD could lead to a change in the MCLG and thus possibly also in the MCL. The RfD is an 

estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to 

the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable 

risk of deleterious noncancer effects during a lifetime. The RfD is derived as follows: 

RfD (mg/kg-day) = NOAEL or LOAEL or BMDL

 UF 

where: 

 NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect level (mg/kg-day) 

 LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (mg/kg-day) 

 BMDL = lower confidence limit on the benchmark dose (mg/kg-day) 

 UF = uncertainty factor 

No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level (NOAEL): The highest exposure level at which there are 

no biologically significant increases in the frequency or severity of adverse effect between the 

exposed population and its appropriate control; some effects may be produced at this level, but 

they are not considered adverse or precursors of adverse effects. 

 

Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level (LOAEL):T The lowest exposure level at which there 

are biologically significant increases in frequency or severity of adverse effects between the 

exposed population and its appropriate control group. 

 

Benchmark Dose (BMD): BMD modeling can be performed to identify potential critical effect 

levels for derivation of an RfD. The BMD is an alternative approach to deriving RfDs instead of 

using a NOAEL or LOAEL. The BMD is a dose that produces a predetermined change in 

response rate of an adverse effect (called the benchmark response or BMR) compared to 

background, and is determined by fitting a flexible mathematical model to the data. The BMD is 

the central estimate of that dose, and the BMDL is the corresponding lower limit of a one-sided 

95% confidence interval on the BMD. In practice, the BMDL is often used as an alternative to 

the NOAEL as a point of departure in recent noncancer risk assessments. 

Since the determination of the BMD and BMDL is dependent on the BMR, it is critical to select 

an appropriate BMR in the BMD modeling process. For quantal data, an excess risk of 10% 

generally has been the default BMR because the 10% response is at or near the limit of 

sensitivity in most cancer and noncancer bioassays. If a study has greater-than-usual sensitivity, 

then a lower BMR can be used, although the benchmark dose at a 10% response (BMD10) and 

the lower 95% confidence limit on the BMD10 (BMDL10) are usually presented for comparison 

purposes. For continuous data, if there is a minimal level of change in the endpoint that is 

generally considered to be biologically significant, then that amount of change can be used to 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 5

define the BMR. In the absence of any other data on the adverse response level, a change in the 

mean equal to one control standard deviation from the control mean is generally used (USEPA, 

2000a). 

Uncertainty Factors (UF): The NOAELs, LOAELs or BMDLs selected for deriving the RfD 

may be determined from animal or human data. In calculating an RfD, the NOAEL, LOAEL or 

BMDL is divided by a composite uncertainty factor (UF). An UF is a product of several 

uncertainty factors accounting for variation in sensitivity among members of the human 

population, extrapolation from animal data to humans, extrapolation from a LOAEL to a 

NOAEL, extrapolation of subchronic data to lifetime, and database deficiencies. Each individual 

UF presented below may range between 1 and 10 to account for the uncertainty introduced either 

by variability or the absence of information. The specific magnitude of the value is based upon a 

combination of scientific evidence and professional judgment. 

Some older RfD assessments also used a modifying factor (MF) in the calculation of the 

overall UF. Discontinuation of the MF was recommended in 2002 (USEPA, 2002c), and the 

IRIS glossary states that the MF was discontinued in 2004. The magnitude of the MF reflected 

the scientific uncertainties of the study and database not explicitly treated with standard 

uncertainty factors (e.g., the completeness of the overall database). Current practice is to address 

those uncertainties in the database uncertainty factor. A MF was greater than zero and less than 

or equal to 10, and the default value for the MF was 1. 

The following paragraphs describe the component uncertainty factors, based on current 

EPA guidance for use of uncertainty factors for IRIS and similar programs. In addition to the 

considerations suggested below, others may be appropriate depending upon data availability, 

applicability, and quality. In particular, additional considerations are used in deriving an RfD for 

essential elements, taking into account recommended intake. 

UFH (human to sensitive human): A factor of 10 is used as the default when data 

from human populations are lacking or deficient, as well as when the data are 

from studies on average healthy humans. A factor of 3 can be used when the 

sensitivity of the human population used in the study is judged to be between that 

for sensitive and average healthy humans, such as when some, but not all, 

significant contributors to sensitivity are addressed, or when the study population 

is large enough to capture significant population variability. Chemical-specific 

data can also be used to adjust this factor, when adequate data are available. A 

factor of 1 is used when the data are from a good-quality epidemiology study 

evaluating effects in a sensitive population. 

UFA (animal to human): A factor of 10 is used as the default when extrapolating 

valid results from experimental animal studies, when results of studies of human 

exposure are not available or are inadequate. A factor of 3 can be used when 

results are obtained from an animal species that is physiologically similar to 

humans, such as nonhuman primates, or when pharmacokinetic modeling 

approaches are used in extrapolating from the animal data (USEPA, 1994a). 

Chemical-specific data can also be used to adjust this factor, when adequate data 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 6

are available. A factor of 1 can be used when valid results are obtained from an 

animal species that is known to be more sensitive than humans to the chemical of 

interest, or when comparative metabolic and/or toxicity data show that the 

experimental animal responds to the chemical or agent in a manner that is the 

same or very similar to the way that a human responds. 

UFL (LOAEL to NOAEL): A factor of 10 is used as the default when deriving an 

RfD from a LOAEL instead of a NOAEL. A factor of less than 10 (typically 3) 

can be used when there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the LOAEL used is 

based on an effect of minimal adversity. A factor of 1 is used when the critical 

effect level is a study NOAEL or when benchmark dose modeling (i.e., a BMDL) 

was used to identify the point of departure. The BMDL has been used as an 

alternative to the NOAEL as a point of departure in noncancer risk assessment. 

Although it has been proposed that an additional UF (for effect level 

extrapolation) be used when deriving a chronic risk value from a BMDL, current 

EPA guidance is not to use any such additional UF. 

UFS (subchronic to chronic): A factor of 10 is used as the default when less-thanchronic results (NOAEL or LOAEL) in humans or experimental animals are used 

in the absence of useful long-term human or animal data. A factor of 3 may be 

used for intermediate data, such as when some data on chronic exposures are 

available but the study did not evaluate some of the parameters shown to be 

affected in studies of shorter duration. A factor of 1 is used when the RfD is 

derived from a chronic study. A factor of 1 also can be used when less-thanchronic results are used, if it is known that the subchronic study is more sensitive 

than any chronic studies, or that the critical study evaluated the full duration of 

relevance for the critical effect (e.g., for certain reproductive or developmental 

effects or relevant acute effects such as cholinesterase inhibition). 

UUFD (completeness of database): This UF is used when deriving a risk value from 

an “incomplete” database. The intermediate factor of 3 is often used when there is 

a single data gap (e.g., missing a multigenerational reproduction study, or missing 

a systemic toxicity study in one species). 

The minimum database for a high confidence RfD includes two systemic toxicity studies 

of chronic or subchronic duration in different species, a two-generation reproductive 

study, and two developmental toxicity studies in different species. For the systemic 

toxicity studies, the key consideration is whether a range of endpoints was evaluated; 

duration extrapolation, if relevant, is addressed by UFS. The minimum animal database 

for an RfD is a well-conducted subchronic study that evaluated a comprehensive array of 

endpoints, and established an unequivocal NOAEL and LOAEL. Note that EPA did not 

generally use the UFD prior to approximately 1987. (The exception was the Office of 

Pesticide Programs, where database deficiencies were addressed with the use of a 

modifying factor, as discussed above.) After 1987, the UFD was adopted by the IRIS 

program, but the UFD was not used for regulations by OW until 1991, when a few, but 

not many, chemicals were assigned database factors. Therefore, some older RfDs that 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 7

were developed by EPA based on incomplete databases might be 3- to 10-fold lower if 

current uncertainty factor guidelines were followed. 

2.2 Carcinogens 

EPA’s health effects assessment for carcinogens involves assessing both the weight of 

evidence for carcinogenicity and the potency. This section presents EPA’s guidance for assessing 

carcinogens as it has evolved from the 1986 guidelines (USEPA, 1986a) through the final 2005 

guidelines (USEPA, 2005a, 2005b). 

2.2.1 Classification. Under the 1986 guidelines, the qualitative assessment began with a 

separate evaluation of the animal and human data, identifying the data as sufficient, limited, 

inadequate, “no data,” or “no evidence of carcinogenicity.” The animal and human data were 

combined with other available data for an overall weight-of-evidence evaluation, using the 

following groups: 

Group A – Human carcinogen 

Group B – Probable human carcinogen. This group is divided into B1 (agents for which 

there is “limited” evidence of carcinogenicity based on epidemiology data), and B2 

(agents for which there is “sufficient” evidence of carcinogenicity from animal data, but 

“inadequate” or “no data” in humans). 

Group C – Possible human carcinogen 

Group D – Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity 

Group E – Evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans 

Proposed revisions to the 1986 cancer guidelines were released in 1996, and additional 

draft guidelines were released in 1999. (Although there were additional interim versions of the 

cancer guidelines, they were not applied in official final assessments.) These revised versions of 

the guidelines, like the current guidelines (finalized in 2005) described below, emphasized the 

use of descriptors coupled with a narrative based on the entire weight of evidence (rather than a 

cancer classification), and emphasized mode of action (MOA). However, the 1996 and 1999 

versions used somewhat different sets of descriptors and different definitions of the data 

supporting each descriptor than the 2005 guidelines did. Under the proposed 1996 guidelines, 

there were just three broad categories of descriptors: known/likely, cannot be determined, not 

likely. Under the draft 1999 guidelines there were five categories of descriptors: carcinogenic to 

humans; likely to be carcinogenic to humans; suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not 

sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential; data are inadequate for an assessment of 

human carcinogenic potential; not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The 1996 proposed and 

1999 draft guidelines were also generally consistent with the 2005 approach to quantitation (see 

Section 2.2.2), although they differed in some minor details with respect to the modeling. 

Under the 2005 guidelines, a descriptive weight of evidence judgment is made, based on 

all available animal, human, and mechanistic data, as to the likelihood that an agent is a human 

carcinogen and the conditions under which the carcinogenic effects may be expressed. Under the 

2005 guidelines, descriptive terms for carcinogenicity replaced the terms used in the 1999 draft 

guidelines, which themselves replaced the 1986 alphanumeric cancer group designations noted 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 8

above. A cancer narrative is also included under the 2005 guidelines to provide a more complete 

description of the weight of evidence and conditions of carcinogenicity. The suggested 

descriptive terms under the 2005 guidelines are as follows: 

Carcinogenic to humans 

Likely to be carcinogenic to humans 

Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential 

Inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential 

Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans 

Compound descriptors are possible if a chemical has different carcinogenic responses 

with different routes of exposure, dose, or mode of action (MOA)5

. MOA information enters into 

both the qualitative and quantitative portions of the assessment. The MOA determines such 

issues as the human relevance of the observed tumors and any route-specific differences (e.g., 

carcinogenic in the respiratory tract via the inhalation route, but not carcinogenic via the oral 

route). MOA must be considered separately for every target organ. Because of these 

considerations, one cannot directly translate the cancer classifications and risk values under the 

1986 guidelines to narrative statements and risks under the 2005 guidelines. A full consideration 

of the weight of evidence, including consideration of any available MOA data, would be needed 

for an assessment under the 2005 guidelines.

The cancer classifications in this screening-level health review for Six-Year Review 2 

chemicals are based only on the Agency’s most recent available formal risk assessments. Note 

that EPA cancer assessments conducted between 1996 (following publication of the proposed 

guidelines) and 2001, when the Agency published a Federal Register notice (60 FR 59594) 

authorizing use of the 1999 draft guidelines on an interim basis, often presented two sets of 

cancer classifications – one following the 1986 guidelines, and one following the classification 

system of the then-most current official version of the guidelines. (Some assessments conducted 

during that time period, such as some from the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), presented 

the assessment under only the 1986 guidelines.) 

2.2.2 Quantification. The quantitative aspect of cancer assessment also changed between 

the 1986 and 2005 guidelines. Under the 1986 guidelines, the cancer risk was calculated by 

fitting a model to the tumor data, and then calculating a 95% upper confidence limit on one of 

the coefficients in the model. The resulting number was the q1* (also known as the slope factor), 

producing an upper bound on the risk. In addition, in the 1986 guidelines, human equivalent 

doses were estimated from animal data using a scaling factor of body weight to the 2/3 power. 

Because the extrapolation approach was not sufficiently transparent, a modified approach is used 

under the 2005 guidelines. A two-step process is used for the quantitation step. First, a model is 

used to fit a dose-response curve in the range of the available tumor data. The model is used to 

calculate the point of departure (POD), the dose that is used for extrapolation to the low-dose 

region. According to the 2005 guidelines, the POD is the lowest dose that is adequately 

supported by the data. The ED10 (the dose corresponding to a 10% increase in tumors), and the 

 

5

 Mode of action is defined as a sequence of key events and processes, starting with interaction of an agent with a 

cell, proceeding through operational and anatomical changes, and resulting in cancer formation. It is contrasted with 

“mechanism of action,” which implies a more detailed understanding and description of events. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 9

LED10 (the 95% lower confidence limit on that dose) are also reported, and are often used as the 

POD. In the 1996 guidelines and in all later versions, the default for calculating human 

equivalent dose for oral exposure uses a scaling factor of body weight to the 3/4 power. 

In the second step of the low-dose extrapolation, one extrapolates from the POD to the 

low-dose region of interest for environmental exposures. The approach for extrapolation depends 

on the MOA for carcinogenesis. If the chemical causes cancer through a mutagenic change to 

DNA, or if the MOA for causing cancer is not known, this extrapolation is conducted by drawing 

a line from the POD to the origin (zero dose, zero tumors, corrected for the background 

response). The slope of the line gives the unit risk (risk per unit dose, or risk per [mg/kg-day]). If 

there was a positive tumor response at all bioassay doses, the calculated slope is often very 

similar to that calculated using the q1* approach. In addition, under the supplemental guidance 

(USEPA, 2005b), affirmative determination of a mutagenic MOA (as opposed to defaulting to a 

mutagenic MOA based on insufficient data or limited data indicating potential mutagenicity) 

determines whether an age-dependent adjustment factor (ADAF) is used as part of the 

quantitative assessment, to account for additional sensitivity of children. 

If the chemical is shown to cause cancer via a MOA that is not linear at low doses, and

the agent does not demonstrate mutagenic or other activity consistent with linearity at low doses, 

a nonlinear extrapolation is conducted. In earlier versions of the cancer guidelines (USEPA, 

1996a, 1999a) the point of departure was compared to the exposure of interest, resulting in a 

margin of exposure (MOE). However, these earlier guidelines did not define the acceptable 

MOE value. The 2005 guidelines state that “where tumors arise through a nonlinear MOA, an 

oral reference dose or inhalation reference concentration, or both, should be developed in 

accordance with EPA’s established practice of developing such values, taking into consideration 

the factors summarized in the characterization of the POD.” In these cases, an RfD-like value is 

calculated based on the key event6

 for carcinogenesis or the tumor response. 

2.3 How EPA Sets the MCLG and MCL 

 Because the identification of contaminants for possible revision based on health effects is 

dependent on whether or not the MCLG could change, a brief explanation of the derivation of 

the MCLG is warranted. The MCLG is the maximum level of a contaminant in drinking water at 

which no known or anticipated adverse health effects occur, allowing for an adequate margin of 

safety. As the name implies, an MCLG is a health goal; it is not an enforceable standard. EPA 

establishes the MCL based on the MCLG. The MCL is the maximum permissible level of a 

contaminant in water that is delivered to any user of a public water system, and it is an 

enforceable standard. The MCL is set as close as feasible to the MCLG. 

As discussed in the next two sections, there are different approaches used to establish 

MCLGs for carcinogens and for noncarcinogens. 

 2.3.1 Carcinogens. For drinking water contaminants regulated prior to the 1996 

SDWA, OW followed a three-category regulatory cancer classification system (Categories I, II, 

 

6

 The key event is defined as an empirically observed precursor step that is itself a necessary element of the mode of 

action or is a biologically based marker for such an element. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 10

or III). These categories specify decisions as to degree of concern for an agent’s carcinogenic 

potential as a contaminant of drinking water, and define to some extent the approach to risk 

management that is taken for establishing MCLGs. 

EPA also used the six alphanumeric categories (A, B1, B2, C, D, and E) of the 1986 

cancer guidelines (USEPA, 1986a) in establishing MCLGs. The six-group classification system 

is often equated to the three-category system in the NPDWR Federal Register announcements. 

Table 1 describes the three categories and, with few exceptions (e.g., beryllium), their usual 

equivalent alphanumeric classification. If a chemical is a known or probable human carcinogen 

by the oral route (Category I, generally Group A or B), the MCLG is generally set at zero 

because it is assumed, in the absence of other data, that there is no known threshold for 

carcinogenicity. If a chemical falls in Group C (Category II), the MCLG is derived using the RfD 

approach, as described in the next section, along with an additional risk management safety 

factor of 1 to10. If a chemical falls into Group D or E (Category III), the MCLG is derived using 

the RfD approach as described in the next section. The methodology used under this approach 

for establishing MCLGs for chemicals with varying degrees of evidence of carcinogenicity is 

summarized in Table 1. 

 A generally similar approach applies to chemicals with cancer assessments developed 

under more recent EPA guidelines. The MCLG is generally set at zero for chemicals with a 

descriptor of carcinogenic to humans or likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and an additional 

risk management safety factor of 1 to10 may be applied on a case-by-case basis, if needed for 

chemicals with a descriptor of suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential. 

 

2.3.2 Noncarcinogens. For noncarcinogens, the MCLG is derived from the RfD, which 

was discussed in Section 2.1. From the RfD, a Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) can be 

determined. A DWEL is a drinking water lifetime exposure level, assuming 100% exposure from 

that medium, at which adverse, noncarcinogenic health effects would not be expected to occur. 

The DWEL is derived as follows: 

DWEL (mg/L) = RfD × BW 

 I 

where: 

 BW = Body Weight (70 kg for adults, 10 kg for children) 

 

 I = Intake from drinking water (2 L/day for adults, 1 L/day for children). 

The MCLG is then derived by considering other known or potential sources of exposure, using 

the relative source contribution (RSC) factor. 

MCLG (mg/L) = DWEL x RSC 

 

The RSC from drinking water is based on actual exposure data, or, if data are not available, a 

value of 20% is assumed for effects based on lifetime exposure. This allows 80% of the total 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 11

exposure to come from sources other than drinking water, such as exposure from food, inhalation, 

or dermal contact. For the few MCLGs based on adverse effects related to exposure in children, 

an RSC of 100% was usually applied because the source of exposure for the critical study was 

drinking water. However, in more recent assessments, even when actual data from other sources 

are available, EPA uses a maximum RSC value of 80% to allow for potential unidentified 

sources. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 12

Table 1. EPA 1986 Cancer Classification System and Corresponding Three-Category 

Approach 

Three-category approach for 

establishing MCLGs

Corresponding five-group classification system 

of 1986 cancer guidelines

MCLG generally set at zero 

Category I:

Known or probable human 

carcinogens: Strong evidence of 

carcinogenicity

Sufficient human or animal evidence of 

carcinogenicity. 

Generally Group A or B:

A: Human carcinogen

Sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies 

to support a causal association. 

B: Probable human carcinogen

B1: Limited evidence of carcinogenicity from 

epidemiological studies. 

B2: Inadequate evidence or no data from 

epidemiological studies; sufficient evidence from 

animal studies. 

MCLG based on the RfD with an additional safety factor of up to 10 to account for 

possible carcinogenicity, or is based on excess cancer risk range of 10-5 to 10-6

Category II: 

Limited evidence of carcinogenicity

Some limited but insufficient evidence of 

carcinogenicity from animal data. 

Generally Group C:

Possible human carcinogen

Limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals in 

the absence of human data. 

MCLG established using the RfD approach

Category III:

Inadequate or no evidence of 

carcinogenicity in animals

Group D or Group E:

D: Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity

Inadequate human and animal evidence of 

carcinogenicity, or no data available. 

E: Evidence of non-carcinogenicity for 

 humans 

No evidence of carcinogenicity in two different 

animal species, or in both epidemiological and 

animal studies. 

2.4 Key Differences in Human Health Assessment Methods Between EPA and Other 

Organizations Discussed in this Document 

As part of the evaluation of the List B chemicals, assessments by several other regulatory 

bodies or authoritative organizations were reviewed. Notable among these are the Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), California EPA (CalEPA), the World Health 

Organization (WHO), Health Canada, and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). To provide 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 13

context to that review, key differences between the human health assessment methods of these 

other organizations and those of EPA are summarized here. 

ATSDR establishes oral minimal risk levels (MRLs) for non-neoplastic endpoints for acute 

(14 days or less), intermediate (15 – 364 days), and chronic (365 days or more) exposure 

durations. MRLs for oral chronic exposure are similar to EPA’s RfDs. However, ATSDR and 

EPA use different approaches when the database is limited to subchronic studies and no adequate 

chronic study is available. In such cases, EPA derives a chronic RfD from a subchronic study, 

incorporating an additional uncertainty factor to account for use of a subchronic study. ATSDR 

derives an intermediate duration MRL that protects against exposures up to 10% of a lifetime, 

and it does not incorporate an uncertainty factor to account for using a less-than-lifetime study. 

ATSDR does not perform quantitative cancer assessments or assign formal cancer classifications 

or descriptors, although an overall summary of the data pertaining to carcinogenic potential is 

provided. 

CalEPA establishes a public health goal (PHG), which is a water concentration that is the 

State’s equivalent to the MCLG. However, the PHG can be based on either cancer or noncancer 

endpoints. When the PHG is based on cancer endpoints, CalEPA estimates a cancer potency 

factor and then uses the potency factor to estimate the daily water intake that is equivalent to a 

10-6 cancer risk, assuming adult body weight and drinking water intake. When the PHG is based 

on noncancer endpoints, CalEPA uses a procedure that is similar to EPA’s approach for deriving 

an MCLG. CalEPA generally has used standard default adult parameters of 70 kg body weight 

and 2 L/day water consumption. However, for volatile organic compounds that have a potential 

to result in inhalation exposure from water (e.g. showering), CalEPA uses a higher daily water 

intake to account for the additional potential for exposure. This intake is often 4 L/day, but may 

be modified based on chemical-specific information. In addition, CalEPA uses a default RSC of 

20%, similar to the approach of USEPA. However, CalEPA also appears to choose a non-default 

value for the RSC more frequently than does USEPA, although the rationale for moving from the 

default is not always clearly documented.

WHO establishes a ”guideline value,” a drinking water concentration that is developed in a 

process analogous to that for the MCLG. However, WHO uses different default assumptions for 

estimating water concentration from doses, including a 60 kg adult body weight, daily water 

consumption of 2 L/day, and an RSC of 10%. WHO develops one guideline value that is based 

either on cancer or noncancer. For genotoxic carcinogens a value may be based on a 

concentration calculated to correspond to a specified cancer risk. For example, for vinyl chloride, 

the drinking water concentration was based on a cancer risk of 1 in 105

. 

For substances considered by Health Canada to have no threshold (i.e., mutagens and 

genotoxic carcinogens), it is assumed that there is some probability of harm to human health at 

any level of exposure. Health-based values for carcinogens are generally established on the basis 

of an estimation of lifetime cancer risk that would be considered “essentially negligible,” which 

Health Canada has defined in the context of drinking water guidelines as a range from one new 

cancer above background per 100,000 people to one new cancer above background per 

1,000,000 people (i.e., 10-5 to 10-6) over a lifetime of 70 years. For noncarcinogens an approach 

similar to EPA’s RfD methodology is used. For calculating water concentrations default values 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 14

of 70 kg body weight, 1.5 L water intake per day, and a RSC of either 20% or a value based on 

actual exposure data.

3. Process for Evaluating Chemicals for the Six-Year Review 2 

The list of 71 chemicals was divided into two groups. For the 30 List A chemicals, either 

EPA assessments are currently in progress or recently completed, or NAS assessments 

commissioned by EPA are currently in progress or recently completed. Therefore, the review 

was limited to compiling existing final EPA assessments, as well as noting recent NAS and 

ATSDR assessments. Three radionuclides (alpha particle emitters, beta particle and photon 

emitters, and combined radiums (226 and 228)) were evaluated by ORIA separately with health 

evaluation and literature review in the areas specific to radiation. In the case of the remaining 41 

chemicals, a more comprehensive evaluation was performed by OST, including evaluation of 

risk-based values from preferred and additional risk assessment sources, and evaluation of the 

selected primary literature sources. 

3.1 Literature Search Process for the 41 List B Chemicals 

 Evaluation of each chemical began with a consideration of authoritative reviews/ 

assessments by IRIS, OPP, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the National Toxicology Program (NTP); National 

Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), California EPA (CalEPA), World Health 

Organization (WHO), European Commission Concise International Chemical Assessment 

Documents (CICADS), International Programme on Chemical Safety/Environmental Health 

Criteria (IPCS/EHC), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Health Canada, 

Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide 

Residues (JMPR). Each organization’s most recent assessment was obtained for review when 

available. Additional checks were conducted to ensure that EPA, NAS, and ATSDR assessments 

released through March 1, 2009 were captured. 

Literature searches were conducted to identify primary literature to supplement the 

information in the authoritative reviews. The following databases were searched: TOXLINE, 

MEDLINE®, Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology (DART®), Chemical 

Carcinogenesis Research Information System (CCRIS), and Hazardous Substances Data Bank 

(HSDB). The dates covered by the literature search were determined on an individual chemical 

basis, to ensure that the literature was adequately captured, but to avoid unnecessary duplication 

of work done in the authoritative reviews. In general, searches covered posting dates from 2003 

(the year that the Six-Year Review 1 was finalized) through December 2007. However, if there 

was a recent IRIS, OPP, OW, or ATSDR document, the searches began 2 years before 

publication date of the latest toxicity assessment from IRIS/OPP/OW and 3 years before the 

publication date of any ATSDR toxicological profile. In addition, supplemental searching was 

done to cover earlier dates, going back to the late 1980s in many cases. 

The searches and screening of the literature searches were intended to capture the health 

effects data; separate searches were conducted for (1) systemic toxicity and carcinogenicity and 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 15

for (2) reproductive and developmental toxicity. However, most of the studies on reproductive 

and developmental toxicity were captured by the general literature search, except that the 

reproductive/developmental search also included the developmental-specific database DART. 

The search terms were very broad, based on the chemical name, synonyms, and CAS number. A 

literature search review report was prepared for each chemical, describing the findings of any 

significant new studies published for general toxicity, carcinogenicity (including mode of action 

(MOA) and genotoxicity studies), and reproductive or developmental effects. Studies with a 

possible impact on the assessment were retrieved and reviewed; other studies of interest were 

noted based on the information presented in the abstract. 

3.2 Screening Process for List A Chemicals 

List A chemicals have an ongoing EPA assessment, or an ongoing or recently completed 

NAS assessment. Accordingly, no additional literature search was conducted for these chemicals. 

Instead, the review of the List A chemicals was limited to reviewing the available noncancer and 

cancer assessments from the following sources: OW, IRIS, OPP Reregistration Eligibility 

Decisions (RED), NAS, and ATSDR to determine if there were any compelling new data that 

should be considered during the Six-Year Review 2. In addition, qualitative and quantitative 

descriptions of the toxic and cancer effects from EPA documents for which external review 

versions are available were also reviewed, with the understanding that these external-peerreview-ready assessments are subject to further changes. 

3.3 Screening Process for List B Chemicals 

For the List B chemicals that are not the subject of an ongoing assessment by EPA or 

NAS, a more comprehensive evaluation was done, including evaluation of risk-based values 

from preferred and additional risk assessment sources, and evaluation of the selected primary 

literature sources. Literature searches on these chemicals were conducted as discussed above in 

Section 3.1. Newly identified studies that appeared relevant to the assessment of noncancer, 

cancer, or reproductive/developmental effects were obtained and screened for the possible 

impact of new data on current assessments. 

Health effects assessments completed by the following EPA offices or other organizations 

were examined: 

• EPA Office of Water Drinking Water Criteria Documents 

• EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 

• EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) 

• EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) 

• National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 

• California EPA Public Health Goals (CalEPA) 

• WHO Drinking Water Guidelines (WHO) 

• Health Canada 

• WHO’s Concise International Assessment Documents (CICADs)

• Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 16

• International Programme on Chemical Safety – Environmental Health Criteria 

Documents (IPCS, EHC) 

• FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) 

• National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Report on Carcinogens 

• International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 

• National Toxicology Program (NTP) 

Based on the availability of new data identified in the literature and information from 

existing assessments from other organizations, conclusions were made regarding the need for 

EPA OW to update its MCLG based on the health effects data alone. In addition, the data on 

reproductive and developmental toxicity were evaluated to ensure that the MCLG takes these 

endpoints into account and to determine whether risk values based on these endpoints would be 

in the range of the RfD. 

4. Results - Identifying Candidates for Possible MCLG Changes 

Based on the approach described in Section 3.2, EPA identified those regulated chemical 

contaminants from the 71 considered for which there have been official Agency changes in the 

RfD and/or in the cancer risk assessment from oral exposure. Such changes could result in a 

change in the MCLG and, possibly, in the MCL. Therefore, these chemicals were further 

considered for Six Year Review 2 to evaluate whether they are candidates for regulatory revision. 

Tables 2 through 5, presented together at the end of this document, provide key 

information on the chemicals evaluated in this assessment. 

Table 2 lists the 71 chemicals included in the Six-Year Review 2 process, the basis for 

current OW rules7 (including RfDs and cancer groups on which the MCLGs are based), 

assessments by OPP and IRIS, and assessment dates. Although the date of “verification” is welldocumented, numerous additional revisions to the IRIS summary may be documented in the 

“Revision History” for each chemical, and the “last revised” date may be several years after the 

verification date, particularly for chemicals verified prior to 1996. Therefore, the dates presented 

in Table 2 for IRIS assessments are approximate and refer to the most recent year in which a 

change was made to the IRIS file. Risk assessments conducted by IRIS and OPP can be found at 

www.epa.gov/iris/index.html and www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm, respectively. 

The basis for the RfDs, including the critical effect, citation for the principal study, point of 

departure (value and whether it is a NOAEL, LOAEL, or BMDL), and breakdown of uncertainty 

factors, are also presented. For OPP assessments, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)8

factor is provided, when relevant. In addition, for cancer assessments, the year of the guidelines 

followed is presented, since the approach varied with the year of the guidelines. For a number of 

the chemicals evaluated between 1996 and 2001, the assessment document provided the 

assessments under both the 1986 and 1996 guidelines. In such cases, Table 2 presents only the 

 

7

 The 2000 radionuclides rule was a collaboration between OW and ORIA. ORIA is the principal health assessor for 

radionuclides. 

8

 The FQPA mandated consideration of an additional uncertainty factor to ensure protection of children for pesticide 

safety evaluations.
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 17

assessment under the 1996 guidelines. All supporting EPA documents are listed in the reference 

section. 

Additional information on the quantitative portion of the cancer assessments is presented 

in Table 3 for the List A and List B chemicals for which quantitative assessments are available. 

The table shows both the quantitative assessment and the methods used for modeling the data 

and for extrapolation from the animal data. 

Assessments by other organizations reviewed for List A and List B chemicals are 

presented in Table 4. Where possible, noncancer limits initially expressed as water 

concentrations were converted to the reference value in dose as mg/kg-day, so that all values 

could be directly comparable at a glance. For List A chemicals only the latest final EPA 

assessment is included, as well as the most recent ATSDR or NAS assessment. 

Table 5 summarizes the existing EPA assessments for all List B chemicals. In addition, 

Table 5 presents the results of this review for the List B chemicals based on the health effects 

evaluation. The column headed “New Data/Possible Impact on MCLG” addresses new data 

obtained since the latest OW assessment that could affect the MCLG. This column presents the 

response to two separate considerations. The first half addresses whether new data are available 

that could be used, or have been used, to develop an updated RfD. If the new data have already 

been used to develop a formal EPA assessment (as shown in other columns in Table 5), there is 

no additional notation. If the new data were identified in the literature search, it is indicated as 

“lit search.” The second half of the column headed “New Data/Possible Impact on MCLG” 

addresses whether there is a potential for the new data to have an impact on the MCLG. New 

data that could be used to develop an RfD would not have an impact on the MCLG if the MCLG 

is zero. New cancer data would generally not affect the MCLG, unless the data changed the 

cancer descriptor. If the first half of the column is “no” for new data, the second half of the 

column is blank. 

Potential concern for reproductive and developmental toxicity was based on 

consideration of the reproductive and developmental toxicity data summarized in the 

assessments by the organizations listed in Section 3.3, as well as review of studies identified in 

the literature search. The outcome of this review is described in Section 4.3 below. 

The column in Table 5 headed “Possible New MCLG” notes whether there are data from 

formal EPA assessments indicating a possible need to update the MCLG. If “yes,” the possible 

MCLG based on the new IRIS or OPP assessment is provided. This column reflects only 

possible changes based on the health evaluation, and does not include consideration of 

occurrence data or other risk management considerations. Footnotes provide additional details. 

For 7 chemicals (1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, atrazine, chromium, nitrate, nitrite, selenium, and 

simazine) new data were identified suggesting the need to consider whether a possible change to 

the MCLG might be likely, but the value of the MCLG change could not be determined without 

further critical review. These chemicals are noted as “to be determined” (TBD) in this column of 

the table. For 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, chromium, nitrate, nitrite, and selenium, the following 

column indicates “yes” indicating that EPA is considering whether to nominate the chemical for 

a new assessment. For atrazine, on October 7, 2009 (74 FR 51593, USEPA, 2009c), the Agency 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 18

announced its intent to launch a comprehensive reevaluation of the 2006 OPP risk assessment for 

atrazine (USEPA, 2006a). Since simazine is based on atrazine data, any reassessment of 

simazine relies on the outcome of the reevaluation of the atrazine risk assessment. 

4.1 Findings for List A Chemicals 

As of March 1, 2009, 30 List A chemicals were the subjects of ongoing EPA assessments 

and therefore, the Agency is not recommending any changes to the MCLGs for them at this time. 

Most of these assessments are being conducted as part of the IRIS program, and information on 

the status of these assessments can be found on the IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking System 

website at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm. Note that EPA completed the risk 

reassessment for thallium in September of 2009 (USEPA, 2009b). Because the new assessment 

was not completed by March 1, 2009, the cutoff date for this review, the outcome of this 

assessment has not been included in the current review effort. EPA will consider the updated 

assessment in the next review cycle. 

Regarding the radionuclides on List A, since the promulgation of the final radionuclides 

rule (USEPA, 2000b), additional information has become available on the adverse health effects 

of ionizing radiation (including alpha particle emitters; beta particle and photon emitters; and 

combined radiums (226 and 228)), and on cellular and molecular mechanisms of damage. In 

particular, updated and new epidemiologic data on occupational, medical, and environmental 

exposures offer an improved basis for quantitative estimates of radiation-induced health effects 

in human populations at low doses and low dose rates. Novel cellular and molecular studies have 

begun to shed light on the complex mechanisms involved in radiation carcinogenesis, and this 

mechanistic understanding may help refine risk modeling and reduce uncertainties in risk 

estimates. Still other research studies have reported on radiation-associated non-cancer endpoints, 

heritable diseases, and risks to the developing fetus during in utero exposures. Much of this 

information has been reviewed and evaluated comprehensively in several recent reports 

published by national and international radiation protection advisory bodies, as discussed by 

USEPA (2007a, 2007b, 2007c). 

In light of this new information, and as part of the six year review process, EPA’s current 

radiation risk assessment methodology (which is described in detail in USEPA, 1994b; USEPA, 

1999b, 1999c; and Eckerman et al., 2006) needs to be updated. In particular, the current methods 

and risk models do not incorporate the recent finding and recommendations in the BEIR VII 

Report (NRC, 2006a), UNSCEAR (2000), NCRP Report 139 (NCRP, 2001), IARC Volume 78 

(WHO, 2001), ICRP Report 99 (2006), and several other newly-available, peer-reviewed 

publications on radiation-induced health effects, metabolism, and MOA. Therefore, ORIA has 

begun the process of revising its radiation risk methodology to incorporate this new cancer data, 

and possibly non-cancer data (USEPA, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c), and will determine, in 

collaboration with the Office of Water, whether or not the new data will have any impact on 

current radionuclide MCLGs or MCLs. ORIA has also prepared a draft white paper (USEPA, 

2006b) that outlines proposed changes in its current methodology for estimating radiogenic 

cancers based on the contents of the BEIR VII Report (NRC, 2006a). 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 19

4.2 Findings for List B Chemicals 

 For the 41 List B chemicals, the Agency found new information suggesting the need to 

consider potential changes to the MCLGs for 14 chemicals. For the remaining 27 List B 

chemicals, the Agency did not find a reason to consider a change to the MCLG at this time. For 

20 of those 27 chemicals, current information indicates there is no health effects basis for an 

MCLG change. However, as mentioned in the beginning of section 4, 7 chemicals were 

identified for new assessments or other follow-up based on the availability of new data. The 

decisions for these 7 chemicals are described in detail in section 4.2.2. 

4.2.1 Findings for Consideration of a Change to the MCLG 

New EPA assessments were available for 18 chemicals for which the MCLG is not zero, 

or for which the MCLG would change from zero as the result of a new cancer classification. For 

reasons discussed in the next section, EPA found that it was not appropriate to consider changes 

to the MCLG for four of these 18 chemicals: carbofuran, chromium, atrazine, and simazine. 

However, the Agency found new information suggesting the need to consider potential changes 

to the MCLG, based on the health evaluation for the following 14 chemicals. 

• Alachlor 

• Barium 

• 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid) 

• 1,1-Dichloroethylene 

• Diquat 

• Endothall 

• Glyphosate 

• Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 

• Lindane 

• Oxamyl (Vydate) 

• Picloram 

• Toluene 

• 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

• Xylenes (Total) 

 As described in the following paragraphs, 12 of the 18 chemicals with updated Agency 

assessments had a new RfD developed by IRIS or OPP that could result in a change to the 

MCLG, one chemical (alachlor) had a change in the cancer assessment, and one chemical (1,1-

dichloroethylene) had changes in both the noncancer and cancer assessments that led to a 

possible change in the MCLG. Based on health effects data only for these 14 chemicals, it is 

possible to consider a revision to their current MCLG values. 

 The chemicals for which the possible changes in the MCLGs would be based on the new 

IRIS or OPP RfDs are discussed in the next paragraph. Chemicals for which the cancer 

assessment could affect the MCLGs are described in the paragraph after that. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 20

 For barium, an RfD of 0.07 mg/kg-day was used in developing the MCLG (USEPA, 

1991a, 1990a), while the current IRIS RfD (USEPA, 2005c) is 0.2 mg/kg-day. In addition, a 

preliminary estimation of the RSC by OST has been updated from 100% to 80%. For 2,4-D, an 

RfD of 0.01 mg/kg-day was used in developing the MCLG (USEPA, 1991b), while OPP 

(USEPA, 2005d) derived an RfD of 0.005 mg/kg-day. For diquat, an RfD of 0.0022 mg/kg-day 

was used in developing the MCLG (USEPA, 1992a), while OPP (USEPA, 1995a; 2001a) 

derived an RfD of 0.005 mg/kg-day. For endothall, an RfD of 0.02 mg/kg-day was used in 

developing the MCLG (USEPA, 1992b, 1992c), while OPP (USEPA, 2005e) derived an RfD of 

0.007 mg/kg-day. For glyphosate, an RfD of 0.1 mg/kg-day was used in developing the MCLG 

(USEPA, 1992b, 1992d), and OPP (USEPA, 2002d, 2007d) developed an RfD of 2 mg/kg-day. 

For hexachlorocyclopentadiene, an RfD of 0.007 was used in developing the MCLG (USEPA, 

1992a), while IRIS (USEPA, 2001b) developed an RfD of 0.006 mg/kg-day. For lindane, an RfD 

of 0.0003 mg/kg-day was used in developing the MCLG (USEPA, 1991b), while OPP (EPA, 

2002g) developed an RfD of 0.0047 mg/kg/day.9

 For oxamyl, an RfD of 0.025 mg/kg-day was 

used in developing the MCLG (USEPA, 1992e), while OPP (USEPA, 2000c) developed an RfD 

of 0.001 mg/kg-day. The OPP assessment for oxamyl supports the use of child body weight and 

water intake values in calculating the MCLG, since the critical study evaluated effects in young 

animals and human dietary data support the use of an RSC of 20% for children aged 1 to 6. For 

picloram, an RfD of 0.07 mg/kg-day was used in developing the MCLG (USEPA, 1992a, 1992f), 

while OPP (USEPA, 1995b) developed an RfD of 0.2 mg/kg-day. For toluene, an RfD of 0.2 

mg/kg-day was used in developing the MCLG (USEPA, 1991b, 1990b), while the updated IRIS 

RfD is 0.08 mg/kg-day (USEPA, 2005f). For 1,1,1-trichloroethane, an RfD of 0.035 mg/kg-day 

was used in developing the MCLG (USEPA, 1987a), while IRIS (USEPA, 2007e) derived an 

RfD of 2 mg/kg-day. For xylenes, an RfD of 1.79 mg/kg-day was used in developing the MCLG 

(USEPA, 1991b, 1987b), and the updated IRIS RfD is 0.2 mg/kg-day (USEPA, 2003d). 

 Two chemicals had changes in their cancer assessments that suggested the need to 

consider a possible change in the MCLG. New cancer assessments that affected the possible 

value of the MCLG are available for 1,1-dichloroethylene (USEPA, 2002e) and alachlor 

(USEPA, 2006c). 1,1-Dichloroethylene was considered a category C carcinogen at the time that 

it was regulated, so a safety factor of 10 was applied for the MCLG (USEPA, 1987a, 1990c). 

The IRIS assessment (USEPA, 2002e) concluded that the data on 1,1-dichloroethylene are 

considered “inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential via the oral route,” 

and no additional factor would be applied in developing an updated MCLG. The RfD used in 

developing the 1,1-dichloroethylene MCLG (USEPA, 1987a, 1990c) was 0.01 mg/kg-day, and 

the new IRIS RfD is 0.05 mg/kg-day (USEPA, 2002e). Alachlor had an MCLG of zero (USEPA, 

1991b) based on its cancer classification of B2, probable human carcinogen. A recent OPP 

assessment (USEPA, 2006c) updated the cancer assessment and recommended a cancer 

descriptor of “likely to be a human carcinogen at high doses, not likely to be a human carcinogen 

at low doses.” Based on the MOA assessment a nonlinear cancer dose-response assessment was 

 

9

 Note that lindane use has been canceled (USEPA, 2006d); the likely reduction in exposure could affect the RSC 

used to calculate the MCLG. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 21

conducted using a point of departure of 0.5 mg/kg-day and a composite UF of 100, resulting in a 

health reference value of 0.005 mg/kg-day. 

 

 For the other four of the 18 chemicals for which new assessments containing updated 

RfDs were available – carbofuran, chromium, atrazine and simazine – EPA is not recommending 

a change in the MCLG at this time, for reasons discussed in the next section. 

4.2.2 Findings for No Consideration of a Change to the MCLG 

As noted above, there are 27 List B chemicals for which EPA is not recommending any 

change to the current MCLG. 

For 15 chemicals, there were no new assessments indicating a need to update the MCLGs, 

and the literature search did not find any evidence of new data that would likely affect the 

MCLGs. These 15 chemicals are: 

• Dalapon (2,2-Dichloropropionic Acid) 

• 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 

• 1,2-Dichloropropane 

• Dinoseb 

• Endrin 

• Epichlorohydrin 

• Heptachlor 

• Heptachlor Epoxide 

• Hexachlorobenzene 

• Mercury (Inorganic) 

• Methoxychlor 

• Monochlorobenzene (Chlorobenzene) 

• Toxaphene 

• 2,4,5-TP (Silvex; 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic Acid) 

• 1,1,2-Trichloroethane

New assessments, including new RfDs, were available for four carcinogens. Because the 

MCLG is zero for carcinogens (categories A, B1, or B2 under the 1986 guidelines; “carcinogenic 

to humans” or “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” under the 2005 guidelines), changes to the 

RfDs for these chemicals will not affect their MCLGs. Therefore, no change to the MCLGs is 

needed for these four chemicals: 

• Benzene 

• Chlordane 

• Ethylene Dibromide (EDB, 1,2-Dibromoethane) 

• Vinyl Chloride 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 22

For another chemical, carbofuran, an RfD of 0.005 mg/kg-day was used in developing the 

MCLG (USEPA, 1991b, 1990d), while OPP (USEPA, 2006e) recently derived an RfD of 

0.00006 mg/kg-day. OPP also derived an acute population-adjusted dose (aPAD) of 0.00006 

mg/kg-day based on this RfD. In 2009, EPA revoked all tolerances (maximum residue limits) for 

carbofuran, which could prohibit all carbofuran residues on food (74 FR 23046, May 15, 2009 

(USEPA, 2009d)). Following completion of the ongoing administrative process for resolving the 

safety of the tolerances, EPA plans to cancel the remaining uses of carbofuran. 

This decision is expected to reduce exposure to carbofuran and its metabolite (3-

hydroxycarbofuran) in food products, which would affect the RSC used to derive a possible 

MCLG. Therefore, EPA believes that it should factor in the effect of these actions, once 

completed, before it determines the potential for an MCLG revision. Consequently, EPA 

believes it is not appropriate to consider any revisions to the MCLG for carbofuran at this time. 

 Based on a review of the assessments presented in Tables 2 through 4, as well as the 

consideration of the recent literature, the available information suggests that new assessments 

may be needed for the following five chemicals. Therefore, no revision to the current MCLG is 

recommended at this time. 

• Chromium 

• Nitrate (as N) 

• Nitrite (as N) 

• Selenium 

• 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 

The reasons for recommending new assessments for these chemicals are as follows:

For chromium, a change in the MCLG based on the most recent IRIS assessments 

(USEPA, 1998a, 1998b) was not recommended, in light of the availability of new chronic oral 

bioassays, as described here. NTP has published recent studies (13-week and 2-year studies in 

rats and mice) by the oral route of exposure for both Cr(III) picolinate in feed and Cr(VI) as 

sodium dichromate dehydrate in drinking water. The Cr(VI) study is available as a final, peerreviewed document (NTP, 2008), but the Cr(III) study is only available as a pre-peer review 

draft (NTP, 2007). The Cr (VI) study found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity of sodium 

dichromate dihydrate in male and female F344 rats based on increased incidences of squamous 

cell neoplasms of the oral cavity, specifically the squamous epithelium that lines the oral mucosa 

and tongue (NTP, 2008). NTP (2008) also concluded that there was clear evidence of 

carcinogenic activity of sodium dichromate dihydrate in male and female B6C3F1 mice based on 

increased incidences of neoplasms in the small intestine (adenomas and/or carcinomas of the 

duodenum, jejunum, or ileum). The NTP (2008) study also observed noncancer effects. Recent 

human studies (e.g., Sedman et al., 2006) also suggest a potential for carcinogenicity of Cr(VI) in 

drinking water. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 23

A peer-reviewed report for the study of chromium picolinate [Cr(III)] is not yet available, 

but the draft report concluded that there was equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity in male 

rats based on preputial gland adenoma, and no evidence of carcinogenic activity in female rats 

and in male and female mice (NTP, 2007). No adverse noncancer effects were reported. 

The health effects data for chromium, particularly the Cr(VI) data on cancer, could have 

an effect on the MCLG. Although this document lists chromium as one of the five chemicals that 

may need a new assessment based on new data, it should be noted that EPA has already included 

Cr(VI) on the 2008 IRIS agenda (USEPA, 2007h) and is planning to develop a new health 

assessment. 

The literature search for nitrate identified studies suggesting the potential for thyroid 

effects following drinking water exposure (Mukhopadhyay et al., 2005; Tajtakova et al., 2006; 

Zaki et al., 2004), consistent with a known MOA for nitrate. Nitrite is a competitive inhibitor of 

iodide uptake in the thyroid (Wolff and Maurey, 1963). Neurodevelopmental effects have been 

reported in a study of nitrite by Vorhees et al. (1984). In addition, Grosse et al. (2006) reported 

the results of a recent IARC working group review of nitrate and nitrite. This group concluded 

that ingested nitrate or nitrite, under conditions that result in endogenous nitrosation, is probably 

carcinogenic to humans (group 2A). Therefore, new noncancer and cancer assessments for 

nitrate are recommended to assess whether thyroid effects are the critical effect for a nitrate 

noncancer assessment, to assess the potential for human carcinogenicity, and to evaluate the dose 

response for both noncancer and cancer effects. Since nitrite is formed from nitrate and also 

shares the thyroid MOA with nitrate, the role of this action in nitrite toxicity is an issue that 

needs further evaluation, based on the current assessment. Based on this information, the Agency 

is considering whether to nominate nitrate and nitrite for an updated health effects assessment(s). 

The literature search for selenium identified several new studies for selenium that may 

affect the RfD. Hawkes and Keim (2003) reported thyroid hormone and related metabolism 

changes in subjects treated with deficient, sufficient and excess dietary selenium. The excess 

selenium dose was associated with a slight decrease in T3 levels, a thyrotropin increase, and an 

increase in body weight compared to the selenium-sufficient subjects. The opposite responses 

occurred in the selenium-deficient subjects. Several other recent studies identified changes in 

sperm parameters and fertility in mice fed either selenium-deficient or excess selenium diets 

compared to adequate selenium diets (Shalini and Bansal, 2006; Kaur and Bansal, 2005). New 

data relevant to the cancer assessment are also available (e.g., Duffield-Lillico et al., 2003; Su et 

al., 2005). However, selenium is not a candidate for an MCLG of zero because of its status as a 

micronutrient. In addition, much has been learned about the metabolism of selenium since the 

IRIS (USEPA, 1991a) review and it may be appropriate to differentiate between inorganic 

selenium and organic selenium in the form of selenoproteins, selenomethionine, and 

selenocysteine for an assessment that applies to drinking water. The new health effects 

information and our improved understanding of selenium biology suggest a need to update the 

health effects assessment for selenium. On that basis the Agency is considering whether to 

nominate selenium for an updated health effects assessment. 

Final reports of 2-year feeding studies of 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene in both mice and rats 

(Moore, 1994a, 1994b) have been submitted to EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 24

(OPPT), but have not been evaluated from a health effects assessment perspective. A preliminary 

review of the 2-year study indicates that there is clear evidence of carcinogenicity in mice, but 

not in rats. This study could affect both the cancer descriptor and quantitation for 1,2,4-

trichlorobenzene, as well as the noncancer assessment, and therefore the MCLG. Therefore, the 

Agency is considering whether to nominate this chemical for a full assessment. 

 The following two chemicals are not being recommended for new assessments; however, 

EPA is recommending that they undergo further evaluation. No change in the MCLG is 

recommended for these chemicals at this time: 

• Atrazine 

• Simazine 

A change in the MCLGs for atrazine and simazine based on the OPP (USEPA, 2006a, 

2006f) assessment is not recommended at this time due to the availability of new substantive 

data regarding potential reproductive effects. During the first Six-Year Review, EPA decided 

that no revisions to the MCLG for atrazine were appropriate because of the then-pending 

completion of the risk assessment by OPP. That risk assessment has been completed (USEPA, 

2006a), and an RfD was derived based upon the delay of luteinizing hormone surge in pregnant 

rats, (this delay resulted in developmental effects in offspring). In addition, the OPP assessment 

also concluded that the appropriate weight of evidence descriptor for carcinogenic potential is 

not likely to be a human carcinogen. This updated weight of evidence descriptor would affect the 

MCLG in that an additional factor of 10 to account for carcinogenicity would no longer be 

needed. OPP’s 2006 reassessment warrants evaluation in the context of its impact on the MCLG. 

However, several additional studies relevant to reproductive or developmental effects, atrazine’s 

critical effect, were located. In particular, one published study (Enoch et al., 2007) and one other 

study (Stanko et al., 2008) suggest that atrazine and its chlorometabolites may affect prenatal and 

postnatal development in both males and females. On October 7, 2009, the Agency announced 

its intent to launch a comprehensive new evaluation of atrazine to determine its effects on 

humans (74 FR 51593, USEPA, 2009c). At the end of this process, the Agency will decide 

whether to revise the 2006 risk assessment for atrazine and whether new restrictions are 

necessary to better protect public health. EPA will evaluate the pesticide’s potential cancer and 

non-cancer effects on humans. Included in this new evaluation, to be conducted in 2010, will be 

the most recent studies on atrazine and its potential association with birth defects, low birth 

weight, and premature births. The Agency’s examination of atrazine will be based on 

transparency and sound science, including independent scientific peer review, and will help 

determine whether a change in EPA’s regulatory position on this pesticide is appropriate. 

Additional information is available at 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.htm. Since the simazine 

assessment is based on studies using atrazine, any reevaluation of simazine relies on the 

impending reevaluation of the Agency’s risk assessment for atrazine reassessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 25

4.3 Consideration of Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity 

The data on reproductive and developmental toxicity were evaluated to ensure that the 

MCLG for each of the 41 List B chemicals takes these endpoints into account. A screening level 

evaluation was conducted for each List B chemical, based on the available current Agency 

assessment(s), the results from the authoritative reviews/assessments, and the literature search 

results, to identify (1) whether reproductive and/or developmental effects have been associated 

with exposure to the chemical; and (2) if so, at what doses such effects occur, and whether these 

effects occur at lower doses than systemic toxicity. The available dose-response data were then 

used to evaluate the concern for reproductive and developmental toxicity (as indicated in Table 5 

and described in more detail below). For chemicals where there is no potential for a new MCLG, 

this consideration addressed concern at the current MCL. For chemicals for which a revised 

MCLG is possible, this consideration reflects evaluation of whether there is a concern at the 

possible new MCLG and at the current MCL. 

In considering whether the current Agency assessment is adequately protective for 

reproductive/developmental effects, the use of the database uncertainty factor (UFD) in the 

current EPA assessment for a chemical was considered. EPA did not generally use this 

uncertainty factor prior to approximately 1987. After about 1987, the absence of information on 

reproductive and/or developmental toxicity was increasingly addressed with the database 

uncertainty factor, particularly for pesticides assessments in drinking water. The Safe Drinking 

Water Act Amendment of 1996 required health protection of sensitive populations, especially 

infants and children. Therefore, issues associated with fetuses, infants, and children are most 

often addressed by applying an UFD. An RfD developed fully taking into account UFD is 

expected to be protective of all effects, including reproductive and developmental toxicity, 

although this expectation should be confirmed when new research reduces the identified data 

gaps. 

The 41 List B chemicals were broken out into groups based on whether there is a 

potential concern for reproductive or developmental effects at the potential MCLG, and the 

rationale for that decision. The six groups are discussed in the sections that follow. 

4.3.1 Group 1: Chemicals with No Reproductive/Developmental Concern Based on 

Most Recent Agency Assessments Published After 1997 

For the following 21 chemicals included in List B (Group 1) with an IRIS or OPP RfD 

developed after 1997, literature search updates were conducted as noted above to identify new 

studies that could impact the assigned UFD. None were identified, except for atrazine and 

simazine. As described above in Section 4.2.2, the Agency recently announced its intent to 

launch a comprehensive reevaluation of the risk assessment for atrazine. Included in this new 

evaluation will be the most recent studies on atrazine and its potential association with birth 

defects, low birth weight, and premature births. Since the simazine assessment is based on 

studies of atrazine, any reevaluation of simazine relies on the impending reevaluation of the 

Agency’s risk assessment on atrazine. 

• Alachlor (USEPA, 2006g) 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 26

• Atrazine (USEPA, 2006a) 

• Barium (USEPA, 2003e) 

• Benzene (USEPA, 2003f) 

• Carbofuran (USEPA, 2006e) 

• Chlordane (USEPA, 1998c) 

• Chromium (USEPA, 1998b, 1998a) 

• 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid) (USEPA, 2005d) 

• 1,1-Dichloroethylene (USEPA, 2002f) 

• Diquat (USEPA, 2001a) 

• Endothall (USEPA, 2005g) 

• Ethylene Dibromide (EDB; 1,2-Dibromoethane)) (USEPA, 2004a) 

• Glyphosate (USEPA, 2007d) 

• Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (USEPA, 2001b) 

• Lindane (gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane) (USEPA, 2006h) 

• Oxamyl (Vydate) (USEPA, 2000c) 

• Simazine (USEPA, 2006f) 

• Toluene (USEPA, 2005f) 

• 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (USEPA 2007e) 

• Vinyl chloride (USEPA, 2000d) 

• Xylenes (Total) (USEPA, 2003d) 

4.3.2 Group 2: Chemicals with No Concern Based on Agency Assessment Published 

Prior to 1997 that Adequately Addressed Reproductive/Developmental Toxicity 

For the following 6 chemicals in List B (Group 2), the RfD was developed before 1997, 

and the RfD documentation does address reproductive and developmental toxicity, either in the 

context of the database uncertainty factor, or in the context of a modifying factor (which 

predated the database uncertainty factor). Literature search updates were conducted for these 

chemicals, as noted above, to screen for new data. No new information was found that would 

result in a change to the database or modifying factor, with the exception of 1,2,4-

trichlorobenzene, for which a new assessment is recommended. Based on the existing 

documentation and the results of the literature searches, there was no concern at the MCLG for 

reproductive or developmental effects for these chemicals. 

• Dalapon (2,2-Dichloropropionic Acid) (USEPA, 1989a) 

• Dinoseb (USEPA, 1989b) 

• Methoxychlor (USEPA, 1991c) 

• Picloram (USEPA, 1995b) 

• Toxaphene (USEPA, 1991d) 

• 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (USEPA, 1996b) 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 27

4.3.3 Group 3: Chemicals with No Concern Because Reproductive/Developmental 

Effects Seen Only at Doses at or Above the Effect Level for RfD 

For the following four chemicals (Group 3) for which the RfD was developed before 

1997, and for which there is no explicit documentation that the database uncertainty factor was 

considered as part of the assessment, literature searches were conducted, as described above. No 

studies were identified that would affect the RfD, although key new studies of reproductive 

toxicity of mercury were identified (Kahn et al, 2004; Atkinson et al., 2001). For the chemicals, 

other than mercury, there was no concern for reproductive or developmental effects at the MCL 

because such effects were seen only at doses comparable to or higher than the effect levels for 

the critical effect(s) used as the basis for the RfD and MCLG, taking into account other available 

information about the chemical and its effects, as well as data limitations. 

 The LOAEL from the Kahn et al. (2004) one-generation study of mercury is slightly 

below the LOAEL that served as the point of departure for the IRIS RfD (0.18 mg/kg-day vs 

0.29 mg/kg-day). Decreased fertility was the critical effect, but the fertility index for all 3 dose 

groups (Table 3) was the same, 16% as compared to 44% for the controls. The poor fertility 

prevented the planned second generation component of this study. A comparable study by the 

same research group (Atkinson et al., 2001) using Sprague-Dawley rats also identified effects on 

fertility in the F0 generation, with a LOAEL of 0.37 mg/kg-day for the males and 0.56 mg/kgday for the paired females. Both the fertility index and live birth index were co-critical for the 

first generation. In the second generation there were no significant effects on fertility for any 

dose group. Clinical signs of toxicity (dermatologic effects) observed in the F0 animals were not 

seen in the F1 and F2 animals, and the LOAEL for the live birth index in the F2 generation 

increased to 0.74 mg/kg-day for the males and 1.1 mg/kg-day for the paired females. Although 

fertility was decreased in F0 adults exposed to mercury, the offspring of those that conceived 

were resistant to the effects of mercury on fertility at the doses tested and more resistant than 

their parents’ generation to the effects on live births. Under these circumstances, the 0.29 mg/kgday LOAEL for autoimmune glomerulonephritis that is the basis for the RfD with a 1000-fold 

uncertainty factor appears to be adequately protective as the basis for the MCLG for mercury; 

therefore, a new assessment was not recommended. Additional research on the reproductivedevelopmental effects of mercury, building upon the studies of Kahn et al. (2004) and Atkinson 

et al. (2001), and including determination of whether one sex is more sensitive than the other, is 

justified. 

• Endrin (USEPA, 1991e) 

• Epichlorohydrin (USEPA, 1991b) 

• Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 1992g) 

• Mercury (Inorganic) (USEPA, 1997a) 

4.3.4 Group 4: Chemicals with No Concern Because Reproductive/Developmental 

Effects Occur at Doses Significantly Higher than the Intake at the MCL 

Group 4 contains two carcinogens (with MCLGs of zero) for which there is no RfD ((1,2-

dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), and 1,2-dichloropropane), and two for which there is 

significant new noncancer data (heptachlor and hexachlorobenzene)). Literature search updates 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 28

were conducted for these chemicals, as described above. Based on this information, and the 

existing assessments, there was no concern for reproductive or developmental effects at the MCL 

for DBCP and 1,2-dichloropropane. DBCP and 1,2-dichloropropane are B2 carcinogens, for 

which the MCL is based on the practical quantitation limit (PQL; MCLG = 0). For these two 

chemicals, the reproductive/developmental effects were observed at doses significantly higher 

than the intake from drinking water (in mg/kg-day) at the MCL (assuming 2 L/day and 70 kg 

body weight). Therefore, the existing MCL is protective of reproductive and developmental 

effects. No new MCL is being proposed for these chemicals. 

Heptachlor and hexachlorobenzene are carcinogens that are borderline for their 

developmental and reproductive effects. For both chemicals, the MCL is based on the PQL, but 

the intake from drinking water (in mg/kg-day) at the MCL (assuming 2 L/day and 70 kg body 

weight) is relatively close (less than a factor of 1000 lower) to the effect level for 

reproductive/developmental effects. However, these two chemicals (heptachlor and 

hexachlorobenzene) are not of concern because they are cancelled pesticides and occurrence is 

low. 

• 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 

• 1,2-Dichloropropane 

• Heptachlor 

• Hexachlorobenzene 

4.3.5 Group 5: Chemicals with Significant Data Limitations Affecting Evaluation of 

Reproductive/Developmental Toxicity at the MCL 

For three chemicals from List B (Group 5) (1,1,2-trichloroethane, 2,4,5-TP, and 

monochlorobenzene), limitations to the data precluded assessment of sensitive effect levels for 

reproductive and developmental toxicity, even after considering data identified in the updated 

literature search described above. These limitations either reflected the complete absence of 

adequate studies evaluating a sufficient range of endpoints, or the observation of reproductive or 

developmental toxicity via one route of exposure (e.g., via inhalation) in the absence of adequate 

oral studies evaluating those endpoints, or other significant issues affecting the assessment. For 

these three chemicals, additional research to improve the data quality could be useful, depending 

on whether occurrence data indicate that exposure is sufficient to warrant the research. 

• Monochlorobenzene (Chlorobenzene) 

• 2,4,5-TP (Silvex; 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic Acid) 

• 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

4.3.6 Group 6: Chemicals for which Reproductive/Developmental Effects Are a 

Potential Concern at the Current or Possible New MCLG 

There are three chemicals from List B for which reproductive or developmental toxicity 

is a potential concern at the current or possible new MCLG (Group 6): nitrate, nitrite, and 

selenium, all three of which are also recommended for consideration for a new assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 29

• Nitrate (as N) 

• Nitrite (as N) 

• Selenium 

As noted above in Section 4.2, new animal studies (Mukhopadhyay et al., 2005; Zaki et 

al., 2004) and epidemiology data (Tajtakova et al., 2006) suggest that nitrate in drinking water 

can have adverse effects on the thyroid, consistent with a known MOA for nitrate as a 

competitive inhibitor of iodide uptake in the thyroid (Wolff and Maurey, 1963); nitrite also acts 

as a competitive inhibitor of iodide uptake (Wolff and Maurey, 1963). The activity at the thyroid 

raises the concern about potential neurodevelopmental effects, but a number of issues relating to 

the MOA, including the unique sensitivity of rodents, thyroid homeostasis, and determination of 

the critical effect, need to be evaluated. Neurodevelopmental effects of nitrate (Markel et al., 

1989) and nitrite (Vorhees et al., 1984) have been observed, but NAS (1995) considered the 

effects secondary to effects on learning behavior, rather than a direct effect of nitrate. 

Several new relevant studies may affect the selenium RfD. The Hawkes and Keim (2003) 

study of selenium reported thyroid hormone and related metabolism changes in subjects treated 

with deficient, sufficient, and excess dietary selenium. The excess selenium dose was associated 

with a slight decrease in T3 levels, a thyrotropin increase, and an increase in body weight 

compared to the selenium-sufficient subjects. The opposite responses occurred in the seleniumdeficient subjects. In addition, studies have reported changes in sperm parameters and fertility in 

mice fed either selenium-deficient or excess selenium diets containing sodium selenite, 

compared to adequate selenium diets (Shalini and Bansal, 2006; Kaur and Bansal, 2005). 

Changes in sperm parameters were also observed in F334 rats given sodium selenite in drinking 

water (NTP, 1994), but this study did not find these effects in mice given sodium selenite or in 

rats or mice given sodium selenate. The original RfD for selenium was based on blood levels of 

selenium in the human population studied, and did not differentiate between the essential 

selenoproteins and selenoamino acids (selenomethionine and selenocysteine) and inorganic 

selenium. Current knowledge about the biological role of selenoproteins, selenium essentiality, 

and various dietary sources of selenium, suggest a need to possibly differentiate between 

inorganic and organic selenium as part of the updated health effects assessment. 

5. Summary 

 The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) require the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review and, if appropriate, revise each existing 

NPDWR no less often than every six years. The Office of Water of EPA is conducting the SixYear Review 2 of 71 water contaminants currently regulated under the SDWA. These include 66 

chemicals that were considered in the Six-Year Review 1 in 2003 plus 5 others (arsenic, uranium, 

combined radiums (226 and 228), alpha particle emitters, and beta particle and photon emitters) 

for which new regulations have been promulgated more recently. 

Because the 30 List A chemicals are the subject of ongoing EPA assessments, the 

Agency is not making any recommendations regarding changes to the MCLG for these 

chemicals at this time. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 30

This assessment focused therefore on the evaluation of the 41 List B chemicals to 

determine whether new information is available that could affect the MCLGs and perhaps the 

MCLs. Assessments prepared by a wide range of authoritative bodies were reviewed, and the 

published literature was searched for new data on general toxicity, reproductive/ developmental 

toxicity, and carcinogenicity. 

 Based on this assessment, EPA identified 14 List B chemicals that had changes to their 

OPP or IRIS health assessments; these revisions suggest the need to consider potential changes 

to the MCLGs. These 14 chemicals are: 

• Alachlor 

• Barium 

• 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid) 

• 1,1-Dichloroethylene 

• Diquat 

• Endothall 

• Glyphosate 

• Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 

• Lindane 

• Oxamyl (Vydate) 

• Picloram 

• Toluene 

• 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

• Xylenes (Total) 

 Note that the identification of chemicals qualifying for revision was conducted based on 

health effects and is independent of other considerations (e.g., analytical and treatment 

technology, occurrence data) that may influence the final selection of contaminants to be revised. 

For the remaining 27 List B chemicals, the Agency did not find a reason to consider a 

change to the MCLG at this time. In most cases, current information indicates there is no health 

effects basis for an MCLG change. However, five chemicals were identified for which new 

assessments may be needed, based on the availability of new data. These chemicals are (with the 

two forms of chromium counting as one chemical together): 

• Chromium 

• Nitrate (as N) 

• Nitrite (as N) 

• Selenium 

• 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 31

Two additional chemicals are not being recommended for new assessments, but they may 

require further evaluation, based on the availability of new data: 

• Atrazine 

• Simazine 

For one additional chemical, carbofuran, EPA is awaiting further information on 

revocation of tolerances before taking any action. 

In addition to these MCLG and new assessment recommendations, it is also important to 

note that there are four chemicals for which reproductive or developmental toxicity is a potential 

concern at the current or possible new MCLG. These are mercury, nitrate, nitrite, and selenium. 

Nitrite, nitrate, and selenium are recommended for new assessments. Research on gender 

sensitivity that builds on the studies of Kahn et al. (2004) and Atkinson et al. (2001) is 

recommended for mercury. Atrazine and simazine have an updated Agency assessment that 

evaluated reproductive and developmental effects. However, on October 7, 2009, the Agency 

announced its intent to launch a comprehensive reevaluation of the risk assessment for atrazine. 

Included in this new evaluation will be the most recent studies on atrazine and its potential 

association with birth defects, low birth weight, and premature births. Since the simazine 

assessment is based on studies using atrazine, any reevaluation of simazine relies on the 

reevaluation of atrazine. Three other chemicals (1,1,2-trichloroethane, 2,4,5-TP, 

monochlorobenzene) were also found to have substantive data gaps related to developmental 

and/or reproductive effects that make it difficult to determine if the MCLG is adequately 

protective. Additional research on these endpoints may be warranted for these chemicals, 

depending on the occurrence data. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulation (NPDWR) IRIS 

Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Acrylamide (1991) (A) 

0 Treatment 

technology

11

0.0002/ 0.2 (NOAEL)/

1000 (10H, 10A, 10S) neuropathic lesions/Burek et al. 1980 

B2, Probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

0.007 0.0002 (1991)/ 

0.2 (NOAEL)/

1000 (10H, 10A, 10S) neuropathic lesions/ Burek et al. 198012

B2, Probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines, 1993)13

-- 

10 For some chemicals, particularly pesticides, different offices cited the same study in different ways. To aid in clarity, when it could b

references referred to the same study, a single consistent citation was used. When draft versions of updates to IRIS or OW documents aresults of these assessments are also presented. However, it should be noted that these values are preliminary and subject to change. 

11 The NPDWR did not establish an MCL but did impose a treatment technology (TT) requirement that limits the allowable monomer l

during drinking water treatment, storage, and distribution to 0.05 % acrylamide in polyacrylamide coagulant aids dosed at 1 part per mi

12 An EPA risk assessment for acrylamide is currently in process. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. Bas

Review Draft, acrylamide is classified as likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The updated IRIS RfD is 0.003 mg/kg-day based on a Hderived from a PBTK model for increased incidence of degenerative lesions of peripheral nerves in oral rat chronic studies (Johnson et 1995) and an UF of 30 (10H, 3A). 

13 An EPA health effects assessment for acrylamide is currently in process. Based on the IRIS External Review Draft acrylamide is clas

carcinogenic to humans. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Alachlor (1991) (B) 

0 0.002 

(PQL)

0.01/ 1 mg/kg-day (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Hemosiderosis, hemolytic anemia/ Naylor et al. 1984 

B2, Probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

0.350 ug/L -- 

0.01 (1993)/ 1 mg/kg-day (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Hemosiderosis, hemolytic anemia/ Naylor et al. 1984 

-- 0.01 (1998

1 mg/kg-d(NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, Hemosiderhemolytic Naylor et a0.005 (199

0.5 mg/kg-(NOAEL) 100 (10H, /nasal tumStout et al. 

Alpha Particle Emitters (2000) (A) 

0 15 pCi/L15 -- A, Known 

human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- - -- 

14 The data indicate that alachlor’s tumorigenicity is operating by a nonlinear mode of action. OPP (USEPA, 1998d, 2001e, 2006g) con

causes nasal turbinate tumors via the generation of a reactive metabolite that leads to cytotoxicity and regenerative proliferation in the n

cytotoxicity and proliferation is needed to lead to neoplasia. Based on this MOA assessment a non-linear dose response assessment is aof 0 is no longer appropriate. Therefore, using the POD of 0.5 mg/kg-day identified by OPP for this endpoint and the UF of 100 (10H, health reference value of 0.005 mg/kg-day. Assuming 70 kg body weight, 2 L/day water consumption, and a 20% RSC, a water concen

value is 0.035 mg/L (rounded to 0.04 mg/L). The new MCLG would be based on the nonlinear cancer assessment. 

15 ORIA is the principal health assessor for radionuclides. The 2000 radionuclides rule was a collaboration between OW and ORIA. S

alpha particle emitters MCL excludes radon and uranium, but includes radium-226. A health assessment for alpha particle emitters is cu

Because ORIA is conducting the assessment, alpha particle emitters are not addressed on the IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking syst

expected completion date is not publicly available. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Antimony (1992) (A) 

0.006 0.006 0.0004/ 

0.43 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Decreased longevity, altered blood glucose and cholesterol/ Schroeder et al. 1970 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.014 40% 

0.0004 (1991)16/ 

0.35 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Longevity, blood glucose, and cholesterol/Schroeder et al. 1970 

-- -- 

Arsenic (2001) (A) 

0 0.0117 --18 A, Known 

human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 0.0003 (1993)19/ 

0.0008 (NOAEL)/ 3 (lack of reproductive and sensitivity data)/ Hyper-pigmentation, keratosis and possible vascular/ Tseng 1977 Tseng et al. 1968 

A, Known human carcinogen (1986 guidelines, 1994)20

-- 

16 The IRIS reassessment of the health risks resulting from exposure to antimony identified during the first six-year review (USEPA, 20

The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the mo

the status of this assessment. Also, although the RfDs calculated for the NPDWR and for IRIS are based on the same study, their LOAE

to different assumptions used in converting the LOAEL dose of 5 parts per million to mg/kg/day. 

17 The MCL was set as close to the MCLG as feasible, taking into account costs and benefit, including the new discretionary authority f

an MCL less stringent than the feasible level if the benefits of an MCL set at the feasible level would not justify the costs. 

18 Neither the arsenic rule nor the NRC reports conducted a dose response assessment for noncancer effects to develop an RfD. 19 EPA’s draft Toxicological Review for arsenic (USEPA, 2005h) does not present an updated noncancer dose response assessment; the

on IRIS is the most appropriate. An IRIS assessment is currently in process. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Asbestos (1991) (A) 

7 million fibers/L 

7 million fibers/L 

-- Not available 

via ingestion; A, known human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) via inhalation 

-- -- Not available 

via ingestion21; 

A, known human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) via inhalation

-- 

Atrazine (1991) (B) 

0.003 0.003 0.005/ 

0.5 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Decreased body weight gain in F2 pups; maternal toxicity/ Ciba-Geigy 1987 

C, possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

0.175 20% Also factor of 10 for class C 

0.035 (1993)/ 3.5 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Decreased body weight gain/ Ciba-Geigy 1986 

-- 0.018 (200

1.8 (NOAE100 (10H, FQPA: 10 attenuation luteinizing surge in fe6-month rastudy / Morseth et 

20 EPA’s draft Toxicological Review for arsenic (USEPA, 2005h) characterized arsenic as “carcinogenic to humans” (2005 guidelines (

IRIS assessment is currently in process. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/in

consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 

21 The IRIS reassessment of the noncancer health risks resulting from exposure to asbestos identified during the first six-year review (U

2002h) is still in progress. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Barium (1991) (B) 

2 2 0.07/ 

0.21 (adjusted NOAEL)/ 3 H/ No changes in blood pressure, or serum chemistry / Wones et al. 1990 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

2 100% 

0.2 (2005)/ 63 (BMDL05); 84 (BMD05)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3D)/ Nephropathy/ NTP 1994 

Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans following oral exposure (1996 guidelines; 1998) 

-- 

Benzene (1987) (B) 

0 0.005 

(PQL) 

0.0007 – 0.002 (implied from the AADI)/ 1 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Slight leukopenia and erythrocytopenia/ Wolf et al. 1956 

Group A, known human carcinogen (1984 proposed guidelines) 

-- 0.004 (2003)/ 

1.2 (BMDL)/ 300 (10H, 3L, 3S, 3D)/ Decreased lymphocyte count/ Rothman et al. 1996 

Known human carcinogen for all routes of exposure (1996 guidelines; 2000) 

-- 

Benzo(a)pyrene (1992) (A) 

0 0.0002 

(PQL; analytical feasibility) 

--

22 B2, Probable 

human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- --

23 B2, Probable 

human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1994)24

-- 

22 The Office of Water Criteria Document (USEPA,1991cc) has not derived a Reference Dose (RfD) or a Drinking Water Exposure Lev

non-carcinogenic effects due to evidence of carcinogenicity at lower doses than those associated with systemic toxicity. 

23 An EPA risk assessment for BaP is currently in process. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Beryllium (1992) (A) 

0.004 0.004 0.005/ 

0.538 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ No effect/ Schroeder and Mitchener 1975 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

0.2 20% Also factor of 10 for category II 

0.002 (1998)/ 0.46 (BMDL10)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3D)/ Ulcerative inflammatory lesions of small intestine/ Morgareidge et al. 197625

Carcinogenic potential of ingested beryllium cannot be determined (1996 guidelines; 1998)26

-- 

Beta Particle and Photon Emitters (2000) (A) 

0 4 mrem/ 

year27

-- A, Known 

human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- -- -- -- 

24 An EPA health effects assessment for BaP is currently in process. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 

25 An EPA health effects assessment for beryllium is currently in progress. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 

26 An EPA health effects assessment for beryllium is currently in progress. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 

27 ORIA is the principal health assessor for radionuclides. A health assessment for beta particle and photon emitters is currently in prog

conducting the assessment, beta particle and photon emitters are not addressed on the IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system web

completion date is not publicly available. The 2000 radionuclides rule was a collaboration between OW and ORIA. See 40 CFR 141. 

“(a) The average annual concentration of beta particle and photon radioactivity from man-made radionuclides in drinking water shall noequivalent to the total body or any internal organ greater than 4 millirem/year. (b) Except for the radionuclides listed in Table A [i.e., tr

the concentration of manmade radionuclides causing 4 mrem total body or organ dose equivalents shall be calculated on the basis of a 2 water intake using the 168 hour data listed in ‘‘Maximum Permissible Body Burdens and Maximum Permissible Concentrations of Rad
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Cadmium (1991) (A) 

0.005 0.005 0.0005/ 

0.005 (LOAEL)/ 10 (1H, 10L) estimated LOAEL in human study/ Renal dysfunction/ Friberg et al. 1974 

Group D carcinogen, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity by the oral route of exposure (1986 guidelines)28

0.18 25%29

Water30: 

0.0005 (1994)31/ 

0.005 (NOAEL)/ 10 (10H)/ Significant proteinuria/ USEPA 1985a Food: 0.001 (1994)/ 0.01 (NOAEL)/ 10 (10H)/ Significant proteinuria USEPA 1985a 

B1, Probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines, 1992; no quantitative assessment for the oral route)32

-- 

for Occupational Exposure,’’ NBS Handbook 69 as amended August 1963, U.S. Department of Commerce. If two or more radionuclidetheir annual equivalent to the total body or to any organ shall not exceed 4 millirem/year” 

28 Because of inadequate dose-response data to characterize the presence or lack of a carcinogenic hazard from oral exposure, the Agen

Group D carcinogen, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity by the oral route of exposure. 

29 This departure from the default RSC of 20% was based on evidence of greater bioavailability from water in comparison with food (530 Since the fraction of ingested Cd that is absorbed appears to vary with the source (e.g., food vs. drinking water), different % absorptio

water in the toxicokinetic model used to extrapolate from concentration in the kidney to intake in food or water; i.e. 2.5% absorption of 5% absorption of the total cadmium dose from water. The model also assumes that 0.01% of the total body burden of cadmium is excr

31 An EPA health effects assessment for cadmium is currently in process. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 

32 An EPA health effects assessment for cadmium is currently in process. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Carbofuran (1991) (B) 

0.04 0.04 0.005/ 

0.5 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Acetylcholinesterase inhibition and testicular degeneration/ FMC Corp. 1983 

E, evidence of noncarcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.175 20% 

0.005 (1987)/ 0.5 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ RBC and plasma cholinesterase inhibition, and testicular and uterine effects/ FMC Corp. 1983 

-- 0.00006 (2

0.03 (BMD100 (10H, Brain acetylcholiinhibition/ FMC Corp

Carbon tetrachloride (1987) (A) 

0 0.005 

(PQL; analytical feasibility) 

0.0007/ 0.71 mg/kg (adjusted NOAEL)/1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Liver lesions/ Bruckner et al. 1986

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 0.0007 (1991)34/ 

0.71 mg/kg (adjusted NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Liver lesions/ Bruckner et al. 1986 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines, 1991)35

-- 

33 OPP’s value for carbofuran is an acute RfD for cholinesterase inhibition, which OPP has determined is protective of chronic exposur

mg/kg-day. OPP has also derived an aPAD of 0.00006 mg/kg-day based on this RfD. 

34 The IRIS draft assessment (USEPA, 2008b) for carbon tetrachloride lists an RfD of 0.004 mg/kg-day based on an adjusted BMDL10 

elevated serum sorbitol dehydrogenase (SDH) was identified as a specific and sensitive biomarker of liver toxicity with an UF of 1000 

IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most cu

status of this assessment. 

35 The IRIS draft assessment (USEPA, 2008b) for carbon tetrachloride lists a cancer classification of “likely to be carcinogenic to huma

exposure” under 2005 guidelines. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cf

for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Chlordane (1991) (B) 

0 0.002 

(PQL) 

0.00005/ 0.045 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Liver necrosis in male rats/ Yonemura et al. 1983 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 0.0005 (1998)/ 

0.15 (NOAEL)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3D)/ Liver necrosis in mice/ Khasawinah and Grutsch 1989 

Likely to be a carcinogen by all routes of exposure (1996 guidelines; 1998) 

-- 

Chromium (VI) (1991 – regulation applies to total chromium) (B) 

0.1 0.1 0.0048/ 

2.41 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A) ; MF=5/ None/ MacKenzie et al. 1958 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.17 70% 

0.003 (1998)/ 2.5 (NOAEL)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3S); MF=3/ None/ MacKenzie et al. 1958 

By the oral route: D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines; 1998) 

-- 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Chromium (III) (1991 – regulation applies to total chromium) (B) 

0.1 0.1 0.0048/ 

2.41 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A) ; MF=5/ None/ MacKenzie et al. 1958 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.17 70% 

1.5 (1998)/ 1468 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A); MF=10/ None/ Ivankovic and Preussmann 1975 

Inadequate data to determine the potential carcinogenicity (1996 guidelines; 1998) 

-- 

Cyanide (1992) (A) 

0.2 0.2 0.0236/ 

10.8 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A) (MF=5 for apparent tolerance via food compared to water)/Absence of clinical and histological effects/ Howard and Hanzal 1955 

D37, not 

classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.7 20% 

0.02 (1993)/ 10.8 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A) (MF=5 for apparent tolerance via food compared to water)/ Absence of clinical and histological effects/ Howard and Hanzal 1955 Philbrick et al. 197938

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines, 1991)39

--

40

36 A 2006 Drinking Water Criteria Document External Review Draft is available for cyanide and ready for peer review (USEPA, 2006i

mg/kg-day was proposed, based on a BMDL of 1.3 mg/kg-day for decreased spermatid heads/testis and spermatid count (NTP, 1993) a300 (10H, 10A, 3D). 

37 A 2006 Drinking Water Criteria Document External Review Draft is available for cyanide and ready for peer review (USEPA, 2006i

proposed that, under the USEPA (2005a) guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment, the data are inadequate for an assessment of the hupotential of cyanide. 

38 An IRIS assessment of cyanide is currently in progress. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.g

should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 

39 An IRIS assessment of cyanide is currently in progress. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.g

should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid) (1991) (B) 

0.07 0.07 0.01/ 

1 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Hematologic, hepatic and renal toxicity/ Serota et al. 1983 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.35 20% 

0.01 (1988)/ 1 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Hematologic, hepatic and renal toxicity/ Serota et al.1983 

-- 0.005 (200

5 (NOAEL1000 (10H10D)/ Decreased weight gaifemales) analterations hematologchemistry sexes)/ Jeffries et 

40 OPP (USEPA, 2006j) lists an RfD for cyanide of 0.004 mg/kg-day based on a LOAEL of 0.4 mg/kg-day (and lack of a NOAEL) and 

for lack of a LOAEL, steep dose-response curve, and severity of toxic effect) for clinical signs including nausea, vomiting, headaches, 

1981, 1982). 

41 OPP (USEPA, 2006j) states (for cyanide) that “the classification of the carcinogenic potential could not be determined due to the abs

studies in rats and mice.” 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Dalapon (2,2-Dichloropropionic Acid) (1992) (B) 

0.2 0.2 0.03/ 

8 (NOAEL)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3D)/ Increased kidney weight/ Paynter et al. 1960 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.9 20% 

0.03 (1989)/ 8.45 (NOAEL)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3D)/ Increased kidney weight/Paynter et al. 1960 

-- -- 

Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA) (1992) (A) 

0.4 0.4 0.6/ 

170 (NOAEL)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3 S and D combined)/ Body and liver weight changes in parents, reduced ossification and slightly dilated ureters in fetuses; reduced offspring weight gain, total litter weight, and litter size/ ICI 1988a,b 

C, Possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

20 20% 

0.6 (1992)42/ 

170 (NOAEL)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3 S and D combined)/ Body and liver weight changes in parents, reduced ossification and slightly dilated ureters in fetuses; reduced offspring weight gain, total litter weight, and litter size/ ICI 1988a,b 

C, Possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1994)43

-- 

42 An EPA health effects assessment for di(2 ethylhexyl) adipate is currently in process. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking syst

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 

43 An EPA health effects assessment for di(2 ethylhexyl) adipate is currently in process. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking syst

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) (1991) (A) 

0 0.006 

(PQL; analytical feasibility) 

0.02/ 19 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H,10A, 10L/S for less than chronic study and LOAEL)/ Increase in relative liver weights/ Carpenter et al. 1953 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

0.7 -- 

0.02 (1991)44/ 

19 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H,10A, 10L/S for less than chronic study and LOAEL)/ Increase in relative liver weights/ Carpenter et al. 1953 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1993)45

-- 

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) (1991) (B) 

0 0.0002 

(PQL) 

-- B2, probable 

human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- -- -- -- 

44 A health effects assessment for DEHP is currently in process. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 

45 A health effects assessment for DEHP is currently in process The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (oDichlorobenzene) (1991) (A) 

0.6 0.6 0.09/ 

85.7 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10D)/ No treatmentrelated adverse effects noted; renal tubular regeneration noted but not interpreted as doserelated/ NTP 1985 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

3 20% 

0.09 (1991)46

85.7 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10D), No treatment-related adverse effects noted; renal tubular regeneration noted but not interpreted as doserelated/ NTP 1985 

D47, not 

classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines, 1991) 

-- 

46An IRIS External Review Draft for the dichlorobenzenes is available It proposes a draft RfD of 0.03 mg/kg-day for 1,2-dichlorobenze

of 29.8 mg/kg-day for renal tubular degeneration (NTP, 1985) , incorporating an uncertainty factor of 1000 (10A, 10H, 10D). The IRIS Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the stat

47In the IRIS External Review Draft for the dichlorobenzenes, the draft cancer assessment is “inadequate information to assess carcinog

2005 cancer guidelines. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) shoul

most current information on the status of this assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

1,4-Dichlorobenzene (pDichlorobenzene) (1987) (A) 

0.075 0.075 0.1/ 

150 (adjusted: 107 mg/kg-day) (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Renal cortical degeneration in male rats/ Battelle 1980 NTP 1987 

C, Possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

3.75 20% (and a factor of 10 for class C, possible carcinogenicity) 

--

48

--

49

-- 

1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene Dichloride) (1987) (A) 

0 0.005 

(PQL) 

-- B2, probable 

human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- --

50 B2 (1986 

guidelines; 1991) 

-- 

48 An IRIS External Review Draft for the dichlorobenzenes is available. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. An 

was derived for 1,4-dichlorobenzene, based on a BMDL10 of 9.06 mg/kg-day for hepatocellular hypertrophy (Naylor and Stout, 1996, c

and an uncertainty factor of 10 (10H, 10A, 3D). 

49In the IRIS External Review Draft for the dichlorobenzenes, the draft cancer assessment is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans by bo

routes” under the 2005 cancer guidelines. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac

consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 

50 The IRIS reassessment of the health effects resulting from exposure to 1,2-dichloroethane identified during the first six-year review (

progress. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted f

information on the status of this assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

1,1-Dichloroethylene (1987) (B) 

0.007 0.007 0.01/ 

10 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Liver toxicity (fatty change)/ Quast et al. 1983 

C, possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

0.35 20% Also factor of 10 for class C 

0.05 (2002)/ 4.6 (BMDL10)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Liver toxicity (fatty change)/ Quast et al. 1983 

Inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential by the oral route (1999 guidelines; 2002) 

-- 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (1991) (A) 

0.07 0.07 0.01/ 

32 (NOAEL)/ 3000 (10H, 10A, 10L, 3D)/ Decreases in hematocrit/ McCauley et al. 1990 

-- 0.35 

20% 

--

51 D, not 

classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines, 1995)52

-- 

51 An IRIS assessment (USEPA, 2007f) for cis-1,2-dichloroethylene lists an RfD of 0.01 mg/kg-day based on a BMDL10 of 30.4 mg/kg

(10A, 10H, 10S, 3D) for increased relative liver weight in male and female rats (McCauley et al., 1990, 1995). The IRIS Substance As

website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessm

52 An IRIS assessment for cis-1,2-dichloroethylene lists the cancer classification as “inadequate information to assess carcinogenic pote

guidelines. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulte

information on the status of this assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (1991) (A) 

0.1 0.1 0.02/ 

17 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Males: increases in serum alkaline phosphatase; females: decrease in relative thymus weight/ Barnes et al. 1985 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.6 20% 

0.0253 (1989)/ 

17 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Males: increases in serum alkaline phosphatase/ Barnes et al. 1985 

--

54

 -- 

Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) (1992) (A) 

0 0.005 

(PQL; analytical feasibility) 

0.06/ 5.85 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Liver toxicity/ Serota et al. 1986 

-- 2 

-- 

0.06 (1988)55/ 

5.85 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Liver toxicity/ NCA 1983 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1995) 

-- 

53 An updated EPA assessment for trans-1,2-dichloroethylene is currently undergoing inter-Agency review. The IRIS Substance Asses

website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessm

proposed a RfD of 0.30 mg/kg-day based on a BMDL10 of 867.3 mg/kg-day for increased relative liver weight in male mice (NTP, 200

uncertainty factor of 3000 (10A, 10H, 10S, 3D). 

54 The draft assessment for trans-1,2-dichloroethylene characterizes the data as “inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potentia

guidelines. 

55 IRIS is currently reassessing dichloromethane. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/

be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

1,2-Dichloropropane (1991) (B) 

0 0.005 

(PQL) 

-- B2, probable 

human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- -- -- -- 

Dinoseb (1992) (B) 

0.007 0.007 0.001/ 

1 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Reduction in thyroid weight; endometrial hyperplasia and hypospermatogenesis; testicular degeneration/ Hazleton 1977 Brown 1981 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity(1986 guidelines) 

0.04 20% 

0.001 (1989)/ 1 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Decreased pup weight during lactation period. Decreased parental weight gain/ Dow Chemical Company 1981 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines; 1993) 

-- 

Diquat (1992) (B) 

0.02 0.02 0.002/ 

0.22 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Cataracts/ Colley 1985 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.077 20% 

0.0022 (1995)/ 0.22 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Minimal lens opacity and cataracts/ Colley 1985 

-- 0.005 (199

0.5 (NOAE100 (10H,  (Hopkins 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Endothall (1992) (B) 

0.1 0.1 0.02/ 

2 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Increased organ weight and organto-body weights for stomach and small intestine/ Keller 1965 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.7 20% 

0.02 (1991)/ 100 ppm, equivalent to 2 mg/kg-day (NOEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Increased absolute and relative weights of stomach and small intestine/ Keller 1965 

-- 0.007 (200

2 (LOAEL300 (10H, Proliferativthe gastric Trutter 199

Endrin (1992) (B) 

0.002 0.002 0.0003/ 

0.025 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Mild histopathologic changes in liver, occasional convulsions/ Velsicol Chemical Corporation. 1969 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.009 20% 

0.0003 (1991)/ 0.025 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Mild histopathologic changes in liver, occasional convulsions/ Velsicol Chemical Corporation. 1969 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines; 1993; verified 1988) 

-- 

Epichlorohydrin (1991) (B) 

0 NA56 0.002/ 

2.16 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Renal tubular degeneration/ Laskin et al. 1980 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- -- B2, probable 

human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 

56 Instead of an MCL, EPA specifies a treatment technique that limits the allowable level of epichlorohydrin monomer in the polymer th

water as a flocculent to remove particulates. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Ethylbenzene (1991) (A) 

0.7 0.7 0.097/ 

136 mg/kg-day (adjusted: 97.1 mg/kg-day) (NOEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Liver and kidney weight increase, and slight liver and kidney histopathology/ Wolf et al. 1956 

D, Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

3.4 20% 

0.1 (1991)57/ 

136 mg/kg-day (adjusted: 97.1 mg/kgday) (NOEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Liver and kidney toxicity/ Wolf et al. 1956 

D, Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines; 1991)58

-- 

57 In the first six year review final notice (68 FR 42908; USEPA 2003b), EPA noted that an EPA health effects assessment for ethylben

process. 

58 An EPA health effects assessment for ethylbenzene is currently in process. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system websit

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Ethylene Dibromide (EDB; 1,2-Dibromoethane) (1991) (B) 

0 0.00005 

(PQL) 

-- B2, probable 

human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 0.009 (2004)/ 

27 (LOAEL)/ 3000 (10H, 10A, 10L, 10D)/ Testicular atrophy, liver peliosis, and adrenal cortical degeneration/ NCI 1978 

Likely to be carcinogenic to humans (1999 guidelines; 2004) 

-- 

Fluoride (1986) (A) 

4.0 4.0 No RfD59/ 

20 mg/day (LOAEL)/ (2.5H)/ crippling skeletal fluorosis/ Shapiro 1983 Koop 1984 WHO 1984 

-- -- 

100% 

0.0660/ 

1989/ 0.06 (NOAEL)/ 1(1H)/ objectionable dental fluorosis/ Hodge 1950 

-- -- 

59 EPA published a secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) for fluoride of 2.0 mg/L to protect against dental fluorosis (an adve

(NPDWR for fluoride, April 2, 1986 (51FR: 11397)). 

60 The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the m

on the status of this assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Glyphosate (1992) (B) 

0.7 0.7 0.1/ 

10 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Increased incidence of renal tubular dilation in F3b offspring/ Monsanto Company 1981 

E, evidence of noncarcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

4 20% 

0.1 (1990)/ 10 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Increased incidence of renal tubular dilation in F3b offspring/ Monsanto Company 1981 

D, not classifiable (1986 guidelines; 1990) 

2 (2007)/ 175 (NOA100 (10H, Diarrhea, ndischarge, Monsanto 1980b 

Heptachlor (1991) (B) 

0 0.0004 

(PQL) 

0.0005/ 0.15 (NOAEL)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3D)/ Increased liver to body weight ratio in males/ Witherup et al. 1955

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 0.0005 (1991)/ 

0.15 (NOAEL)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3D)/ Increased liver to body weight ratio in males/ Witherup et al. 1955 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1991) 

0.0005 (19 0.15 (NOA300 (10H, Liver lesioincreased rweight/ Witherup e

Heptachlor Epoxide (1991) (B) 

0 0.0002 

(PQL) 

0.000013/ 0.0125 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Increase in liver-tobody weight ratio/ Dow Chemical Company 1958 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 0.000013 (1991)/ 

0.0125 (LEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Increase in liver-to-body weight ratio/ Dow Chemical Company 1958 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1993) 

0.000013 (0.0125 (LE1000 (10H10L)/ Increase in body weigDow ChemCompany 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL

≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Hexachlorobenzene (1992) (B) 

0 0.001 

(PQL) 

0.0008/ 0.08 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Hepatic centrilobular basophilic chromogenesis/ Arnold et al. 1985 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 0.0008 (1991)/ 

0.08 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Hepatic centrilobular basophilic chromogenesis/ Arnold et al. 1985 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1996) 

-- 

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (1992) (B) 

0.05 0.05 0.007/ 

7.14 (adj. NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Focal inflammation of the forestomach and stomach lesions/ SRI 1981 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.3 20% 

0.006 (2001)/ 6 (BMDL10)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 101/2S, 

101/2D)/ 

Chronic irritation of forestomach (forestomach lesions)/ Abdo et al. 1984 

Unknown risk as to oral exposure (1996 guidelines; 2001) 

-- 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Lindane (gammaHexachlorocyclohexane) (1991) (B) 

0.0002 0.0002 0.0003/ 

0.33 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Liver and kidney toxicity/ RCC 1983 

C, possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

0.01 20% Also factor of 10 for class C 

0.0003 (1988)/ 0.33 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Liver and kidney toxicity/ RCC 1983 

-- 0.0047 (20

0.47 (NOA100 (10H, FQPA: 3 Hepatocyte hypertrophincreased lincreased pAmyes 198

Mercury (Inorganic) (1991) (B) 

0.002 0.002 0.000361/ / 1000 

(Not specified)/ Mercuric chlorideinduced autoimmune glomerulonephritis/ USEPA 1987c Druet et al. 1978 Bernaudin et al. 1981 Andres 1984 

-- 0.01 

20% 

0.0003 (1995)/ 0.317 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10A,H, 10L, 10S)/Autoimmune glomerulonephritis/ USEPA 1987c Druet et al. 1978 Bernaudin et al. 1981 Andres 1984 

C, possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1995) 

-- 

61 The RfD for mercury was back-calculated from the DWEL using 2 L water consumption and 70 kg body weight in the following equ

70 kg = 0.00029 mg/kg-day, rounded to 0.0003 mg/kg-day. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Methoxychlor (1991) (B) 

0.04 0.04 0.005/ 

5.01 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10D)/ Excessive loss of litters; decreased body weight/ Trutter 1986 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.175 20% 

0.005 (1991)/ 5.01 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10D)/ Excessive loss of litters/ Trutter 1986 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines; 1990) 

-- 

Monochlorobenzene (Chlorobenzene) (1991) (B) 

0.1 0.1 0.02/ 

19 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Histopathologic changes in the liver/Monsanto Company 1967 Knapp et al. 1971 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.7 20% 

0.02 (1993)/ 19 (adjusted dose) (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Histopathologic changes in the liver/ Monsanto Company 1967 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines; 1991) 

-- 

Nitrate (as N) (1991) (B) 

10 10 1.6 nitratenitrogen/ 

1.6 (10 mg/L) (NOAEL)/ 1/ Methemoglobinemia in infants/ Bosch et al. 1950 Walton 1951 

-- 1062

-- 

1.6 nitrate- nitrogen/ (1991)/ 1.6 (10 mg/L) (NOAEL)/ 1/ Methemoglobinemia in infants/ Bosch et al. 1950 Walton 1951 

-- -- 

62 Nitrate assessment is based on the concentration in the drinking water for an exposed human population 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Nitrite (as N) (1991) (B) 

1 1 0.16 nitrite - 

nitrogen/ Nitrate RfD of 1.6 nitrate-nitrogen63/ 

1 (MF = 10)/ Methemoglobinemia in infants/ Bosch et al. 1950 Walton 1951 

-- 1 

-- 

0.1 nitrite-nitrogen 

(1991)/ 

164 (10 mg/L nitratenitrogen) (NOAEL)/ 

1 (MF = 10)/ Methemoglobinemia in infants/ Walton 1951 

-- -- 

63 Extrapolated from nitrate RfD of 1.6 mg/kg-day, assuming 10% of nitrate converted to nitrite. Assumes a 4 kg child ingesting 0.64 L64 10 mg/L converted to 1.0 mg/kg-day assuming 10 kg child ingesting 1 L/day. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Oxamyl (Vydate) (1992) (B) 

0.2 0.2 0.025/ 

2.5 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Decreased body weight gain/ Kennedy 1986 

E, evidence of noncarcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.9 20% 

0.025 (1991)/ 2.5 (NOEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Decreased body weight gain and food consumption/ E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company 1972 

-- 0.001 (200

0.1 (NOAE100 (10H, Clinical sigdecreased RBC and bcholinesterinhibition Malley 199

Pentachlorophenol (1991) (A) 

0 0.001 

(PQL; analytical feasibility) 

0.03/ 3 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ pigmentation of kidneys/ Schwetz et al. 1978 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

1.1 0.03 (1993)65/ 

3 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ pigmentation of kidneys/ Schwetz et al. 1978 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1993)66

--

67

, 

68 

65 An updated draft IRIS assessment (USEPA, 2007g) chose a chronic feeding study in dogs by Mecler (1996) as the principal study fo

hepatotoxicity. IRIS derived an RfD of 0.005 mg/kg-day based on a LOAEL of 1.5 mg/kg-day as the point of departure and an uncertai10A, 3L). A draft IRIS assessment for pentachlorophenol is currently in progress. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system w(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 

66 A draft IRIS assessment (USEPA, 2007g) for pentachlorophenol is currently in progress and states that under the 2005 Guidelines PC

carcinogenic to humans.” The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) shou

most current information on the status of this assessment. 

67 OPP (USEPA, 2004b) prepared a draft risk assessment for pentachlorophenol for systemic toxicity based on the LOAEL of 1.5 mg/k

dogs as discussed above for the draft IRIS assessment and a recommended margin of exposure of 300. 

68 OPP is developing a RED for release in September 2008. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL

≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Picloram (1992) (B) 

0.5 0.5 0.07/ 

7 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Increased relative and absolute liver weights/ Dow Chemical Company 1982 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

2.45 20% 

0.07 (1992)/ 7 (NOEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Increased relative and absolute liver weights/ Dow Chemical Company1982 

-- 0.2 (1995)

20 (NOAE100 (10H, FQPA: NA Changes in centrilobulhepatocyteLandry et a
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (1991) (A) 

0 0.0005 

(PQL) 

0.0001/ 0.01 (LOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Reduction in body weight of offspring/Barsotti and van Miller 1984 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 

69Aroclor 1016U: 7E-5 

(1993)/ 0.007 (NOAEL)/100 (3H, 3A, 3S, 3D)/ Reduced birth weights/ Barsotti and van Miller 1984 Levin et al. 1988 Schantz et al. 1989, 1991

UAroclor 1254U: 2E-5 

(1994)/ 0.005 (LOAEL)/ 300 (10H, 3A, 3S 3L)/ Ocular exudate, inflamed and prominent Meibomian glands, distorted growth of finger and toe nails; decreased antibody (IgG and IgM) response to sheep erythrocytes/ Arnold et al. 1993a,b Tryphonas et al. 1989, 1991a,b 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines)70

-- 

69 IRIS does not present an RfD for polychlorinated biphenyls. Rather, IRIS directs readers to the RfD files for the individual Aroclor m

an IRIS risk assessment for polychlorinated biphenyls is currently in progress. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system websit(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 

70EPA stated that an IRIS risk assessment for polychlorinated biphenyls is currently in progress. However, IRIS Track does not list PCB
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Combined Radiums (226 and 228) (2000) (A) 

0 5 pCi/L71 -- A, Known 

human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- -- -- -- 

Selenium (1991) (B) 

0.05 0.05 None/ 

3.2/ 15 (H, L, accounting for special status as essential element)/ Minimum dietary intake of selenium in area with chronic selenosis of 3.2 mg/day, for a 70 kg adult/ Yang et al. 1983 

-- -- 

50% 

0.005 (1991)/ 0.015 (NOAEL)/ 3 (3H)/ Clinical selenosis/ Yang et al. 1989 

D, not classifiable (1986 guidelines; 1991) 

-- 

71 ORIA is the principal health assessor for radionuclides. A health assessment for combined radiums (226 and 228) is currently in prog

conducting the assessment, combined radiums (226 and 228) is not addressed on the IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system webcompletion date is not publicly available. The 2000 radionuclides rule was a collaboration between OW and ORIA. See 40 CFR 141. combined radium-226 and radium-228. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Simazine (1992) (B) 

0.004 0.004 0.005/ 

0.52 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Reduction in weight gains; hematological changes in females/ McCormick et al. 1988 

C, possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

0.175 20% Also factor of 10 for class C 

0.005 (1994)/ 0.52 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Reduction in weight gains; hematological changes in females/ McCormick et al. 1988 

-- 0.018 (200

1.8 (NOAE100 (10H, FQPA: 10 estrous cycalterations surge/ Morseth et 

Styrene (1991) (A) 

0.1 0.1 0.2/ 

200 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Reduced red blood cells, iron deposits in liver/ Quast et al. 1979 

C, possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

7 20% 

0.2 (1990)72 / 

200 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Reduced red blood cells, iron deposits in liver/ Quast et al. 1979 

-- -- 

72 The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the m

on the status of this assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) (1988) (A) 

0 3 x 10-8/ 

(PQL) 

1 x 10-9/ 

1 x 10-6 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Reduced gestation index, decreased fetal weight, increased liver-tobody weight ratio, dilated renal pelvis/ Murray et al. 1979 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

3.5 x 10-8

-- 

--

73

--

74

-- 

Tetrachloroethylene (1991) (A) 

0 0.005/ 

(PQL; analytical feasibility) 

0.0143/ 14.3 (adjusted NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Increased liver weight and hepatic triglycerides levels/ Buben and O’Flaherty 1985 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

0.5 0.01 (1988)75/ 

14 (adjusted NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Increased liver weight and hepatic triglycerides levels/ Buben and O’Flaherty 1985 

-- -- 

73 An IRIS 2003 External Review Draft is available. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/nc

should be consulted for the most current information on the status of the assessment of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin).  EPA proposed using an MOE approach (MOE = POD/exposure), rather than an RfD approach, due to the inability to determine levels without appreciable effects of lifetime exposure. 

74 An IRIS 2003 External Review Draft is available. IRIS Track lists the assessment as initiated with a final. The IRIS Substance Asses

website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessm

EPA proposed that dioxin is a “human carcinogen.” 

75 An IRIS 2006 External Review Draft is available. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/nc

should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Thallium (1992) (A) 

0.0005 0.002 

(PQL; analytical feasibility) 

0.00007/ 0.25 (NOAEL)/ 3000 (10H, 10A, 10S, 3D)/ No treatment related effects/ Stolz et al. 1986 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.002 20% 

0.00007 76(1990)/ 

0.25 (converted to 0.2 NOAEL as thallium)/ 3000 (10H, 10A, 10S, 3D/ Some increase in serum enzymes (SGOT and LDH), hypoglycemia, alopecia/ USEPA 1986b 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)77

-- 

76 Previously, the IRIS database contained separate IRIS summaries for each of the five soluble thallium salts. The previous RfD value

and insoluble) were based on the same principal study (MRI, 1988; previously cited as USEPA, 1986b) as the current assessment preseReview draft of the Toxicological Review for Thallium and Compounds (USEPA, 2008a). The current assessment, however, provides 

ion only that is applicable to soluble thallium (I) salts. The difference between the previous and current RfD values for the soluble thal

attributable to a different interpretation of the study results and different assignment of uncertainty factors. In the previous assessment, 

the principal study was identified as the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL), whereas in the current assessment, the mid-dose gthe NOAEL. Although the previous and current assessments both use a composite UF of 3000, the value of specific UFs differ betwee

determined (based on physical-chemical property differences and the lack of water solubility information) that thallium (I) sulfate is no

for the derivation of RfD values for the insoluble thallium salts (e.g., thallium oxide), for other trivalent thallium salts, or for thallium (I(2008a) identified a NOAEL of 0.04 mg thallium ion/kg-day for alopecia and applied a UF of 3000 (10A, 10H, 3S, 10D), resulting in athallium ion/kg-day. USEPA (2008a) presents an RfD of 2 x 10-5 mg/kg-day for each of the soluble thallium (I) salts that is estimated b

molecular weight of the salt compared with the ion. A water concentration based on the new IRIS RfD and incorporating a 20% relativ0.00007 mg thallium ion/L. EPA completed the risk reassessment for thallium in September of 2009 (USEPA, 2009b). Because the necompleted by March 1, 2009, the cutoff date for this review, the outcome of this assessment has not been included in the current review consider the updated assessment in the next review cycle. 

77 The 2008 IRIS draft concluded that there is inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential for thallium. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Toluene (1991) (B) 

1 1 0.2/ 

223 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Increased kidney weight/ NTP 1990 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

7 20% 

0.08 (2005)/ 238 (BMDL)/ 3000 (10H, 10A, 10S, 3D)/ Increased kidney weights/ NTP 1990 

Data are inadequate to assess carcinogenic potential (2005 guidelines; 2005) 

-- 

Toxaphene (1991) (B) 

0 0.003 

(PQL) 

0.0004/ 0.36 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Histological changes in liver, kidney, and thyroid/Chu et al. 1986,1988 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- -- B2, probable 

human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1991) 

-- 

2,4,5-TP (Silvex; 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic Acid) (1991) (B) 

0.05 0.05 0.008 

0.75 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Histopathological changes in the liver/Mullison 1966 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.3 20% 

0.008 (1988)/ 0.75 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Histopathological changes in the liver/ Mullison 1966 

D, not classifiable (1986 guidelines; 1988) 

-- 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (1992) (B) 

0.07 0.07 0.01/ 

14.8 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Increased adrenal weights; vacuolization of zona fasciculata in the cortex/ Robinson et al. 1981 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.35 20% 

0.01 (1996)/ 14.8 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S/D)/ Increased adrenal weights; vacuolization of zona fasciculata in the cortex/ Robinson et al. 1981 

D, not classifiable (1986 guidelines; 1996) 

-- 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1985) (B) 

0.2 0.2 0.035/ 

35.1 (LOAEL) 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Histological changes in liver/ McNutt et al. 1975 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

1 20% 

2.0 (2007)/ 2155 (BMDL10)/ 1000 (10H, 

10A, 3S, 3D)/ Reduced body weight/ NTP 2000

Inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential (2005 guidelines, 2007) 

-- 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1992) (B) 

0.003 0.005 

(PQL) 

0.004/ 4 (NOAEL) 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Adverse effects on liver, depressed humoral immune status/ Sanders et al. 1985 White et al. 1985 

C, possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

0.137 20% Also factor of 10 for class C 

0.004 (1995)/ 3.9 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Clinical serum chemistry/ Sanders et al. 1985 White et al. 1985 

C, possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1994) 

-- 

Trichloroethylene (1985) (A) 

0 0.005 

(PQL; analytical feasibility) 

0.007/ 7.34 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (unspecified)/ Increased liver weight/ Kimmerle and Eben 1973 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines)78

-- --

79

--

80

-- 

78 NCEA (USEPA, 2001d) characterized trichloroethylene as highly likely to produce cancer in humans (1996, 1999 Guidelines). 79 A 2001 EPA NCEA Draft Health Risk Assessment proposed an RfD of 3 x 10-4 , based on liver weight to bodyweight ratio changes, 

uncertainty factor of 3000 (50H, 100A, S, L) (Tucker et al., 1982). The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/index.cfm) should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 

80 A 2001 EPA NCEA Draft Health Risk Assessment (USEPA, 2001d) described trichloroethylene as “Highly likely to produce cancer 

guidelines). 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water IRIS 

Regulation (NPDWR) Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Uranium (2000) (A) 

0 0.0381

(feasibility and costbenefit analysis) 

0.0006 ug/kg/day/ 0.06 (LOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 3A, 3L) (minimum LOAEL)/ Renal toxicity/ Gilman et al. 1998 

A, known human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) (No quantitative assessment)82

20 ug/L80% 

0.003 (1989)83/ 

2.8 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S) Initial body weight loss; moderate nephrotoxicity/Maynard and Hodge 1949 (No quantitative assessment via oral route)

-- -- 

Vinyl chloride (1987) (B) 

0 0.002 

(PQL) 

Adjusted acceptable daily intake: 0.046 mg/L/ 0.13 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ None/ Til et al. 1983 

A, known human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 0.003 (2000)/ 

0.13 (0.09 HED) (NOAEL)/ 30 (10H, 3A)/ Liver cell polymorphism/ Til et al. 1983, 1991 

Known carcinogen by the oral route (1996 guidelines; 2000) 

-- 

81 ORIA is the principal health assessor for radionuclides. The 2000 radionuclides rule was a collaboration between OW and ORIA. S82 The Office of Water Criteria Document (USEPA,1991b) has derived risk specific concentration for a cancer risk of 1E-4 for lifetime 

isotopes of uranium using the RADRISK program. For example, for combined U234 and U238 a concentration of 120 pCi/L is associarisk. 

83 The IRIS RfD for natural uranium has been withdrawn. The IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking system website (http://cfpub.epa.g

should be consulted for the most current information on the status of this assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 2. Summary of U.S. EPA Assessments for Six-Year Review 2 Chemicals 10* 

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulation (NPDWR) IRIS 

Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) 

(List A or B)

MCLG 

mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines 

used) 

DWEL 

(mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) (year)/

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer 

classification

(year of 

guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (m

(ye

Point of D

UF (brea

UFs)/

Cit

Xylenes (Total)  (1991) (B) 

10 10 1.79/ 

179 (adj. NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ decreased body weight gains/ NTP 1986 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

63 20% 

0.2 (2003), 179 (adj. NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10D)/ decreased body weight gains/ NTP 1986 

Data are inadequate to assess carcinogenic potential (1999 guidelines; 2003) 

-- 

Abbreviations: AADI = - Adjusted acceptable daily intake or adjusted average daily intake; ADI = average daily intake; Adj. = adjust

exposure; BMDL = lower 95% confidence limit on the benchmark dose; DWEL = drinking water equivalent level; FQPA = Food Qua

= Human equivalent dose; IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System; MCL = maximum contaminant level; MCLG = maximum contaminimum effect level; NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level; LEL = lowest effect level; LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effecapplicable; OPP = Office of Pesticide Programs; ORIA = Office of Radiation and Indoor Air; OW = Office of Water; PQL = practical termed “analytical feasibility”; RfD = Reference dose; RSC = relative source contribution; UF = uncertainty factor (with H = intraspeciUF; L = UF for LOAEL to NOAEL; S = UF for subchronic to chronic extrapolation; D = database UF) 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 3. Summary of EPA Quantitative Cancer Assessments for List A and B Chemica

Chemical OW IRIS 

(List A or B) Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor84

Extrapolation 

Method85

Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor 

Extrapolation 

Method 

Quantitative 

Estimate 

A

Acrylamide (A) Potency : 3.7 

per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 1E-4 mg/L, 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model 

Potency: 4.5 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 8E-5 mg/L86

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

-- -- 

Alachlor (B) -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.005 mg/kgday87 Alpha Particle Emitters (A) 

--

88

 -- FGR-13; linear 

no threshold model 

-- -- -- -- -- 

84 The adjustment factor was often not presented in summary documents reviewed. Unless specified otherwise the approach shown wa

at the time the assessment was completed. 

85 The extrapolation method was often not presented in summary documents reviewed. Unless specified otherwise the approach shown 

methods at the time the assessment was completed. 

86 An EPA risk assessment for acrylamide is currently in process. Based on the IRIS External Review Draft EPA derived a human oral 

mg/kg-day is based on human equivalent BMDL10 derived from a PBTK model. The HEC BMDL10 was based on the male rat BMD10 

BMDL10 of 0.3 mg/kg-day for the combined risk of male rats bearing TVM or thyroid tumors. The human slope factor for acrylamide s

exposures exceeding the POD (LED10), because above this level the fitted dose-response model better characterizes what is known abou

acrylamide. 

87 The data indicate that alachlor’s tumorigenicity is operating by a nonlinear mode of action. OPP (USEPA, 1998d, 2001e, 2006c) con

causes nasal turbinate tumors via the generation of a reactive metabolite that leads to cytotoxicity and regenerative proliferation in the n

cytotoxicity and proliferation is needed to lead to neoplasia. Based on this MOA assessment a non-linear dose response assessment is ausing the POD of 0.5 mg/kg-day identified by OPP for this endpoint and the UF of 100 (10H, 10A) would result in a health reference v

88 ORIA is the principal health assessor for radionuclides. The 2000 radionuclides rule was a collaboration between OW and ORIA T

(USEPA, 2000b) and supporting document (USEPA, 2000g) presented the concentration (in pCi/L) corresponding to 1E-4 lifetime totalifetime fatal cancer risk; the individual cancer risk per unit intake factors for the individual radionuclides are provided in FGR-13 (USE
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 3. Summary of EPA Quantitative Cancer Assessments for List A and B Chemica

Chemical OW IRIS 

(List A or B) Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor84

Extrapolation 

Method85

Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor 

Extrapolation 

Method 

Quantitative 

Estimate 

A

Arsenic (A) 89Risk at a MCL 

of 10 ug/L provided ranges from 1E-4 to 6E-4 depending on adjustment factors used for arsenic in food and cooking water 

-- -- Potency: 1.5 per 

mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level:2E-4 mg/L

Based on human study 

Time- and doserelated formulation of the multistage model (USEPA 1988a) 

-- -- 

Asbestos (A) Potency: 1.4E13 per fiber/L; 

Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 7.1E7 fiber/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

-- -- -- -- -- 

Benzene (B) Potency90: 

Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 6.8E-3 mg/L 

Based on human studies

Linearized multistage model

Potency: 1.5E-2 to 5.5E-2 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 0.01 – 0.1 mg/L 

Based on human studies 

Linear extrapolation from occupational 

-- -- 

89 A cancer slope factor was not identified in EPA DWCD. However, the NPDWR (USEPA, 2001c) provides risk estimates at various 

MCLs. 

90 The DWCD did not provide a cancer slope factor; rather, the risk specific dose was extrapolated from the inhalation unit risk of 0.024

epidemiology studies of leukemia following benzene inhalation. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 3. Summary of EPA Quantitative Cancer Assessments for List A and B Chemica

Chemical OW IRIS 

(List A or B) Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor84

Extrapolation 

Method85

Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor 

Extrapolation 

Method 

Quantitative 

Estimate 

A

Benzo(a)pyrene (A) Potency: 5.79 

per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 6E-5 mg/L 

(BW )2/3 Linearized 

multi-stage model; Twostage conditional upper bound (5.9 per mg/kg-day); two-stage 10% response (9.0 per mg/kg-day); Weibull-type (4.5 per mg/kgday) 

Potency: 7.3 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 5E-5 mg/L 

NS Linearized 

Multistage Model 

-- -- 

Beryllium (A) Potency : 4.3 

per mg/kg-day Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 8E-5 mg/L 

(BW )2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

-- -- -- -- -- 

Beta Particle and Photon Emitters(A) 

--

91 -- FGR-13; linear 

no threshold model 

-- -- -- -- -- 

Carbon tetrachloride (A) Potency: 0.13 

per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 2.7E-3 mg/L 

(BW )2/3 improved 

multistage model

Potency92: 0.13 

per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 3E-3 mg/L 

(BW )2/3 Linearized 

Multistage Model 

-- -- 

91 ORIA is the principal health assessor for radionuclides. The 2000 radionuclides rule was a collaboration between OW and ORIA. T

(USEPA, 2000b) and supporting document (USEPA, 2000g) presented the concentration (in pCi/L) corresponding to the 4 mrem/year sassociated risk; the individual cancer risk per unit intake factors for the individual radionuclides are provided in FGR-13 (USEPA, 1999

92 The IRIS draft assessment (2008b) for carbon tetrachloride states that the studies of carbon tetrachloride carcinogenicity by the oral e

sufficient to derive a quantitative estimate of cancer risk using low-dose linear approaches, it lists a cancer classification of “likely to be by all routes of exposure” under 2005 guidelines. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 3. Summary of EPA Quantitative Cancer Assessments for List A and B Chemica

Chemical OW IRIS 

(List A or B) Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor84

Extrapolation 

Method85

Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor 

Extrapolation 

Method 

Quantitative 

Estimate 

A

Chlordane (B) Potency: 1.3 per 

mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 2.7E-4 mg/L 

(BW )2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

Potency: 0.35 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 1E-3 mg/L 

(BW )3/4 Linearized 

multistage model

-- -- 

Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate (DEHA) (A) 

Potency: 1.2E-3 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 3E-1 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage procedure; 

Potency: 1.2E-3 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 3E-1 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

-- -- 

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) (A) 

Potency: 0.014 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 3E-2 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

Potency: 0.014 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 3E-2 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage procedure 

-- -- 

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) (B) 

Potency: 1.4 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 0.00025 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

-- -- -- -- -- 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 3. Summary of EPA Quantitative Cancer Assessments for List A and B Chemica

Chemical OW IRIS 

(List A or B) Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor84

Extrapolation 

Method85

Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor 

Extrapolation 

Method 

Quantitative 

Estimate 

A

From Rat Study: Potency: 2E-2 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 1.8E-2 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-Dichlorobenzene) (A) 

From Mouse Study: Potency: 6E-3 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 5.8E-2 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

-- -- -- 

93

 -- 

1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene Dichloride) (A) 

Potency94: Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 6 E-3 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

Potency: 0.091 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 4 E-3 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model with time to death analysis 

-- -- 

Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) (A) 

Potency: 7.5E-3; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 5E-2 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

Potency: 7.5E-3 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 5E-2 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage procedure 

-- -- 

1,2-Dichloropropane (B) Potency: 6.7E-2 

per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 5.2E-3 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

-- -- -- -- -- 

93 OPP is developing a RED for release in March 2008 94 Potency not available, and cannot be calculate from the drinking water concentration using standard methods, because the calculation 

concentration included consumption from fish. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 3. Summary of EPA Quantitative Cancer Assessments for List A and B Chemica

Chemical OW IRIS 

(List A or B) Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor84

Extrapolation 

Method85

Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor 

Extrapolation 

Method 

Quantitative 

Estimate 

A

Epichlorohydrin (B) Potency: 9.9 x 

10-3 per mg/kgday; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 4E-2 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

Potency: 9.9 x 10-3 per mg/kgday; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 4E-2 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

-- -- 

Ethylene Dibromide (EDB; 1,2-Dibromoethane) (B) 

Potency: 85 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 4E-6 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 The model was 

derived from Thorslund, 1982; the equation derived in Thorslund (1982) assumed an equivalency mg/surface area and had an error in the derivation of a term. 

Potency: 2 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 2E-4 

(BW)3/4 LED10 with 

linear extrapolation; slope factors calculated from multiple tumor sites and summed using statistically appropriate model. 

-- -- 

Heptachlor (B) Potency: 4.5 per 

mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 8E-5 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

Potency: 4.5 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 8E-5 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

-- -- 

Heptachlor Epoxide (B) Potency: 9.1 per 

mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 4E-5 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

Potency: 9.1 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 4E-5 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

-- -- 

Hexachlorobenzene (B) Slope factor: 1.6 

per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 2E-4 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

Slope factor: 1.6 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 2E-4 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

-- -- 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 3. Summary of EPA Quantitative Cancer Assessments for List A and B Chemica

Chemical OW IRIS 

(List A or B) Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor84

Extrapolation 

Method85

Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor 

Extrapolation 

Method 

Quantitative 

Estimate 

A

Lindane (gammaHexachlorocyclohexane) (B) 

Potency: 1.3 per mg/kg-day Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 3E-4 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

-- -- -- -- -- 

Pentachlorophenol (A) Potency: 0.12 

per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 3E-3 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

Potency95: 0.12 

per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 3E-3 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

Potency96: 0.07 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 5E-3 mg/L 

(BW

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (A) 

Potency: 7.7 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 5E-5 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

Potency97

Range 0.07 to 2.0 per mg/kgday Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level range: 2E-4 to 5E-3 mg/L 

(BW)3/4 Linear 

extrapolation below LED10s 

-- -- 

95 A draft IRIS assessment (USEPA,2007g) for pentachlorophenol is currently in progress and states that under the 2005 Guidelines PC

carcinogenic to humans.” A multistage model using linear extrapolation from the point of departure (based on increased incidence of h

gland tumors in male mice) was performed to derive an oral slope factor of 4 × 10-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 for PCP. The recommended slope fa

with exposures greater than 0.3 mg/kg-day (the point of departure for the site with the greatest response for tPCP-exposed male mice), the slope factor may not approximate the observed dose-response relationship adequately. 

96 OPP is developing a RED for release in September 2008 97 The cancer potency of PCB mixtures is determined using a tiered approach that depends on the information available. They are organ

The "High risk and persistence" tier includes PCBs with an upper-bound slope factor of 2.0 per mg/kg-day and a Central-estimate slope day. Criteria for use include food chain exposure, sediment or soil ingestion, dust or aerosol inhalation, dermal exposure, if an absorptpresence of dioxin-like, tumor-promoting, or persistent congeners, and early-life exposure (all pathways and mixtures). The "low risk aincludes PCBS with an upper-bound slope factor of 0.4 per mg/kg-day, and with a central-estimate slope factor of 0.3 per mg/kg-day. Cingestion of water-soluble congeners, inhalation of evaporated congeners, dermal exposure, or if no absorption factor has been applied. The "lowest risk and persistence" tier includes PCBs with an upper-bound slope factor of 0.07 per mg/kg-day and a central-estimate slomg/kg-day. Criteria for use include congener or isomer analyses verify that congeners with more than 4 chlorines comprise less than 1/
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 3. Summary of EPA Quantitative Cancer Assessments for List A and B Chemica

Chemical OW IRIS 

(List A or B) Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor84

Extrapolation 

Method85

Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor 

Extrapolation 

Method 

Quantitative 

Estimate 

A

Combined Radiums (226 and 228) (A) 

98-- -- FGR-13; linear 

no threshold model 

-- -- -- -- -- 

Simazine (B) Potency: 0.12 

per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 3E-3 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Weibull 83 -- -- -- -- -- 

Styrene (A) Potency: 3E-2 

per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 1E-2 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

-- -- -- -- -- 

2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) (A) 

Cancer potency: 156,000 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 2E-6mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

--

99

-- -- -- -- 

Tetrachloroethylene (A) Potency: 5E-2 

per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 7E-3 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

--

100

 -- -- -- -- 

98 ORIA is the principal health assessor for radionuclides. The 2000 radionuclides rule was a collaboration between OW and ORIA. T

(USEPA, 2000b) and supporting document (USEPA, 2000g) presented the concentration (in pCi/L) corresponding to 1E-4 lifetime totalifetime fatal cancer risk; the individual cancer risk per unit intake factors for the individual radionuclides are provided in FGR-13 (USE

99 An IRIS 2003 External Review Draft is available. A cancer potency factor of 0.001 per mg TEQ/kg BW/day (slope factor is 10-3 ris100 An IRIS 2006 External Review Draft is available. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 3. Summary of EPA Quantitative Cancer Assessments for List A and B Chemica

Chemical OW IRIS 

(List A or B) Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor84

Extrapolation 

Method85

Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor 

Extrapolation 

Method 

Quantitative 

Estimate 

A

Toxaphene (B) Potency: 1.1 per 

mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 3E-4 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

Potency: 1.1 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 3E-4 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

-- -- 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (B) 

Potency101: 

0.091 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 0.004 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

Potency: 0.057 per mg/kg-day, ;Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 0.006 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

-- -- 

Trichloroethylene (A) Cancer slope 

factor: 1.1E-2 per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 3E-2 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Improved 

multistage linearized model

--

102

-- -- -- -- 

101 The term “potency” refers to either the q1* or slope factor depending on the modeling approach that was used. In some cases the su

report the potency estimate. In such cases, the potency was back-calculated from reported unit risks or risk specific concentrations to fa

102 An EPA 2001 NCEA Draft Health Risk Assessment for trichloroethylene is available. The document derived a cancer slope factor r

10-1 mg/kg-day. trichloroethylene was described as “Highly likely to produce cancer in humans” (1996, 1999 guidelines). 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 3. Summary of EPA Quantitative Cancer Assessments for List A and B Chemica

Chemical OW IRIS 

(List A or B) Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor84

Extrapolation 

Method85

Quantitative 

Estimate 

Adjustment 

factor 

Extrapolation 

Method 

Quantitative 

Estimate 

A

Vinyl chloride (B) Potency: 2.3 per 

mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level: 1.5E-4 mg/L 

(BW)2/3 Linearized 

multistage model

Potency: adult exposure: 0.72 (LMS); 0.75 (LED) per mg/kg-day. For continuous exposure from childhood on: 1.4 (LMS); 1.5 (LED) per mg/kg-day; Drinking water concentration at 10-5 risk level adult exposure 5E-4 mg/L: 

PBPK model Linearized 

multistage model, LED10/linear extrapolation 

-- -- 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Acrylamide (A) 0.0002 (USEPA, 

1991b) 

B2, Probable human carcinogen (USEPA, 1993a) 

-- -- 

Alachlor (B) 

0.01 (USEPA, 1998d) 0.005

(USEPA, 1998d) 

Likely to be a human carcinogen at high doses; not likely to be a human carcinogen at low doses (USEPA, 2006c) 107

-- -- Likely to be 

a human carcinogen at high doses; not likely to be a human carcinogen at low doses (1997a) 

-- -- -- -- -- 

103 Only the latest EPA assessment, ATSDR assessments published since 2002, or recent NAS assessments were reviewed for List A ch104 WHO refers to Drinking Water Guidelines, unless otherwise specified. If another organization within WHO (JECFA, JMPR, CICAD

than WHO, it is included as a separate line. If another organization reports the same value as WHO, it is indicated by footnote. 

105 CalEPA and WHO assessments often do not provide an explicit overall qualitative cancer assessment. In that case, a phrase was ins

the bottom line for these organizations. 

106 CalEPA and WHO assessments often do not provide an explicit overall qualitative cancer assessment. In that case, a phrase was ins

the bottom line for these organizations. 

107 The data indicate that alachlor’s tumorigenicity is operating by a nonlinear mode of action. OPP (USEPA, 1998d, 2001e, 2006c) co

causes nasal turbinate tumors via the generation of a reactive metabolite that leads to cytotoxicity and regenerative proliferation in the n

cytotoxicity and proliferation is needed to lead to neoplasia. Based on this MOA assessment a non-linear dose response assessment is aof 0 is no longer appropriate. Therefore, using the POD of 0.5 mg/kg-day identified by OPP for this endpoint and the UF of 100 (10H, health reference value of 0.005 mg/kg-day. Assuming 70 kg body weight, 2 L/day water consumption, and a 20% RSC, a water concenvalue is 0.035 mg/L (rounded to 0.04 mg/L). The new MCLG would be based on the nonlinear cancer assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Alpha Particles Emitters (A) 

-- A, Known 

human carcinogen (USEPA, 2000b) 

-- -- -- 

(2003h)108

-- -- -- (2006)109 -- 

(1995)110

-- (1988a

108 The CalEPA assessment did not present a qualitative cancer classification, but did address cancer risk. 109 Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality Summary Table, Health Canada, March 2006. 110 The Health Canada assessment did not present a qualitative cancer classification, but did address cancer risk. 111 NAS (1988a). Health Risks of Radon and Other Internally Deposited Alpha-Emitters. BEIR IV. National Academy of Sciences, Na

National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

112 IARC (2001a). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 78, Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Som

Radionuclides. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Press. Lyon, France. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Antimony (A) 

0.0004 (USEPA, 1992h) 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) (USEPA,1992h) 

No int. or chronic oral MRL (1992) 

0.0014 (1997b) 113

Negative oral dosing animal carcinogenicity and limited evidence following inhalation insufficient to serve as basis for PHG (1997b) 

0.006 (2003a, WHO) 

-- 0.0002 

(1999) 

Group V, inadequate data for evaluation of carcinogenicity (1999) 

-- 

113 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Arsenic (A) 

0.0003 (USEPA, 1993b) 

A, Human carcinogen (USEPA, 1996a, 2001c) 

0.0003 (chronic MRL 2007a) 

 --

Asbestos (A) 

-- Not 

available via ingestion; A, known human carcinogen via inhalation route (USEPA, 1986a) (USEPA, 1993c) 

No int. or chronic oral MRL (2001) 

0.04 (2003a) 114

-- -- -- -- -- -- 

Atrazine (B) 

0.018 (USEPA, 2006a) 

Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans (USEPA, 1999a) (USEPA, 2006a) 

0.003 (intermediate MRL, (ATSDR, 2003a)) 

0.005(1999a)115

-- 0.0005 

(WHO, 2003b) 

Evidence suggests nongenotoxic mode of action (WHO, 2003b) 

0.0005 (1993) 

Group III, possibly carcinogenic to humans (1993) 

-- 

114 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

115 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Barium (B) 0.2 

(USEPA, 2005c) 

Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans via oral route; carcinogenic potential cannot be determined via inhalation route (USEPA, 1996a, ) 1998e) 

0.2 (chronic MRL, 2007b) 

0.07 (2003b)116 

-- 0.7 mg/L 

(guideline value, 2004a) 12

-- 0.73 mg/L 

(maximum allowable concentration (MAC), 1990) 12

Group VA, inadequate data for evaluation(1990) 

-- 

Benzene (B) 

0.004 (USEPA, 2003f) 

Known human carcinogen for all routes of exposure (USEPA, 1996a) (USEPA, 2000e) 

0.0005 (chronic MRL, 2007c) 

0.009 (2001a) 117

PHG based on cancer risk from leukemias  (2001a) 

--

118

-- -- 

119 Group I, 

documented human carcinogen (1986c) 

-- 

116 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

117 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on cancer potency. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the NOA

CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

118 A guideline value was provided in mg/L based on 10-5 cancer risk; noncancer values were not available. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Benzo(a) pyrene (A) 

-- Probable 

human carcinogen (Group B2, 1986a) (USEPA, 1994c) 

No int. or chronic oral MRL (1995) 

 --

Beryllium (A) 

0.002 (USEPA, 1998f) 

Carcinogenic potential of ingested beryllium cannot be determined (1999a guidelines) (USEPA, 1998f) 

0.002 (chronic MRL, 2002a) 

0.0002 (2003c) 120

-- 0.002 

(IPCS, 2001) 

-- -- -- -- 

(2007)

119 A MAC value was provided in mg/L based on cancer risk; noncancer values were not available 120 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

121 NAS (2007) Health Effects of Beryllium Exposure: A Literature Review. Committee on Beryllium Alloy Exposures, Committee on 

Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Beta Particle and Photon Emitters (A) 

-- A, Known 

human carcinogen (USEPA, 2000b) 

-- -- -- (2003i)122 -- -- -- (2006)123 -- 

(1995)124

-- (1990)

2006a)

Cadmium (A) 

0.005 (USEPA, 1994d) 

D, Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity by the oral route of exposure (USEPA, 1991b) 

0.0002 (MRL 1999a) 

 0.005 

(SNAR1983) 

122 The CalEPA assessment did not present a qualitative cancer classification, but did address cancer risk. 123 Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality Summary Table, Health Canada, March 2006. 124 The Health Canada assessment did not present a qualitative cancer classification, but did address cancer risk. 125 NAS (1990). Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. BEIR V. National Academy of Sciences, National R

Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

126 NAS (2006a). Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. BEIR VII Phase 2. National Academy of Sciences

Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC 

127 IARC (2001). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 78, Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Som

Radionuclides. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Press. Lyon, France. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Carbofuran (B) 

0.005 (USEPA, 1987d) 

-- -- 0.003 

(2000a)128

No evidence of carcinogenicity (2000a) 

0.002 (ADI, (JMPR, 1996)) 

-- 0.01 (ADI, 

(Health Canada, 1991)) 

-- -- 1983

Carbon tetrachloride (A) 

0.0007 (USEPA, 1987a) 

Probable human carcinogen (USEPA, 1986a) (USEPA, 1991f ) 

0.007 (Intermediate MRL 2005a) 

 --

Chlordane (B) 

0.0005 (USEPA, 1998c) 

Likely carcinogen by all routes of exposure (USEPA, 1996a) (USEPA, 1998c) 

0.0006 (chronic MRL, 1994a) 

0.00001 (1997c) 130

PHG based on animal carcinogenicity (1997c) 

0.0005 (ADI, (JMPR, 1986a)) 

-- -- -- -- 

128 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

129 NAS (1983) Drinking Water and Health, Vol. 5. Safe Drinking Water Committee, Board on Toxicology and Environmental Health 

Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC

130 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on cancer potency. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the NOA

CalEPA for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Chromium (VI) (Regulation applies to total chromium) (B) 

0.003 (USEPA, 1998a) 

Via oral: D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (USEPA, 1986a) No assessment for the oral route provided under the 1996 guidelines (USEPA, 1996a) (USEPA, 1998a) 

No int. or chronic oral MRL (2000a) 

-- -- --

131

-- --

132 -- -- 

131 A guideline value was provided in mg/L based on 10-5 cancer risk; noncancer values were not available. 132 A MAC value was provided in mg/L based on cancer risk; noncancer values were not available 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Chromium (III) (Regulation applies to total chromium) (B) 

1.5 (USEPA, 1998b) 

Via oral: There are inadequate data to determine the potential carcinogenicity of trivalent chromium133

(USEPA, 1998b) 

No int. or chronic oral MRL (2000a) 

-- -- --

134

-- --

135 -- -- 

133 The assessment also noted that “the classification of hexavalent chromium as a known human carcinogen raises a concern for the ca

trivalent chromium.” 

134 A guideline value was provided in mg/L based on 10-5 cancer risk; noncancer values were not available. 135 A MAC value was provided in mg/L based on cancer risk; noncancer values were not available 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Cyanide (A) 

0.02 (USEPA, 1992i) 

D, Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (USEPA, 1986a ) (USEPA, 1992i) 

0.05 (intermediate oral MRL 2006a) 

 --

2,4-D (2,4-Di-chlorophenoxyacetic Acid) (B) 

0.005 (USEPA, 2005d) 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (USEPA, 1986a) (USEPA, 2005d) 

-- 0.005 

(2007a) 136

Negative animal carcinogenicity, and mixed limited epidemiology insufficient basis to serve as basis for PHG 

-- -- 0.01 

(ADI, 1991c) 

-- -- 

Dalapon (2,2-Dichloropropionic Acid) (B) 

0.03 (USEPA, 1992j) 

-- -- 0.028 

(1997d)137

-- -- -- -- -- -- 

136 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA) (A) 

0.6 (USEPA, 1992a) 

C, Possible human carcinogen (USEPA, 1986a ) (USEPA, 1994e) 

-- -- 

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) (A) 

0.02 (USEPA, 1991g) 

B2, Probable human carcinogen (USEPA, 1986a) (USEPA, 1993d) 

0.06 (chronic MRL 2002b) 

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) (B) 

-- B2, probable 

human carcinogen (USEPA, 1986a) (USEPA, 1988b) 

0.002 (intermediate MRL, 1992) 

0.00003 (1999k) 138

PHG based on animal carcinogenicity (1999k) 

--

139 guideline 

values based on animal carcinogenicity  (2003f) 

-- -- -- 

137 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

138 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on cancer potency. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the NOA

CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

139 A guideline value was provided in mg/L based on 10-5 cancer risk; noncancer values were not available. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (oDichlorobenzene) (A) 

0.09 (USEPA, 1991b ) 

D, Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (USEPA1986a) (USEPA, 1991h) 

0.3 (chronic MRL, 2006b) 

 0.3

(NTP, 1982 ) 

m g

1,4-Dichlorobenzene (pDichlorobenzene) (A) 

0.1 (USEPA, 1987a) 

C, Possible human carcinogen 

0.07 (chronic MRL 2006) 

0. 

((NAS1977, 1983) ADI) 

0 4 13 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene Dichloride) (A) 

-- B2 (USEPA, 

1986a) (USEPA. 1991i) 

1,1-Dichloroethylene (B) 

0.05 (USEPA, 2002f) 

Inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential (USEPA1999a,) 2002f) 

0.009 (chronic MRL, 1994b) 

0.003 (1999l) 140

Primarily negative evidence in animal carcinogenicity insufficient to serve as basis of PHG (1999l) 

0.046 (WHO, 2004k) 141

-- 0.003 

(ADI, 1994)

Class IIIB, Possibly carcinogenic to humans (1994) 

0.02 (NRC, 1983) 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (A) 

0.01 (USEPA, 1990c) 

D, Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (USEPA, 1991b) 

0.3 (intermediate oral MRL 1996a) 

 --

140 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

141 CICAD (IPCS, 2003) reports the same TDI 142 NAS developed a suggested no-adverse-response level (SNARL); the RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the NOAEL a

for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (A) 

0.02 (USEPA, 1990e) 

D, Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (USEPA, 1990e) 

0.2 (intermediate MRL 1996b) 

 --

Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) (A) 

0.06 (USEPA, 1993e) 

B2, Probable human carcinogen (USEPA, 1986a, 1995c) 

0.06 (chronic MRL 2000b) 

 --

1,2-Dichloropropane (B) 

-- B2, probable 

human carcinogen (USEPA, 1986a, 1990h) 

0.09 (chronic MRL, 1989) 

0.13(1999b) 143

PHG based on animal carcinogenicity  (1999b) 

0.014 (WHO, 2003c) 

Evidence for carcinogenicity limited, threshold approach appropriate (WHO, 2003c) 

-- -- -- 

143 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on cancer potency. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the NOA

CalEPA for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Dinoseb (B) 

0.001 (USEPA, 1992k) 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (USEPA, 1986a, 1992k) 

-- 0.001 

(1997e) 144

-- -- -- 0.001 (ADI, 

1992c) 

No strong evidence of carcinogenic potential (1992c) 

0.006 

(NRC,19

)145

Diquat (B) 0.0022 

(USEPA, 1995d)/ 0.005 (USEPA, 1995a) 

E, evidence of noncarcinogenicity (USEPA, 1986a, 2001a) 

-- 0.0022 

(2000b) 146

-- 0.002 

(ADI, (WHO, 2004b)147

-- 0.008 

(ADI, (Health Canada, 1986a) 

-- -- 

Endothall (B) 

0.007 (USEPA, 2005e) 

Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans (USEPA, 1999a,2005e) 

-- 0.08 

(1997f) 148

Evidence of carcinogenicity is equivocal (1997f) 

-- -- -- -- -- 

144 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

145 NAS developed a suggested no-adverse-response level (SNARL); the RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the NOAEL a

for noncancer effects. 

146 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

147 JMPR (1993) reports the same ADI. 148 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Endrin (B) 0.0003 

(USEPA, 1992l) 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (USEPA, 1986a, 1992l) 

0.0003 (chronic MRL, 1996c) 

0.00025 (1999c) 149

No evidence of carcinogenicity (1999c) 

0.0002 (provisional TDI, (WHO, 2004c)) 

Insufficient evidence to indicate carcinogenic hazard to humans ((IPCS, 1992), EHC) 

-- -- -- 

Epichlorohydrin (B) 0.002 (USEPA, 

1987e) 

B2, probable human carcinogen (USEPA, 1986a, 1994f) 

-- -- -- 0.00014 

(WHO, 2004d) 

-- -- -- -- 

149 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Ethylbenzene (A) 

0.097 (USEPA, 1987f) 

D, Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (USEPA, 1986a, 1991j) 

0.5 (intermediate MRL (ATSDR, 2007d)) 

 --

Ethylene Dibromide (EDB; 1,2-Dibromoethane) (B) 

0.009 (USEPA, 2004a) 

Likely to be carcinogenic to humans (USEPA, 1999a, 2004a) 

No int. or chronic oral MRL (1992b) 

0.0025 (2003d) 150

Known to cause cancer(2003d) 

--

151 Probably 

carcinogenic to humans (WHO, 2004e) 

-- -- -- 

Fluoride (A) 

--

152 -- 0.05 (chronic 

MRL (ATSDR, 2003b)) 

 ( 

2006c) 

NR , C 

150 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on cancer potency. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the NOA

CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

151 A guideline value was provided in mg/L based on 10-5 cancer risk; noncancer values were not available. 152 No RfD has been determined for fluoride. The MCLG was based directly on a LOAEL of 20 mg/day, divided by an uncertainty fact

water intake of 2 L/day. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Glyphosate (B) 

1.75 (USEPA, 2002d) 

E, evidence of noncarcinogenicity in humans (USEPA, 1986a, 2002d) 

-- 0.175 

(2007b) 153

-- 0-0.3 

(ADI, (JMPR, 1986b)) 

-- 0.3 

(negligible daily intake (NDI), 1987) 

-- -- 

Heptachlor (B) 

0.0005 (USEPA, 1992g) 

B2, probable human carcinogen (USEPA, 1986a, 1992g) 

0.0001 (intermediate MRL, 2007e) 

0.0015 (1999d)151

PHG based on animal carcinogenicity (1999d) 

0.0001 (ADI, (WHO, 2004f))155

-- -- -- -- 

Heptachlor Epoxide (B) 

0.000013 (USEPA, 1992g) 

B2, probable human carcinogen (USEPA, 1986a, 1992g) 

0.0001 (intermediate MRL, 2007e) 

0.0000125 (1999e)153

PHG based on animal carcinogenicity  (1999e) 

0.0001 (ADI, (WHO, 2004f)) 

-- -- -- -- 

153 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

154 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on cancer potency. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the NOA

CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

155 JMPR (1991) reports the same ADI. 156 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on cancer potency. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the NOA

CalEPA for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Hexachlorobenzene (B) 

0.0008 (USEPA, 1991k) 

B2, probable human carcinogen (USEPA, 1986a, 1991k) 

0.00005 (chronic MRL, 2002c) 

0.00003 (2003g)154

PHG based on animal carcinogenicity (2003g) 

0.0006 (tentative NDI, 1986c, JMPR) 

-- -- -- -- 

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (B) 

0.006 (USEPA, 2001b) 

Not likely to be a human carcinogen via inhalation route; Potential by the oral route is indeterminate based on a lack of data (USEPA, 1999a, 2001b) 

0.1 (intermediate MRL, 1999b) 

0.01 (1999f)158

-- -- -- -- -- -- 

157 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on cancer potency. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the NOA

CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

158 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Lindane (gammaHexachlorocyclohexane) (B) 

0.0047 (USEPA, 2002g) 

Suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential (USEPA, 1999a, 2002g) 

0.00001 (intermediate MRL, 2005b) 

0.000012 (1999g)159

PHG based on animal carcinogenicity (1999g) 

0.005 (ADI, (WHO, 2004g))160/ 

0.06 (acute RfD, (JMPR, 2002a)) 

Unlikely to pose carcinogenic risk to humans (JMPR, 2002a) 

-- -- -- 

159 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on cancer potency. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the NOA

CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

160 JMPR (2002a) reports the same ADI. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Mercury (Inorganic) (B) 

0.0003 (USEPA, 1995e) 

C, possible human carcinogen for Methylmercury; D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity for elemental mercury (USEPA, 1986a, 1995f) 

0.002 (intermediate MRL, 1999c) 

0.00023 (1999h)161

-- 0.002 

(TDI,(CICAD, 2003))/ 0.0016 (provisional tolerable weekly intake, (JECFA, 2004b)) ; all based on methylmercury 

-- 0.03 

(1986b); based on methylmercury 

-- -- 

Methoxychlor (B) 0.005 (USEPA, 

1991c) 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (USEPA, 1986a, 1990p) 

0.005 (intermediate MRL, 2002d) 

0.005 (1999i)162

-- 0.005 

(TDI, (WHO, 2004h))/ 0.1 (ADI, (JMPR, 1977) ) 

-- 0.1 

(ADI, 1991b) 

-- -- 

161 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

162 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Monochlorobenzene (Chlorobenzene) (B) 

0.02 (USEPA, 1993f) 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (USEPA, 1986a, 1991j) 

0.4 (intermediate MRL, 1990a) 

0.063 (2003e) 163

-- 0.086 

(TDI, (WHO, 2004i))/ 0.1 (TDI, (EHC, 1991)) 

-- 0.0089 

(ADI, (Health Canada, 1988a)) 

Group IIIB, possibly carcinogenic to man (1988a) 

-- 

Nitrate (as N) (B) 

1.6 (USEPA, 1991l) 

-- -- 45 mg/L 

(nitrate); equivalent to 10 mg/L nitratenitrogen (PHG, (CalEPA, 1997g)) , 164

165

-- 3.7 (nitrate 

ion, ADI, (WHO, 2004l))166

-- 45 mg/L 

(nitrate); equivalent to 10 mg/L nitratenitrogen (MAC, (Health Canada, 1992a))167

Possibly carcinogenic to humans (1992a) 

Unliketo contribto humcancer risk (1995) 

163 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

164 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

165 The noncancer value is presented as mg/L only. The value is derived by dividing the NOAEL which is a concentration in drinking w

uncertainty factor. 

166 JECFA (2003) reports the same ADI. 167 The noncancer value is presented as mg/L only. The value is derived by dividing the NOAEL which is a concentration in drinking w

uncertainty factor. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Nitrite (as N) (B) 

0.16 (USEPA, 1990h) 

-- -- 45 mg/L 

(nitrate); equivalent to 10 mg/L nitratenitrogen (PHG, (CalEPA, 1997g))168,

169

-- 0.07 

(ADI, (WHO, 2007))/ 0.07 (ADI, (JECFA, 2003)) 

-- 3.2 mg/L (as 

nitrite ion) (MAC, (Health Canada, 1992a))170

Possibly carcinogenic to humans (1992a) 

Unliketo contribto humcancer risk (1995) 

Oxamyl (Vydate) (B) 

0.001 (USEPA, 2000c) 

“Not likely” to be carcinogenic in humans (USEPA, 1999, 2000c) 

-- 0.025 

(1997h))171

Classification not stated, but indicates oxamyl not a mutagen or carcinogen (1997h) 

0.009 (ADI, (JMPR, 2002b)) 

Classification not stated, but indicates oxamyl is “Not carcinogenic (JMPR, 2002b) 

-- -- -- 

168 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

169 The noncancer value is presented as mg/L only. The value is derived by dividing the NOAEL which is a concentration in drinking w

uncertainty factor. 

170 The noncancer value is presented as mg/L only. The value is derived by dividing the NOAEL which is a concentration in drinking w

uncertainty factor. 

171 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Pentachlorophenol (A) 

0.03 (USEPA, 1993g) 

B2, Probable human carcinogen (USEPA, 1986a, 2004b) 

0.001 (chronic MRL 2001a) 

 0.021 

(1986 SNAR

Picloram (B) 

0.2 (USEPA, 1995b) 

E, evidence of noncarcinogenicity (USEPA, 1986a, 1995b) 

-- 0.07 

(1997i) 172

-- -- -- 0.02 

(NDI, (Health Canada, 1988b)) 

-- 0.15 

(1983) 

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (A) 

0.00007 (USEPA, 1996c) 

B2, Probable human carcinogen (USEPA, 1986a, 1997b) 

0.00002 (chronic MRL 2000c) 

 --

Combined Radiums (226 and 228) (A) 

-- A, Known 

human carcinogen (USEPA, 2000f) 

No int. or chronic oral MRL (1990a) 

-- -- (2006)173 -- -- -- -- 174 --

(1988)

172 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Selenium (B) 

0.005 (USEPA, 1991k) 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (USEPA, 1986a,1991k) 

0.005 (chronic MRL, 2003c) 

-- -- 0.004 

(WHO, 2003d) 

Does not appear to be carcinogenic (WHO, 2003d) 

0.5-0.7 minimum dose for toxic effects(1992)/ 0.02-0.12 minimum dietary requirement(1992d) 

data are insufficient to allow an evaluation of the carcinogenicity (1992d) 

0.4 (tolerabupper intake level, (NAS, 2000))/ 0.055 mg/day (RDA, (NAS, 2000)) 

Simazine (B) 

0.018 (USEPA, 2006f) 

Considered not likely to be carcinogenic to humans (USEPA, 2005a, 2006f) 

No int. or chronic oral MRL (2003a) 

0.0005 (2001b)174

Uncertainty factor used to derive PHG to account for limited evidence of carcinogenicity (2001b) 

0.00052 (WHO, 2003e) 

-- 0.0013 

(NDI, 1989)

-- -- 

173 The CalEPA assessment did not present a qualitative cancer classification, but did address cancer risk. 174 The Health Canada assessment did not present a qualitative cancer classification, but did address cancer risk. 175 NAS (1988). Health Risks of Radon and Other Internally Deposited Alpha-Emitters. BEIR IV. National Academy of Sciences, Nati

National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

176 IARC (2001c). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 78, Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Som

Radionuclides. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Press. Lyon, France. 

177 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on cancer potency. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the NOA

CalEPA for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Styrene (A) 

0.2 (USEPA, 1991m) 

C, Possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) (USEPA, 1991b) 

No int. or chronic oral MRL (2007f) 

 --

2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) (A) 

-- B2, Probable 

human carcinogen (USEPA, 1986a, 1988c) 

1.0 x 10 -9

(chronic MRL 1998) 

 1.0 x 1

(ADI (NRC, 1977))Review EPA drassessmt (NRC2006b) 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Tetrachloroethylene (A) 

0.0143 (USEPA 1990i) 

B2, Probable human carcinogen (USEPA, 1986a, 1990i) 

No int. or chronic MRL (1997) 

 --

Thallium178 (A) 

7.0 x 10-5 

(USEPA, 1992m) 

There is inadequate information to assess the carcinogenic potential (USEPA, 2005a, 2008a) 

-- -- 

Toluene (B) 

0.08 (USEPA, 2005f) 

There is inadequate information to assess the carcinogenic potential (USEPA, 2005a, 2005f) 

0.02 (intermediate MRL, 2000d) 

0.022 (1999j)175

-- 0.22 

(WHO, 2004j) 

-- 0.22 

(1996) 

-- -- 

178 EPA completed the risk reassessment for thallium in September of 2009 (USEPA 2009b). Because the new assessment was not com

the cutoff date for this review, the outcome of this assessment has not been included in the current review effort. EPA will consider the the next review cycle. 

179 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Toxaphene (B) 

0.0004 (USEPA, 1996d) 

B2, probable human carcinogen (USEPA, 1986a, 1991, IRIS) 

0.001 (intermediate MRL, 1996d) 

0.00035 (2003f) 180

PHG based on animal carcinogenicity (2003f) 

-- -- -- -- -- 

2,4,5-TP (Silvex; 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic Acid) (B) 

0.008 (USEPA, 1988d) 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (USEPA, 1986a, 1988d) 

-- 0.0009 

(2003)181

Primarily negative animal carcinogenicity, and mixed epidemiology insufficient basis to serve as basis for PHG (1999)-- 

0.003 (TDI, 2004, WHO)182/ 

0-0.003 (ADI, 1979, JMPR) 

-- -- -- 0.0007

(ADI, (NRC, 1977)) 

180 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on cancer potency. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the NOA

CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

181 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

182 2,4,5-TP is included in the plan of work of the rolling revision of the WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (B) 

0.01 (USEPA, 1996b) 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (USEPA, 1986a, 1996b) 

-- 0.0015 

(1999)183

Positive indication of carcinogenicity in animal data study too preliminary to serve as basis for PHG (1999)

0.0077 (2004, WHO) 

-- -- -- -- 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (B) 

2 (USEPA, 2007e) 

Inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential (USEPA, 2005a, 2007e) 

20 (intermediate MRL, 2006) 

0.076 (2006)184

Not classifiable as to carcinogenicity on the basis of inadequate human and animal data (2006) 

0.6 (2003, WHO) 

-- -- -- -- 

1,1,2- Trichloroethane (B) 

0.004 (USEPA, 1995g) 

C, possible human carcinogen (USEPA, 1986a, 1994c) 

0.04 (intermediate MRL, 1989) 

0.0004 (2006) 185

PHG based on animal carcinogenicity (2006) 

-- -- -- -- -- 

183 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

184 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Trichloroethylene (A) 

0.007 (USEPA, 1985b) 

Probable human carcinogen (USEPA, 1985b) 

No int. or chronic oral MRL (1997) 

 2 006b 

Uranium (A) 

0.003 (USEPA, 1991b) 

-- 0.002 

(intermediate MRL 1999d) 

 --

Vinyl chloride (B) 

0.003 (USEPA, 2000d) 

Known human carcinogen by inhalation and oral routes of exposure; highly likely to be carcinogenic by dermal route (USEPA, 1999a, 2000d) 

0.003 (chronic MRL, 2006c) 

0.0013 (2000c) 186

PHG based on animal carcinogenicity (2000c) 

--

187 Genotoxic 

carcinogen (IPCS, 1999)/ Carcinogenic in experimental animals and man (JECFA, 2004a) 

--

188 Group 1: 

carcinogenic to humans (1992b) 

-- 

185 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on cancer potency. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the NOA

CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

186 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on cancer potency. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the NOA

CalEPA for noncancer effects. 

187 A guideline value was provided in mg/L based on 10-5 cancer risk; noncancer values were not available. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of Assessments by Other Organizations For List A103 and B Chemica

Most Recent EPA ATSDR 

(year) 

CalEPA (year) WHO104 (year) 

Includes JECFA, 

JMPR, CICAD, EHC 

Chemical Health Canada (year)

(List A or 

B) 

RfD 

mg/kgday (year, 

office) 

Cancer 

classification 

(year, office) 

MRL mg/kgday RfD mg/kg-day Cancer classificatio

n105

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification106

Tolerable 

Daily Intake 

(TDI) 

mg/kg-day

Cancer 

classification 

NAS 

(year

Xylenes (Total) (B) 

0.2 (USEPA, 2003d) 

Data are inadequate for an assessment of the carcinogenic potential (USEPA, 1999a, 2003d) 

0.2 (chronic MRL, 2007g) 

0.25 (1997j)185

-- 0.179 

(WHO, 2003e) 

-- -- -- -- 

188 A MAC value was provided in mg/L based on cancer risk; noncancer values were not available 189 The public health goal derived by CalEPA is based on noncancer effects. The RfD-equivalent shown was calculated based on the N

by CalEPA for noncancer effects. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 5. Summary for List B Chemicals

Regulation IRIS OPP 

New Data/Poss

Impact on 

MCLG190 Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) MCLG mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines used) 

DWEL (mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

Noncancer Can

Alachlor (1991) 

0 0.002 mg/L 

(PQL) 

0.01/ 1 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A) Hemosiderosis and hemolytic anemia/ Naylor et al.1984 also cited as Monsanto 1984 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 0.01/ 

1 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A) Hemosiderosis and hemolytic anemia/ Naylor et al.1984 also cited as Monsanto 1984 

-- 0.01 (2005)/ 

1 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A) Hemosiderosis and hemolytic anemia/ Naylor et al.1984 also cited as Monsanto 1984 

Likely to be a human carcinogen at high doses; not likely to be a human carcinogen at low doses (2005 guidelines; 2006) 

No/No Yes/Y

190 Data in this column address two separate questions: (1) Are there new data since the latest Office of Water assessment that could be 

to develop an updated RfD? If the new data have already been used to develop a formal EPA assessment (as shown in previous columnnotation. If the new data were identified in the literature search, rather than from an updated Agency assessment, this consideration is i(2) Might the new data have an impact on the MCLG? New data that could be used to develop an RfD would not have an impact on the zero. New cancer data would generally not affect the MCLG, unless the data changed the cancer descriptor. If the first half of the colu

the second half of the column is blank.

191 If there is a potential new MCLG, this addresses concern at the potential new MCLG. If there no potential new MCLG, then this ad

current MCLG. If the MCLG is zero, such as for carcinogens, then this addresses concern at the current MCL.

192 The quantitative responses (i.e. “Yes” or “No”) and the potential new MCLG numeric values (in mg/L) are based strictly on the heal

occurrence data or other risk management considerations) using the RSC values currently applied to each NPDWRs except where specqualitative and quantitative responses in this column are subject to changes based on additional consideration of the RSC (only for selenecessary), occurrence data, treatment technology, etc. 

193 The data indicate that alachlor’s tumorigenicity is operating by a nonlinear mode of action. OPP (USEPA, 1998d, 2001e, 2006c) co

causes nasal turbinate tumors via the generation of a reactive metabolite that leads to cytotoxicity and regenerative proliferation in the n

cytotoxicity and proliferation is needed to lead to neoplasia. Based on this MOA assessment a non-linear dose response assessment is aof 0 is no longer appropriate. Therefore, using the POD of 0.5 mg/kg-day identified by OPP for this endpoint and the UF of 100 (10H, health reference value of 0.005 mg/kg-day. Assuming 70 kg body weight, 2 L/day water consumption, and a 20% RSC, a water concenvalue is 0.035 mg/L (rounded to 0.04 mg/L). The new MCLG would be based on the nonlinear cancer assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 5. Summary for List B Chemicals

Regulation IRIS 

New Data/Poss

OPP Impact on 

MCLG190 Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) MCLG mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines used) 

DWEL (mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

Noncancer 

Can

Atrazine (1991) 

0.003 0.003 0.005/ 

0.5 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Decreased body weight gain in F2 pups; maternal toxicity/ Ciba-Geigy 1987 

C, possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

0.175 20% Also factor of 10 for class C 

0.035 (1993)/ 3.5 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Decreased body weight gain/ Ciba-Geigy 1986 

-- 0.018 (2006)/ 

1.8 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ attenuation of the luteinizing hormone surge in females in a 6-month rat feeding study / Morseth et al. 1996 

Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans (2006, 1999 guidelines) (Note that, although document was finalized in 2006, assessment was done in 2002, so used 1999 guidelines) 

Yes/Yes Yes/Y

Barium (1991) 

2 2 0.07/ 

0.21 (adjusted NOAEL)/ 3 H/ No changes in blood pressure, or serum chemistry / Wones et al. 1990 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

2 100% 

0.2 (2005)/ 63 (BMDL05)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3D)/ Nephropathy/ NTP 1994 

Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans following oral exposure (1996 guidelines; 1998) 

-- -- Yes/Yes No 

194 See next footnote for a description of issues on potential reproductive effects.195 Several new studies relevant to reproductive or developmental effects, atrazine’s critical effect, were located. In particular, one pub

2007) and one other study (Stanko et al., 2008) suggest that atrazine and its chlorometabolites may affect prenatal and postnatal developfemales. Although the new OPP RfD based on Morseth et al. (1996) suggests a potential for a change in the MCLG value, further evalavailable data is needed to determine if a change is justified and, if so, the appropriate value of the revised MCLG. On October 7, 2009 

2009c), EPA announced its intent to reevaluate atrazine. At the end of this process, the Agency will decide whether to revise its current 2006a); such a revision could lead to a revised MCLG. 

196 Atrazine is not being nominated for a new assessment; however, on October 7, 2009 (74 FR 51593, USEPA, 2009c)), EPA announc

comprehensive reevaluation of its 2006 OPP atrazine risk assessment. 

197 Using the IRIS RfD of 0.2 mg/kg-day and assuming 70 kg body weight, 2 liters water intake per day, a DWEL of 7 mg/L can be der

a new MCLG of 6 mg/L. This value is three times the current value. An RSC of 80% was determined using the Exposure Decision Tre

the Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (USEPA, 2000h). The dietary comp

estimate was based on data from the United Kingdom Total Diet Study and not on data from the United States. Dietary data for the Unavailable. The diet in the United Kingdom is relatively consistent with that in the United States and qualifies for use in the RSC analys
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 5. Summary for List B Chemicals

Regulation IRIS 

New Data/Poss

OPP Impact on 

MCLG190 Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) MCLG mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines used) 

DWEL (mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

Noncancer 

Can

Benzene (1987) 

0 0.005 

(PQL) 

0.0007 – 0.002 / (ADI)/ 1 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Slight leukopenia and erythrocytopenia/ Wolf et al. 1956 

-- -- 0.004 (2003)/ 

1.2 (BMDL)/ 300 (10H, 3L, 3S, 3D)/ Decreased lymphocyte count/ Rothman et al. 1996 

Known human carcinogen for all routes of exposure (1996 guidelines;2000) 

-- -- Yes/No Yes/N

Carbofuran (1991) 

0.04 0.04 0.005/ 

0.5 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Acetylcholinesterase inhibition and testicular degeneration/ FMC Corp. 1983 

E, evidence of noncarcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.18 20% 

0.005 (1987)/ 0.5 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ RBC and plasma cholinesterase inhibition, and testicular and uterine effects/ FMC Corp. 1983 

-- 0.00006 (2006)198

0.03 (BMDL10)/ 100 (10H, 10A, 5D)/ Brain acetylcholinesterase inhibition/ FMC Corp. et al. 2005 

Not likely to be a human carcinogen (2005 guidelines) 

Yes/Yes No 

Chlordane (1991) 

0 0.002 

(PQL) 

0.00005/ 0.045 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10A, 10H, 10L)/ Liver necrosis in male rats/ Yonemura et al. 1983 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 0.0005 (1998)/ 

0.15 (NOAEL)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3D)/ Liver necrosis in mice/ Khasawinah & Grutsch 1989 

Likely to be a carcinogen by all routes of exposure (1996 guidelines; 1998) 

-- -- Yes/No No/N

Chromium (VI) (1991 – regulation applies to total chromium) 

0.1 0.1 0.0048/ 

2.41 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A) ; MF=5/ None/ MacKenzie et al. 1958 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

0.17 70% 

0.003 (1998)/ 2.5 (NOAEL)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3S); MF=3/ None/ MacKenzie et al. 1958 

By the oral route: D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines; 1998) 

-- -- Yes (lit 

search)/Yes200

Yes (searchYes20

198 OPP’s value for carbofuran is an acute RfD for cholinesterase inhibition, which OPP has determined is protective of chronic exposu

OPP has also derived an aPAD of 0.00006 mg/kg-day based on this RfD. 

199 A new MCLG can be derived based on the updated OPP RfD of 0.00006 mg/kg-day, using a 10 kg child, a 1 L/day water consumpti

revised MCLG is 0.000012 mg/L. The RSC of 20% was selected based on the actual food dietary exposure (100%) from children aged However, this pesticide registration is in the process of being cancelled due to its acute toxicity and high dietary exposure for children, recommending a change to the MCLG at this time. 

200 A final report for a 2-year NTP bioassay of sodium dichromate is available (NTP 2008). The study found histiocytic cellular infiltra

pancreatic and mesenteric lymph nodes of rats and mice, and diffuse epithelial hyperplasia in the small intestine of male and female mi

mg/kg-day can be derived based on a minimal LOAEL of 0.25 mg Cr/kg-day for chronic inflammation in the liver of female rats in this (10A, 10H, 3L). 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 5. Summary for List B Chemicals

Regulation IRIS 

New Data/Poss

OPP Impact on 

MCLG190 Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) MCLG mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines used) 

DWEL (mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

Noncancer 

Can

Chromium (III) (1991 – regulation applies to total chromium) 

0.1 0.1 0.0048/ 

2.41 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A) ; MF=5/ None/ MacKenzie et al. 1958 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

0.17 70% 

1.5 (1998)/ 1468 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A); MF=10/ None/ Ivankovic and Preussmann, 1975 (insoluble salts) 

Inadequate data to determine the potential carcinogenicity (1996 guidelines; 1998) 

-- -- Yes (lit 

search)/Yes202

Yes (searchNo203

2,4-D (2,4-Di-chlorophenoxyacetic Acid) (1991) 

0.07 0.07 0.01/ 

1 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Hematologic, hepatic and renal toxicity/ Serota et al. 1983 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

0.35 20% 

0.01 (1988)/ 1 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Hematologic, hepatic and renal toxicity/ Serota et al. 1983 

-- 0.005 (2005)/ 

5 (NOAEL) 1000 (10H, 10A, 10D)/ Decreased body weight gain (in females) and alterations in hematology and blood chemistry (in both sexes)/ Jeffries et al. 1995 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

Yes/Yes No 

Dalapon (2,2-Dichloropro

pionic Acid) (1992) 

0.2 0.2 0.03/ 

8 (NOAEL)/ 300 (10A, 10H, 3D)/ Increased kidney weight/ Paynter et al. 1960 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

0.9 20% 

0.03 (1989)/ 8.45 (NOEL)/ 300 (10A, 10H, 3D)/ Increased kidney weight/ Paynter et al. 1960 

-- -- -- No No 

201 A final report for a 2-year NTP bioassay of sodium dichromate is available (NTP 2008). This study found clear evidence of carcinog

dihydrate in male and female F344 rats based on increased incidences of squamous cell neoplasms of the oral cavity, and clear evidenc

dichromate dihydrate in male and female B6C3F1 mice based on increased incidences of neoplasms in the small intestine. 

202 The current IRIS assessment for Chromium III is for insoluble salts. A draft report for a 2-year NTP bioassay of chromium picolina

available (NTP 2007). No adverse noncancer effects were reported. This assessment recommends that no new RfD for Cr(III) be deriv

available. 

203 A draft of the 2-year NTP bioassay of chromium picolinate is available, but has not yet been peer-reviewed (NTP 2007). The draft r

equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats and no evidence of carcinogenicity in female rats and male and female mice. This a

final report from NTP is completed, the carcinogenic potential of ingested Cr(III) be reevaluated. 

204 No new data are available that would support the development of an updated RfD. OPP’s 2005 RfD (USEPA, 2005d) is considered 

RfD for 2,4-D. Using the recent OPP update of the RfD would reduce the MCLG to 0.04 mg/L based on the OPP (USEPA, 2005d) RfD kg body weight, 2 L water consumption and 20% RSC. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 5. Summary for List B Chemicals

Regulation IRIS 

New Data/Poss

OPP Impact on 

MCLG190 Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) MCLG mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines used) 

DWEL (mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

Noncancer 

Can

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) (1991) 

0 0.0002 

(PQL) 

-- B2, probable 

human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- -- -- -- -- No No 

1,1-Dichloroethylene (1987) 

0.007 0.007 0.01/ 

10 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Liver toxicity (fatty change)/ Quast et al. 1983 

C, possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines)

0.35 20% Also factor of 10 for class C 

0.05 (2002)/ 4.6 (BMDL10)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Liver toxicity (fatty change)/ Quast et al. 1983 

Inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential by the oral route (1999 guidelines; 2002) 

-- -- Yes/Yes No 

1,2-Dichloropropane 

(1991) 

0 0.005 

(PQL) 

- B2, probable 

human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- -- -- -- -- Yes (lit 

search)/No 

No 

Dinoseb (1992) 

0.007 0.007 0.001/ 

1 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Reduction in thyroid weight; endometrial hyperplasia and hypospermatogenesis; testicular degeneration/ Hazleton 1977 and Brown 1981 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

0.04 20% 

0.001 (1989)/ 1 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Decreased pup weight during lactation period. Decreased parental weight gain/ Dow Chemical Company 1981 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines; 1993) 

-- -- No No 

Diquat (1992) 

0.02 0.02 0.0022/ 

0.22 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Cataracts/ Colley et al. 1985 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

0.077 20% 

0.0022 (1995)/ 0.22 (NOEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Minimal lens opacity and cataracts/ Colley et al. 1985 

-- 0.005 (chronic) 

(1995, 2001)/ 0.5 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Cataracts in females and decreased adrenal and epididymides weights in males/Hopkins1990 

E, evidence of noncarcinogenicity (1986 guidelines; 2001) 

Yes/Yes No 

205 IRIS (2002) concluded that the data on 1,1-DCE are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential by the oral route

descriptor based on the IRIS assessment, the factor of 10 used in the derivation of the current MCLG for a C carcinogen is removed. Ba

0.05 mg/kg-day, 70 kg body weight, 2 L water consumption and 20% RSC, the revised MCLG is 0.35 mg/L. 

206 Using the updated OPP RfD of 0.005 mg/kg-day, assuming 70 kg body weight, 2 liters water intake per day and 20% RSC increases 

0.04 mg/L). 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 5. Summary for List B Chemicals

Regulation IRIS 

New Data/Poss

OPP Impact on 

MCLG190 Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) MCLG mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines used) 

DWEL (mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

Noncancer 

Can

Endothall (1992) 

0.1 0.1 0.02/ 

2 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Increased organ weight and organ-to-body weights for stomach and small intestine/ Keller 1965 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

0.7 20% 

0.02 (1991)/ 100 ppm (NOEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Increased absolute and relative weights of stomach and small intestine/ Keller 1965 

-- 0.007 (2005)/ 

2 (LOAEL)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3L)/Proliferative lesions of the gastric epithelium/ Trutter 1995 

Unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans (1999 guidelines) 

Yes/Yes No 

Endrin (1992) 

0.002 0.002 0.0003/ 

0.025 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Mild histopathological lesions in liver, occasional convulsions/ Velsicol Chemical Corporation 1969 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

0.009 20% 

0.0003 (1991)/ 0.025 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Mild histopathological lesions in liver, occasional convulsions/ Velsicol Chemical Corporation 1969 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines; 1993; verified 1988) 

-- -- No No 

Epichlorohydrin (1991) 

0 NA208 0.002/ 

2.16 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Renal tubular degeneration/ Laskin et al. 1980 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- -- B2, probable human 

carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1986) 

-- -- Yes (lit 

search)/No 

Yes (searchNo 

Ethylene Dibromide (EDB; 1,2-Dibromoeth

ane) (1991) 

0 0.00005 

(PQL) 

-- B2, probable 

human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 0.009 (2004)/ 

27 (LOAEL)/ 3000 (10H, 10A, 10L, 10D)/ Testicular atrophy, liver peliosis, and adrenal cortical degeneration/ NCI 1978 

Likely to be carcinogenic to humans (1999 guidelines; 2004) 

-- -- Yes/No No 

207 Using the updated OPP RfD of 0.007 mg/kg-day, assuming 70 kg body weight, 2 liters water intake per day and 20% RSC reduces t208 Instead of an MCL, the NPDWR is based on TT. The Treatment Technology limitation on epichlorohydrin is that the EPI/DMA po

not contain more than 0.01% monomer and the maximum use level is 20 mg/L polymer. Thus, the level of epichlorohydrin in the wateexceed 2 ppb (0.0001 x 20 mg/L = 0.002 mg/L). This value is associated with a theoretical cancer risk of 5.6 x10-7 based on a DW unit 

ug/L ((56 FR 3526 (USEPA, 1991b)). 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 5. Summary for List B Chemicals

Regulation IRIS 

New Data/Poss

OPP Impact on 

MCLG190 Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) MCLG mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines used) 

DWEL (mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

Noncancer 

Can

Glyphosate (1992) 

0.7 0.7 0.1/ 

10 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Increased incidence of renal tubular dilation in F3b offspring/ Monsanto Company 1981 

 D, not classifiable (1986 guidelines; 1990) 

4 20% 

0.1 (1990)/ 10 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Increased incidence of renal tubular dilation in F3b offspring/ Monsanto Company 1981 

D, not classifiable (1986 guidelines; 1990) 

2 (2007)/ 175 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Maternal toxicity (diarrhea, nasal discharge, and death) in a developmental toxicity rabbit study/ Monsanto Company 1981 

E, evidence of noncarcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

Yes/Yes No 

Heptachlor (1991) 

0 0.0004 

(PQL) 

0.0005/ 

0.15 (NOAEL)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3D)/ Increased liver to body weight ratio in males/ Witherup et al. 1955 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 0.0005 (1991)/ 

0.15 (NOAEL)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3D)/ Increased liver to body weight ratio in males/ Witherup et al. 1955 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1991) 

0.0005 (1992)/  0.15 (NOAEL)/ 300 (10H, 10A, 3D)/ Liver lesions and increased relative liver weight/ Witherup et al. 1955

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1992) 

Yes (lit search)/No 

No 

Heptachlor Epoxide (1991) 

0 0.0002 

(PQL) 

0.000013/ 

0.0125 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Increase in liver-tobody weight ratio/ Dow Chemical Company, 1958 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 0.000013 (1991)/ 

0.0125 (LEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Increase in liver-tobody weight ratio/ Dow Chemical Company 1958 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1993) 

0.000013 (1992)/ 0.0125 (LEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Increase in liver-tobody weight ratio/ Dow Chemical Company 1958 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

No No 

Hexachlorobenzene (1992) 

0 0.001 

(PQL) 

0.0008/ 0.08 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Hepatic centrilobular basophilic chromogenesis/ Arnold et al. 1985 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 0.0008 (1991)/ 

0.08 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Hepatic centrilobular basophilic chromogenesis/ Arnold et al. 1985 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1996) 

-- -- Yes (lit 

search)/No 

Yes (searchNo 

209 Using the updated OPP RfD of 2 mg/kg-day, assuming 70 kg body weight, 2 liters water intake per day and 20% RSC increases the 

rounded from 1.75 mg/kg-day to 2 mg/kg-day for the revised RfD. 

210 A LOAEL of 0.03 mg/kg-day was identified for immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity in rats exposed in utero, during lactation, and po

42 of age (Moser et al., 2001; Smialowicz et al., 2001). The MCL of 0.0004 mg/L is based on the PQL, but intake from drinking water MCL (assuming 2 L water intake per day and 70 kg body weight) is relatively close to the effect level for developmental effects. Howeconcern because of its status as a cancelled pesticide and because its occurrence is low. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 5. Summary for List B Chemicals

Regulation IRIS 

New Data/Poss

OPP Impact on 

MCLG190 Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) MCLG mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines used) 

DWEL (mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

Noncancer 

Can

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (1992) 

0.05 0.05 0.007/ 

7.14 (adj. NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Focal inflammation of the forestomach and stomach lesions/ SRI 1981 (later published as Abdo et al. 1984) 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

0.3 20% 

0.006 (2001)/ 6 (BMDL10)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 101/2S, 101/2D)/ 

Chronic irritation of forestomach (forestomach lesions)/Abdo et al. 1984 

Unknown risk as to oral exposure (1996 guidelines; 2001) 

-- -- No No 

Lindane (gammaHexachlorocyclo

hexane) (1991) 

0.0002 0.0002 0.0003/ 

0.33 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Liver and kidney toxicity/ RCC 1983 

C, possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

0.01 20% Also factor of 10 for class C 

0.0003 (1988)/ 0.33 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Liver and kidney toxicity/ RCC 1983 

-- 0.0047 (2002)/ 

0.47 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Hepatocyte hypertrophy, increased liver weight, increased platelets/ Amyes 1989a,b,1993 

Suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential (1999 guidelines) 

Yes/Yes No 

Mercury (Inorganic) (1991) 

0.002 0.002 0.0003214 / / 1000 (Not 

specified)/ Mercuric chlorideinduced autoimmune glomerulonephritis /USEPA 1987c; Druet et al. 1978; Bernaudin et al. 1981; Andres 1984 

-- 0.01 

20% 

0.0003 (1995)/ 0.29 (LOAEL)/ 1000 (10A,H; 10L; 10S)/ Autoimmune glomerulonephritis/ USEPA 1987c; Druet et al. 1978; Bernaudin et al. 1981; Andres 1984 

C, possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1995) 

-- -- Yes/No No 

211A NOAEL of 0.01 mg/kg-day was identified for histopathological changes in ovaries observed in 90-day monkey studies (Bourque 

al., 1991; Jarrell et al., 1993; Sims et al., 1991). The MCL of 0.001 mg/L is based on the PQL, but intake from drinking water (in mg/k(assuming 2 L water intake per day and 70 kg body weight) is relatively close to the effect level for reproductive effects. However, hexconcern because of its status as a cancelled pesticide and because its occurrence is low. 

212 Using the updated IRIS (2001) RfD of 0.006 mg/kg-day, assuming 70 kg body weight, 2 liters water intake per day and 20% RSC d

0.04 mg/L. 

213 Using the updated OPP (USEPA, 2006h) RfD of 0.0047 mg/kg-day, assuming 70 kg body weight, 2 liters water intake per day and 2

management factor of 10 based on the cancer classification results in a MCLG of 0.003 mg/L. The actual change will depend on the use 

uncertainty factors. 

214 The RfD for mercury was back-calculated from the DWEL using 2 L water consumption and 70 kg body weight in the following eq

0.00029 mg/kg-day, rounded to 0.0003 mg/kg-day. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 5. Summary for List B Chemicals

Regulation IRIS 

New Data/Poss

OPP Impact on 

MCLG190 Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) MCLG mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines used) 

DWEL (mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

Noncancer 

Can

Methoxychlor (1991) 

0.04 0.04 0.005/ 

5.01 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10D)/ Excessive loss of litters; decreased body weight/ Trutter 1986 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

0.175 20% 

0.005 (1991)/ 5.01 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10D)/ Excessive loss of litters/ Trutter 1986. 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines; 1990) 

-- -- Yes (lit 

search)/No 

Yes (searchNo 

Monochlorobenzene 

(Chlorobenzene) (1991) 

0.1 0.1 0.02/ 

19 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Histopathologic changes in the liver/ Monsanto Company 1967; Knapp et al. 1971 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

0.7 20% 

0.02 (1993)/ 19 (adjusted dose) (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Histopathologic changes in the liver/ Monsanto Company 1967 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines; 1991) 

-- -- No No 

Nitrate (as N) (1991) 

10 10 1.6 nitrate- nitrogen/ 

1.6 (10 mg/L) (NOAEL)/ 1/ Methemoglobinemia in infants/ Bosch et al. 1950; Walton, 1951 

-- 10217

-- 

1.6 nitrate- nitrogen/ (1991)/ 1.6 (10 mg/L) (NOAEL)/ 1/ Methemoglobinemia in infants/ Bosch et al., 1950; Walton, 1951 

-- -- -- Yes (lit 

search)/Yes 

Yes (searchYes 

215 The present EPA RfD used in support of the existing MCLG/MCL remains adequate to protect against reproductive and developmen

UF (including a factor of 10 for database uncertainties) was already applied to the NOAEL of 5 mg/kg-day in the rabbit developmental potential effects or others yet unidentified at the time the RfD was calculated in support of the existing MCLG/MCL. 

216 Significant data limitations precluded the evaluation of potential concern for reproductive or developmental toxicity. 217 Nitrate assessment is based on the concentration in water in a human population. 218 See next footnote for a description of issues related to potential developmental effects for nitrate. 219 Data suggest that nitrate in drinking water can have adverse effects on the thyroid by a mode of action that can be associated with ne

Several studies suggest nitrate in drinking water can have adverse effects on the thyroid (Mukhopadhyay et al. 2005; Tajtakova et al. 20addition, a neurodevelopmental study (Markel et al., 1989) identified a LOAEL for neurobehavioral effects that is at the same dose leve

number of issues related to the mode of action, including the unique sensitivity of rodents, thyroid homeostasis, and determination of th

evaluated further in a reassessment of this chemical. In addition, Grosse et al. (2006) reported the results of a recent IARC Working gr

nitrite. This group concluded that ingested nitrate or nitrite under conditions that result in endogenous nitrosation is probably carcinogeA new assessment for nitrate is recommended for both the noncancer and cancer assessments. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 5. Summary for List B Chemicals

Regulation IRIS 

New Data/Poss

OPP Impact on 

MCLG190 Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) MCLG mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines used) 

DWEL (mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

Noncancer 

Can

Nitrite (as N) (1991) 

1 1 0.16 nitrite - nitrogen/ 

Nitrate RfD of 1.6 nitrate-nitrogen220 / 

1 (MF = 10)/ Methemoglobinemia in infants/ Bosch et al. 1950; Walton 1951 

-- 1 

-- 

0.1 nitrite-nitrogen (1991)/ 1221 (10 mg/L nitratenitrogen) (NOAEL)/ 

1 (MF = 10)/ Methemoglobinemia in infants/ Walton 1951 

-- -- -- Yes (lit 

search)/Yes 

Yes (searchYes 

Oxamyl (Vydate) 

(1992) 

0.2 0.2 0.025/ 

2.5 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Decreased body weight gain/ Kennedy 1986; E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. 1972; Kennedy, 1986 is the published version. 

E, evidence of noncarcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

0.9 20% 

0.025 (1991)/ 2.5 (NOEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Decreased body weight gain and food consumption/ E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company 1972 

-- 0.001 (2000)/ 

0.1 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Clinical signs and decreased plasma RBC and brain cholinesterase inhibition in females/ Malley 1997a,b 

E, evidence of noncarcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

Yes/Yes No 

Picloram (1992) 

0.5 0.5 0.07/ 

7 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Increased relative and absolute liver weights/ Dow Chemical Company 1982 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

2.45 20% 

0.07 (1992)/ 7 (NOEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Increased relative and absolute liver weights/ Dow Chemical Company 1982 

-- 0.2 (1995)/ 

20 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Changes in centrilobular hepatocytes/ Landry et al. 1986 

E, evidence of noncarcinogenicity (1986 guidelines) 

Yes/Yes No 

220 Extrapolated from nitrate RfD of 1.6 mg/kg-day, assuming 10% of nitrate converted to nitrite. Assumes a 4 kg child ingesting 0.64 221 10 mg/L converted to 1.0 mg/kg-day assuming 10 kg child ingesting 1 L/day. 222 Several new studies have been identified that suggest nitrate in drinking water can have adverse effects on the thyroid as described a

act via the same mode of action. In addition, a developmental toxicity study of nitrite in rats (Vorhees et al., 1984) observed neurobehavnitrite is formed from nitrate, and the current nitrite RfD is based on nitrate data, these data identify a potential concern for reproductive 

effects at the current MCLG that will need to be evaluated further in a reassessment of this chemical.

223 See same issue as for nitrate. 224 A potential new MCLG of 0.002 mg/L is based on the OPP acute RfD of 0.001 mg/kg-day. The resulting concentration of 0.002 mg

of 10 kg, a water intake of 1 L/day, and a RSC of 20%. The RSC was selected based on the actual food dietary exposure (81%) for chi

documented in the Oxamyl RED document (USEPA, 2000c). Since the most sensitive effects of oxamyl are acute effects on cholinesteadvisory is based on this acute study, and is equal to the one day 10-kg child health advisory.

225 OPP has developed an oral RfD of 0.2 mg/kg-day based on a NOAEL of 20 mg/kg-day for liver effects observed in a 2-year feeding 

The resulting DWEL would be 7 mg/L assuming a 70 kg body weight and 2 L water consumption. The MCLG would be 1 mg/L assum
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 5. Summary for List B Chemicals

Regulation IRIS 

New Data/Poss

OPP Impact on 

MCLG190 Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) MCLG mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines used) 

DWEL (mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

Noncancer 

Can

Selenium (1991) 

0.05 0.05 None226 -- -- 0.005 (1991)/ 

0.015 (NOAEL)/ 3 (3H)/ Clinical selenosis/ Yang et al. 1989 

D, not classifiable (1986 guidelines; 1991) 

-- -- Yes (lit 

search)/Yes 

Yes22

Simazine (1992) 

0.004 0.004 0.005/ 

0.52 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Reduction in weight gains; hematological changes in females/ McCormick et al. 1988 

C, possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

0.175 20% Also factor of 10 for class C 

0.005 (1994)/ 0.52 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Reduction in weight gains; hematological changes in females/ McCormick et al. 1988 

-- 0.018 (2006)/ 

1.8 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ estrous cycle alterations and LH surge/ noted in Morseth et al. 1996 

Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans using data on its atrazine analogue the most recent assessment of carcinogenic potential occurred in 2005. 

Yes/Yes Yes/Y

Toluene (1991) 

1 1 0.2/ 

223 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Increased kidney weight/ NTP 1990 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

7 20% 

0.08 (2005)/ 238 (BMDL)/ 3000 (10H, 10A, 10S, 3D)/ Increased kidney weights/ NTP 1990 

Data are inadequate to assess carcinogenic potential (2005 guidelines; 2005) 

-- -- Yes/Yes No 

226 EPA published the current NPDWR for selenium on January 30, 1991 (56FR 3526). The Agency based the MCLG on an a maxima

mg/day from a study in China by Yang et al. (1989) and a cancer classification of D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. The based on data that extrapolated from blood selenium levels to estimated dietary intake in the studied population. As described in the Federivation of the MCLG does not follow routine policies for MCLG derivation in partial deference to selenium’s status as a nutrient. T

reference to an RfD in the Federal Register notice for the Selenium MCLG/MCL. 

227 The data support evaluation under the 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, but selenium as a micronutrient cannot be 228 Hawkes and Keim (2003) reported thyroid hormone and related metabolism changes in subjects treated with deficient, sufficient and 

In addition, several studies have reported changes in sperm parameters and fertility in mice administered sodium selenite (e.g., Shalini aand Bansal, 2005). Changes in sperm parameters were also observed in F334 rats given sodium selenite in drinking water (NTP, 1994)find these effects in mice given sodium selenite or in rats or mice given sodium selenate. These data identify a potential concern for repdevelopmental effects at the current MCLG that will need to be evaluated further in a reassessment of this chemical.

229 One new study that could lower the RfD, a human study by Hawkes and Keim (2003) with a LOAEL of about 0.004 mg/kg-day. In 

learned about the metabolism of selenium since the IRIS review and it may be appropriate to differentiate between inorganic selenium the form of selenoproteins, selenomethionine and selenocysteine for an assessment that applies to drinking water. 

230 See description for atrazine regarding potential for reproductive or developmental concern at the MCL. 231See description for atrazine regarding the October 2009 EPA announcement (USEPA, 2009c) of a comprehensive reevaluation of atr

changes to the simazine MCLG. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 5. Summary for List B Chemicals

Regulation IRIS 

New Data/Poss

OPP Impact on 

MCLG190 Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) MCLG mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines used) 

DWEL (mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

Noncancer 

Can

Toxaphene (1991) 

0 0.003 

(PQL) 

0.0004 (short-term)233 / 

0.36 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10 MF for data gaps for potential neurodevelopmental and immunological effects)/ Parental histological changes in liver, kidney, and thyroid/ Chu et al. 1986, 1988 

B2, probable human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- -- B2, probable human 

carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1991) 

-- -- No No 

2,4,5-TP (Silvex; 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic Acid) (1991) 

0.05 0.05 0.008 

0.75 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Histopathological changes in the liver/ Mullison 1966 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

0.3 20% 

0.008 (1988)/ 0.75 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ Histopathological changes in the liver/ Mullison 1966; Gehring and Besto 1978 

D, not classifiable (1986 guidelines; 1988) 

-- -- No No 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (1992) 

0.07 0.07 0.01/ 

14.8 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Increased adrenal weights; vacuolization of zona fasciculata in the cortex/ Robinson et al. 1981 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

0.35 20% 

0.01 (1996)/ 14.8 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S/D)/ Increased adrenal weights; vacuolization of zona fasciculata in the cortex/ Robinson et al. 1981 

D, not classifiable (1986 guidelines; 1996) 

-- -- Yes (lit 

search)/Yes 

Yes (searchYes 

232 Using the IRIS RfD of 0.08 mg/kg-day and assuming 70 kg body weight, 2 liters water intake per day, a DWEL of 2.8 mg/L can be 

would result in a new MCLG of 0.6 mg/L. This value is 60% the current value. 

233 Toxaphene is a carcinogen, thus, the RfD is a short-term RfD for screening only when spills occur. 234 Significant data limitations precluded the evaluation of potential concern for reproductive or developmental toxicity. 235 A 2-year carcinogenicity assay in mice and rats (Moore, 1994a,b) found no evidence of carcinogenicity in rats, but in mice a high in

carcinoma was observed in both sexes in the 2 higher dose groups (8/49, 5/50, 27/50*, and 50/50* for males; 1/50, 1/50, 28/50*, and 46study report needs to be comprehensively reviewed since it is possible that this study could affect both the cancer classification and the 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Table 5. Summary for List B Chemicals

Regulation IRIS 

New Data/Poss

OPP Impact on 

MCLG190 Chemical 

(Date of 

regulation) MCLG mg/L 

MCL mg/L 

(basis if 

MCL≠

MCLG) 

RfD (mg/kg-day)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(Year of 

guidelines used) 

DWEL (mg/L)

 & 

RSC 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/Citation 

Cancer classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

RfD (mg/kg-day) 

(year)/ 

Point of Departure/ 

UF (breakdown of 

UFs)/Effect/ 

Citation 

Cancer 

classification 

(year of guidelines 

used; year of 

assessment) 

Noncancer 

Can

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1987) 

0.2 0.2 0.035/ 

 35 (LOAEL)236

/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10L)/ Histology changes in liver/ McNutt et al. 1975 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity 

1 20% 

2 (2007)/ 2155 (BMDL10)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 3S, 3D)/ Decreased body weight in females/ NTP 2002 

Inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential (2005 guidelines; 2007) 

-- -- Yes/Yes No 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1992) 

0.003 0.005 

(PQL) 

0.004/ 3.9 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Adverse effects on liver, depressed humoral immune status/ Sanders et al. 1985 White et al. 1985 

C, possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

0.137 20% Also factor of 10 for class C 

0.004 (1995)/ 3.9 (NOAEL)/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10S)/ Clinical serum chemistry/ Sanders et al. 1985 White et al. 1985 

C, possible human carcinogen (1986 guidelines; 1994) 

-- -- No No 

Vinyl chloride (1987) 

0 0.002 

(PQL) 

Adjusted acceptable daily intake: 0.046 mg/L/ 0.13 (NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ None/ Til et al. 1983 

A, known human carcinogen (1986 guidelines) 

-- 0.003 (2000)/ 

0.13 (0.09 HED) (NOAEL)/ 30 (10H, 3A)/ Liver cell polymorphism/ Til et al. 1983, 1991 

Known carcinogen by the oral route (1996 guidelines; 2000) 

-- -- Yes/No Yes/N

Xylenes (Total)  (1991) 

10 10 1.79/ 

179 (adj. NOAEL)/ 100 (10H, 10A)/ decreased body weight gains/ NTP 1986 

D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (1986 guidelines)

63 20% 

0.2 (2003), 179 (adj. NOAEL/ 1000 (10H, 10A, 10D)/ decreased body weight gains/ NTP 1986 

Data are inadequate to assess carcinogenic potential (1999 guidelines; 2003) 

-- -- Yes/Yes No 

236 The point of departure of 35.1 mg/kg-day for the RfD was derived from an inhalation study. The LOAEL of 1365 mg/m3 was conve

assuming a mouse ventilation rate of 1 m3/h, 6 hr/day, pulmonary absorption of 30%, and a human BW of 70 kg. 

237 Using the IRIS RfD of 2 mg/kg-day and assuming 70 kg body weight, 2 liters water intake per day, a DWEL of 70 mg/L can be deri

a new MCLG of 14 mg/L based on a RSC of 20%. 

238 Significant data limitations precluded the evaluation of potential concern for reproductive or developmental toxicity. 239 Using the RfD of 0.2 mg/kg-day and assuming 70 kg body weight, 2 liters water intake per day, a DWEL of 7 mg/L can be derived. 

in a new MCLG of 1 mg/L. This value is 10% the current value. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) 

Health Effects Assessment 

Abbreviations: AADI = - Adjusted acceptable daily intake or adjusted average daily intake; ADI = average daily intake; Adj. = adjust

exposure; BMDL = lower 95% confidence limit on the benchmark dose; DWEL = drinking water equivalent level; HED = Human equIntegrated Risk Information System; MCL = maximum contaminant level; MCLG = maximum contaminant level goal; NOAEL = no olevel; LEL = lowest effect level; LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level; NA = not applicable; OPP = Office of Pesticide ProgrRadiation and Indoor Air; OW = Office of Water; PQL = practical quantitation limit, also termed “analytical feasibility”; RfD = Referesource contribution; SAB = Science Advisory Board; TBD = to be determined; UF = uncertainty factor (with H = intraspecies UF; A = 

for LOAEL to NOAEL; S = UF for subchronic to chronic extrapolation; D = database UF) 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 126 

References 

 

Abdo, KM; CA Montgomery; and WM Kluwe. 1984. Toxicity of hexachlorocyclopentadiene: 

subchronic (13-week) administration by gavage to F344 rats and B6C3F1 mice. J. Appl. Toxicol. 

4: 75-81. 

Amyes, SJ. 1989a. Lindane: Combined oncogenicity and toxicity study by dietary administration 

to Wistar rats for 104 weeks- Interim report week 0-26. Life Sciences Research, England. Study 

No. 88/CIL002/816. March 7, 1989. Unpublished. MRID 41094101. 

Amyes, SJ. 1989b. Combined oncogenicity and toxicity study by dietary administration to 

Wistar rats for 104 weeks. Life Sciences Research, England. Study No. 90/CIL002/0839: 

CIL/002/LIN. Unpublished. MRID 41853701. 

Amyes, SJ. 1993. Lindane: Combined oncogenicity and toxicity study by dietary Administration 

to Wistar rats for 104 weeks. Addendum to final report (Adrenal histopathology-additional 

investigations). Life sciences Research: England. Study No. 90/CIL002/0839. June 2, 1993. 

Unpublished. 

Andres, P. 1984. IgA-IgG disease in the intestine of Brown Norway rats ingesting mercuric 

chloride. Clin. Immunol. Immunopathol. 30: 488-494. 

Arnold, DL; CA Moodie; SM Charbonneau; et al. 1985. Long-term toxicity of 

hexachlorobenzene in the rat and the effect of dietary Vitamin A. Food. Chem. Toxicol. 23(9): 

779-793. 

Arnold, DL; F Bryce; R Stapley; et al. 1993a. Toxicological consequences of Aroclor 1254 

ingestion by female Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) monkeys, Part 1A: Prebreeding phase - clinical 

health findings. Food Chem. Toxicol. 31: 799- 810. 

Arnold, DL; F Bryce; K Karpinski; et al. 1993b. Toxicological consequences of Aroclor 1254 

ingestion by female Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) monkeys, Part 1B: Prebreeding phase -clinical and 

analytical laboratory findings. Food Chem. Toxicol. 31: 811-824. 

Atkinson, A; SJ Thompson; et al. 2001. Assessment of a two-generation reproductive and 

fertility study of mercuric chloride in rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 39: 73-84. 

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1989. Toxicological Profile for 

1,2-Dichloropropane. Atlanta, GA: U. S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health 

Services. 

ATSDR. 1990a. Toxicological Profile for Monochlorobenzene. Atlanta, GA: US Department of 

Health and Human Services. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 127 

ATSDR. 1990b. Toxicological profile for radium. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA. 

ATSDR. 1990c. Toxicological profile for uranium. U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. Public Health Service. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA. 

ATSDR. 1990d. Toxicological profile for plutonium. U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. Public Health Service. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA. 

ATSDR. 1992a. Toxicological Profile for 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane. Atlanta, GA: U. S. 

Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services. 

ATSDR. 1992b. Toxicological Profile for 1,2-Dibromoethane. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

ATSDR. 1994a. Toxicological profile for chlordane. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Dept. of Health and 

Human Services, Public Health Services. 

ATSDR. 1994b. Toxicological Profile for 1,1-Dichloroethene. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

ATSDR. 1995. Toxicological Profile of the Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Atlanta, GA: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

ATSDR. 1996a. Toxicological profile of Cis,1-2-dichloroethylene. Atlanta, GA: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

ATSDR. 1996b. Toxicological profile of the trans-1,2,-dichloroethene. Atlanta, GA: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

ATSDR. 1996c. Toxicological Profile for Endrin. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

ATSDR. 1996d. Toxicological profile: Toxaphene. US Department of Health and Human 

Services, Atlanta, GA. 

ATSDR. 1997. Toxicological profile of tetrachloroethylene. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

 

ATSDR. 1998. Toxicological profile for 

Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

ATSDR. 1999a. Toxicological profile of Cadmium. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 128 

ATSDR. 1999b. Toxicological profile for hexachlorocylcopentadiene. Atlanta, GA: U. S. Dept. 

of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services. 

ATSDR. 1999c. Toxicological profile for mercury. U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. Public Health Service. 

ATSDR. 1999d. Toxicological profile of Uranium. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

ATSDR. 2000a. Toxicological Profile for chromium. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services. 

ATSDR. 2000b. Toxicological profile of dichloromethane. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

ATSDR. 2000c. Toxicological profile of the polychlorinated biphenyls. Atlanta, GA: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

ATSDR. 2000d. Toxicological profile for toluene. Atlanta, GA: US Dept. of Health and Human 

Services, Public Health Services. 

ATSDR. 2001. Toxicological profile of pentachlorophenol. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

ATSDR. 2001b. Toxicological Profile for Asbestos. U.S. Department Of Health And Human 

Services. 

ATSDR. 2002a. Toxicological Profile for Beryllium. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and 

Human Services, Public Health Services. September 2002. 

ATSDR. 2002b. Toxicological profile for Di(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate. Atlanta, GA: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

ATSDR. 2002c Toxicological Profile for Hexachlorobenzene. Atlanta, GA. September. 

ATSDR. 2002d. Toxicological profile for methocychlor. Department of health and human 

services. Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. September 

2002. 

ATSDR. 2003a. Toxicological profile for atrazine. U.S. Department Of Health And Human 

Services Public Health Service. 

ATSDR. 2003b. Toxicological Profile for fluorides, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorine. Atlanta, GA: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 129 

ATSDR . 2003c. Toxicological profile for selenium. US Department of Health and Human 

Services, Atlanta, GA. 

ATSDR . 2005a. Toxicological profile of carbon tetrachloride. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

ATSDR . 2005b. Toxicological Profile For Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma-, and DeltaHexachlorocyclohexane. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

ATSDR . 2006a. Toxicological profile of cyanide. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

ATSDR . 2006b. Toxicological profile of the dichlorobenzenes. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services. 

ATSDR . 2006c. Toxicological profile for vinyl chloride. Public Health Service, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. July. 

ATSDR . 2007a. Toxicological profile of arsenic. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

ATSDR . 2007b. Toxicological profile for barium and barium compounds. U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services. August. 

ATSDR . 2007c. Toxicological profile for benzene. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and 

Human Services, Public Health Service. 

ATSDR . 2007d. Toxicological Profile for ethylbenzene. Draft for Public Comment. Atlanta, GA: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

ATSDR . 2007e. Toxicological profile for heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide. Atlanta, GA: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. November 2007. 

ATSDR . 2007f. Toxicological profile of styrene. Draft for Public Comment. Atlanta, GA: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

ATSDR . 2007g Toxicological profile for xylene. U.S. Department Of Health And Human 

Services. Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. August 2007. 

Babineau, KA; A Singh; JF Jarrell; et al. 1991. Surface epithelium of the ovary following oral 

administration of hexachlorobenzene to the monkey. J Submicrosc Cytol Pathol 23:457-464. 

Barnes, DW; VM Sanders; KL White; GM Shopp; and AE Munson. 1985. Toxicology of trans1,2-dichloroethylene in the mouse. Drug Chem. Toxicol. 8(5): 373-392. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 130 

Barsotti, DA; and JP van Miller. 1984. Accumulation of a commercial polychlorinated biphenyl 

mixture (Aroclor 1016) in adult rhesus monkeys and their nursing infants. Toxicol. 30: 31-44. 

Battelle. 1980. Re-run Subchronic Toxicity Study: para-Dichlorobenzene (C54955), Fischer 344 

Rats. Unpublished Report. Subcontract No. 76-34-106002. Feb. 12, 1980. 

Bernaudin, JF; E Druet; P Druet; and R Masse. 1981. Inhalation or ingestion of organic or 

inorganic mercurials produces auto-immune disease in rats. Clin. Immunol. Immunopathol. 20: 

129-135. 

Bosch, HM; AB Rosenfield; R Houston; HR Shipman; and FL Woodward. 1950. J. Amer. Water 

works Assoc. 42:161. Cited in Simon C, H Manzke, H Kay, and G Mroetz. 1964. Uber 

Vorkommen, Pathogenese und Moglichkeiten zur Prophylaxe der durch Nitrit verursachten 

Methamoblobinamie. Z. Kinderhielkd. 91: 124-138. (In German; summary in English.) 

Bourque, AC; A Singh; N Lakhanpal; et al. 1995. Ultrastructural changes in ovarian follicles of 

monkeys administered hexachlorobenzene. Am J Vet Res 56(12):1673-1677. 

Brown, D. 1981. Dinoseb: A 100 week oral (dietary) toxicity and carcinogenicity study in the 

mouse. Hazleton Laboratories Europe, Ltd. Prepared for Dow Chemical Pacific, Ltd., Hong 

Kong. MRID 00152762. 

Bruckner, JV; WF MacKenzie; S Muralidhara; R Luthra; GM Kyle; and D Acosta. 1986. Oral 

toxicity of carbon tetrachloride: Acute, subacute and subchronic studies in rats. Fund. Appl. 

Toxicol. 6(1): 16-34. 

Buben, JA; and EJ O'Flaherty. 1985. Delineation of the role of metabolism in the hepatotoxicity 

of trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene: a dose- effect study. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 78: 

105-122. 

Burek, JD; RR Albee; JE Beyer; et al. 1980. Subchronic toxicity of acrylamide administered to 

rats in the drinking water followed by up to 144 days of recovery. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 

4:157-182. 

CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 1997a. Public health goal for alachlor in 

drinking water. Prepared by Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Section. Office of 

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. December. 

CalEPA . 1997b. Public health goal for antimony in drinking water. Prepared by Pesticide and 

Environmental Toxicology Section. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

December. 

CalEPA . 1997c. Public health goal for chlordane in drinking water. Sacramento, California: 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 131 

CalEPA . 1997d. Public health goal for dalapon in drinking water. Sacramento, California: 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 1997e. Public Health Goal for Dinoseb in Drinking Water. Sacramento, California: 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 1997f. Public Health Goal for Endothall in Drinking Water. Sacramento, California: 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 1997g. Public health goal for nitrate and nitrite in drinking water. Sacramento, 

California: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 1997h. Public health goal for Oxamyl in drinking water. Sacramento, California: 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 1997i. Public health goal for picloram in drinking water. Sacramento, California: 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 1997j Public health goal for xylenes in drinking water. Sacramento, California: Office 

of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA. 1999a. Public health goal for atrazine in drinking water. Office of environmental health 

hazard assessment. 

CalEPA . 1999b. Public Health Goal for 1,2-Dichloropropane In Drinking Water. Office of 

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Berkeley, CA. 

CalEPA . 1999c. Public Health Goal for Endrin in Drinking Water. Sacramento, California: 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 1999d. Public Health Goal for heptachlor in Drinking Water. Sacramento, California: 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 1999e. Public health goal for heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide in drinking water. 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Sacramento, CA. 

 CalEPA . 1999f. Public Health Goal for Hexachlorocyclopentadiene in Drinking Water. 

Sacramento, California: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 1999g. Public health goal for lindane in drinking water. Sacramento, California: Office 

of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 1999h. Public health goal for inorganic mercury in drinking water. Prepared by office 

of environmental health hazard assessment. Pesticide and environmental toxicology section. 

CalEPA . 1999i. Public health goals for chemicals in drinking water: Methoxychlor. February. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 132 

CalEPA . 1999j. Public health goal for toluene in drinking water. Sacramento, California: Office 

of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 1999k. Public Health Goal for 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) in Drinking 

Water. Sacramento, California: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 1999l. Public Health Goal for 1,1-Dichloroethylene in Drinking Water. Sacramento, 

California: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 2000a. Public health goal for carbofuran in drinking water. Prepared by Pesticide and 

Environmental Toxicology Section, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 

California Environmental Protection Agency. August 2000. 

CalEPA . 2000b. Public Health Goal for Diquat in Drinking Water. Sacramento, California: 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 2000c. Public Health Goals for Chemicals in Drinking Water. 

CalEPA . 2001a. Public health goal for 1,2-benzene in drinking water. Sacramento, California: 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 2001b. Public health goal for simazine in drinking water. Sacramento, California: 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 2003a. Public health goal for asbestos in drinking water. Office of Environmental 

Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Sacramento, CA. 

CalEPA . 2003b. Public health goals for chemicals in drinking water. Barium. Office of 

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. September. 

CalEPA . 2003c. Public Health Goal for Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in Drinking 

Water. Sacramento, California: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA. .2003d. Public health goal for ethylene dibromide in drinking water. Office of 

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Sacramento, CA. 

CalEPA . 2003e. Public Health Goals for Chemicals in Drinking Water: Chlorobenzene. Office 

of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Sacramento, CA. 

CalEPA . 2003f. Public health goal for toxaphene in drinking water. Office of Environmental 

Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Sacramento, CA. 

CalEPA . 2003g. Public Health Goals for Chemicals in Drinking Water: Hexachlorobenzene. 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Berkeley, CA. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 133 

CalEPA . 2003h. Gross Alpha in Drinking Water. December. 

CalEPA . 2003i. Health-Protective Considerations Regarding Measurement of Gross Beta 

Particle and Photon Activity in Drinking Water Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment. Sacramento and Oakland, California. 

CalEPA . 2006. Public Health Goals For 

Chemicals In Drinking Water. Radium-226 and -228. March 2006. 

CalEPA. . 2007a. Draft: Public Health Goal for 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid in Drinking 

Water. Sacramento, California: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CalEPA . 2007b. Public health goal for glyphosate in drinking water. Prepared by Pesticide and 

Environmental Toxicology Section. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. June. 

Carpenter, CP; CS Weil; and HF Smyth. 1953. Chronic oral toxicity of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 

for rats and guinea pigs. Arch. Indust. Hyg. Occup. Med. 8: 219-226. 

Chu, I; DC Villeneuve; CW Sun; V Secours; B Proctor; E Arnold; D Clegg; L Reynolds; and VE 

Valli. 1986. Toxicity of toxaphene in the rat and beagle dog. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 7: 406. 

Chu, I; V Secours; DC Villeneuve; et al. 1988. Reproduction study of toxaphene in the rat. J. 

Environ. Sci. Health B23(2): 101-26. 

Ciba-Geigy Corporation. 1986. MRID 00141874, 00157875, 00158930, 40629302. HED Doc. 

005940, 006937. Available from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460. 

Ciba-Geigy Corporation. 1987. Two-generation rat reproduction. Study No. 852063. MRID 

40431303. 

CICAD (Concise International Chemical Assessment Document). 2003. Elemental Mercury and 

Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects. World Health Organization. Geneva. 

Colley, J; S Warren; R Heywood; et al. 1985. Diquat dibromide. Evaluation of potential 

carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity by prolonged dietary administration to rats. MRID 145855. 

Available from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460. 

Dow Chemical Company. 1958. (MRID 00061912). Available from EPA. Write FOI, EPA, 

Washington, DC 20460. 

Dow Chemical Company. 1981. Three-generation rat reproduction study. MRID 00152675. 

Available from EPA. Write FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460. 

Dow Chemical Company. 1982. Results of a six-month dietary toxicity study of picloram (4-

amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid) administered in the diet to male and female dogs. Dow 

Chemical USA, Lake Jackson, TX. TXT:K-038323-(28). MRID 00110534 (CBI). 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 134 

Druet, P; E Druet; F Potdevin; and C Sapin. 1978. Immune type glomerulonephritis induced by 

HgCl2 in the Brown Norway rat. Ann. Immunol. 129C: 777-792. 

Duffield-Lillico, AJ; EH Slate; et al. 2003. Selenium supplementation and secondary prevention 

of nonmelanoma skin cancer in a randomized trial. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 95(19): 1477-1481. 

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. 1972. MRID No. 00083352; 00113400. Available from 

EPA. Write FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460. 

Eckerman, KF; RW Leggett; M Cristy; CB Nelson; JC Ryman; AL Sjoreen; and RC Ward. 2006. 

User’s Guide to the DCAL System. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

EHC (Environmental Health Criteria). 1991. Chlorobenzenes other than hexachlorobenzene. 128. 

International Programme on Chemical Safety. United Nations Environment Programme, the 

International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization. Geneva. 

Enoch, RR; JP Stanko; SN Greiner; GL Youngblood; JL Rayner; and SE Fenton. 2007. 

Mammary gland development as a sensitive endpoint after acute prenatal exposure to an atrazine 

metabolite mixture in female Long-Evans rats. Environ Health Perspec. 115: 541-547. 

FMC Corporation. 1983. One-year chronic oral toxicity study in beagle dogs with carbofuran. 

Agricultural Chemical Group. Study No. FMC A81-605/ToxiGenics 410-0715. EPA Accession 

No. 250740-250744. Available from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460. 

FMC Corporation; R Tyl; M Marr; and C Myers. 2005. Acute Dose-Response Study of 

Carbofuran Technical Administered by Gavage to Adult and Postnatal Day 11 Male and Female 

CD (Sprague-Dawley) Rats. 

Friberg, L; M Piscator; GF Nordberg; and T Kjellstrom. 1974. Cadmium in the environment, 2nd 

ed. CRC Press, Inc.: Boca Raton. 

Friedman, MA; LH Dulak; MA Stedham. 1995 A lifetime oncogenicity study in rats with 

acrylamide. Fundam Appl Toxicol 27:95–105. 

Gehring, PJ; JE Betso. 1978. Phenoxy acids: Effects and fate in mammals. In: Chlorinated 

phenoxy acids and their dioxins, Ramel C, ed. Ecol Bull (Stockholm) 27:122-133. 

Gilman, AP; DC Villeneuve; VE Secours; et al. 1998. Uranyl nitrate - 91-day toxicity studies in 

the New Zealand white rabbit. Toxicol. Sci. 41(1):129-137. 

Grosse, Y; R Baan; et al. 2006. Carcinogenicity of nitrate, nitrite, and cyanobacterial peptide 

toxins. Lancet Oncol. 7(8): 628-9. 

Hawkes, WC; Keim NL. 2003. Dietary selenium intake modulates thyroid hormone and energy 

metabolism in men. J. Nutr. 133(11): 3443-3448. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 135 

Hazleton. 1977. Hazleton Labs. 104-week dietary study in rats. Dinoseb DNBP. Final Report. 

Unpublished Study. MRID 00211. Available from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 

20460. 

Health Canada. 1986a. Diquat: Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Quality. Ontario, Canada: 

Water Quality and Health Bureau, Safe Environments Programme. 

Health Canada. 1986b. Mercury. Available at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/watereau/doc_sup-appui/mercury-mercure/index_e.html. 

Health Canada. 1986c. Benzene: Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Quality. Ontario, Canada: 

Water Quality and Health Bureau, Safe Environments Programme. April. Edited October 1987. 

Health Canada. 1987. Glyphosate. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Quality. Ontario, Canada: 

Water Quality and Health Bureau, Safe Environments Programme. Edited 1995. 

Health Canada. 1988a. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality - Supporting 

Documents: Monochlorobenzene. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/watereau/doc_sup-appui/monochlorobenzene/index_e.html. 

Health Canada. 1988b. Picloram: Guidelines for Canadian drinking quality. Ontario, Canada: 

Water Quality and Health Bureau, Safe Environments Programme. Edited 1990. 

Health Canada. 1989. Simazine: Guidelines for Canadian drinking quality. Ontario, Canada: 

Water Quality and Health Bureau, Safe Environments Programme. 

Health Canada. 1990. Barium: Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Quality. Ontario, Canada: 

Water Quality and Health Bureau, Safe Environments Programme. January. 

Health Canada. 1991a. Carbofuran: Guidelines for Canadian drinking quality. Ontario, Canada: 

Water Quality and Health Bureau, Safe Environments Programme. 

Health Canada. 1991b. Methoxychlor: Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Quality. Ontario, 

Canada: Water Quality and Health Bureau, Safe Environments Programme.

Health Canada. 1991c. 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid: Guidelines for Canadian Drinking 

Quality. Ontario, Canada: Water Quality and Health Bureau, Safe Environments Programme. 

Edited November 1993. 

Health Canada. 1992a. Nitrate/Nitrite: Guidelines for Canadian drinking quality. Ontario, 

Canada: Water Quality and Health Bureau, Safe Environments Programme

Health Canada. 1992b. Vinyl chloride: Guidelines for Canadian drinking quality. Ontario, 

Canada: Water Quality and Health Bureau, Safe Environments Programme.
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 136 

Health Canada. 1992c. Department of National Health and Welfare. Status report – Dinoseb. 

Unpublished report. Health Protection Branch (1989). 

Health Canada. 1992d Selenium: Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Quality. Ontario, Canada: 

Water Quality and Health Bureau, Safe Environments Programme. 

Health Canada. 1993. Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality: Atrazine. Health 

Protection Branch, Health Canada. 

Health Canada. 1994. 1,1-Dichloroethylene: Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Quality. Ontario, 

Canada: Water Quality and Health Bureau, Safe Environments Programme. 

Health Canada. 1995. Radiological Characteristics: Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Quality. 

Ontario, Canada: Water Quality and Health Bureau, Safe Environments Programme. February. 

Health Canada. 1996. Health-based tolerable daily intakes/concentrations and tumorigenic 

doses/concentrations for priority substances. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services Canada. 

H46-2/96-194E.

Health Canada. 1999. Antimony. Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality: supporting 

documentation. May. Drafted 1997, edited 1999. 

Health Canada. 2006. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality Summary Table, March. 

Hodge, HC. 1950. The concentration of fluorides in drinking water to give the point of minimum 

caries with maximum safety. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 40: 436. Cited in: Underwood, E.J. 1977. 

Trace Elements in Human and Animal Nutrition. Academic Press: New York. 

Hopkins, M. 1990. Diquat: One Year Feeding Study in Dogs: Lab Project Number: CTL/P/2596. 

Unpublished study prepared by ICI Central Toxicology Laboratory. MRID 41730301. 

Howard, JW; and RF Hanzal. 1955. Chronic toxicity to rats of food treated with hydrogen 

cyanide. Agric. Food Chem. 3: 325-329. 

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 1975. Summaries and Evaluations: 

Selenium, vol. 9:245. Lyon, France: World Health Organization. 

IARC. 1987a. Summaries and Evaluations: Asbestos, suppl. 7:106. Lyon, France: World Health 

Organization. 

IARC. 1987b. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Overall 

evaluations of carcinogenicity: An updating of IARC Monographs Volumes 1 to 42. Suppl 7. 

Lyons, France: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 38-74. 

IARC. 1987c Summaries and evaluations: Endrin, vol.: 5 (1974) (p. 157). Lyon, France: World 

Health Organization. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 137 

IARC. 1987d. Summaries and Evaluations: chlorophenoxy herbicides, suppl. 7: 156. Lyon, 

France: World Health Organization. 

IARC. 1987e. Vinyl chloride. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to 

humans. Supplement 7. http://www.clc.iarc.fr/htdocs/monographs/suppl7/vinylchloride.html . June 06, 2004. 

IARC. 1989. Some organic solvents, resin monomers and related compounds, pigments and 

occupational exposures in paint manufacture and painting. Lyon, International Agency for 

Research on Cancer, pp. 291–305. (IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks 

to Humans, Vol. 47.) 

IARC. 1990. IARC monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to 

humans. Vol. 49. Some metals and metallic compounds. Lyon, France: World Health 

Organization. 

IARC. 1991. Summaries and evaluations: Picloram, vol. 53:481. Lyon, France: World Health 

Organization. 

IARC. 1993a. Summaries and Evaluations: Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds, vol. 58:41. 

Lyon, France: World Health Organization. 

IARC. 1993b. Summaries & Evaluations 

Mercury and mercury compounds. Methylmercury compounds (Group 2B). Metallic mercury 

and inorganic mercury compounds (Group 3) 58 (p. 239). 

IARC. 1999a. Atrazine. IARC Summary and Evaluation. 73: 59. 

IARC. 1999b). Summaries and evaluations: 1,2-Dichloroethane, vol. 71: 501. Lyon, France: 

World Health Organization. 

IARC. 1999c. Epichlorohydrin. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of 

chemicals to humans. Vol. 71. International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health 

Organization, Lyon, France. 

IARC. 1999d. Summaries and Evaluations: Vinylidene Chloride, vol. 71: 641, 163. Lyon, France: 

World Health Organization. 

IARC. 1999e. Simazine. Summaries and Evaluations. 73:625. International Agency for Research 

on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France. 

IARC. 1999f. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks of chemicals to humans. 

Vol. 71, Part 2. Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide. 

Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, pp. 829-864. 

IARC. 1999g. Summaries and Evaluations: Xylenes, vol. 71: 1189. Lyon, France: World Health 

Organization. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 138 

IARC. 1999h. Summaries and Evaluations: 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane, vol. 71: 479. Lyon, 

France: World Health Organization. 

IARC. 2001a. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 

78, Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Some Internally Deposited Radionuclides. World Health 

Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Press. Lyon, France. 

IARC. 2001b. Summaries and evaluations. Chlordane and heptachlor. International Agency for 

Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France. 

IARC. 2001c. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 

78, Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Some Internally Deposited Radionuclides. World Health 

Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Press. Lyon, France. 

IARC. 2001d. Summaries and evaluations: Toxaphene, vol. 79: 569. Lyon, France: World Health 

Organization. 

IARC. 2001e. Hexaclorobenzene. International Agency for the Research on Cancer. December 

19, 2001. Available at: 

http://193.51.164.11/htdocs/Monographs/Suppl7/Hexachlorobenzene.html. 

ICI (ICI Central Toxicology Laboratory). 1988a. Di-(2-ethylhexyl)adipate: Teratogenicity study 

in the rat. Report CTL/P/2119 (unpublished study). 

ICI. 1988b. Di-(2-ethylhexyl)adipate (DEHA) fertility study in rats. Report CTL/P/2229 

(unpublished study). 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 2006. Low-dose extrapolation of 

radiation-related cancer risk. ICRP Publication 99. Pergamon Press: New York. 

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2000. Dietary reference intakes for vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, 

and carotenoids. Commission on Life Sciences, Safe Drinking Water Committee. National 

Academy Press: Washington, DC. 

IPCS (International Programme for Chemical Safety). 1992. Environmental Health Criteria 130: 

Endrin. Geneva: World Health Organization. 

IPCS. 1999. Environmental Health Criteria 215. Vinyl Chloride. World Health Organization. 

IPCS. 2001. Concise International Chemical Assessment Document (CICAD) 32: Beryllium and 

Beryllium Compounds. Geneva, World Health Organization, Inter-Organization Programme for 

the Sound Management of Chemicals. 

IPCS. 2003. Concise International Chemical Assessment Document (CICAD), 51: 1,1-

Dichloroethene (vinylidene chloride). World Health Organization: Geneva. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 139 

Ivankovic, S; and R Preussmann. 1975. Absence of toxic and carcinogenic effects after 

administration of high doses of chromic oxide pigment in subacute and long-term feeding 

experiments in rats. Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 13:347-351. 

Jarrell, JF; A McMahon; D Villeneuve; et al. 1993. Hexachlorobenzene toxicity in the monkey 

primordial germ cell without induced porphyria. Reprod Toxicol 7:41-47. 

JEFCA (Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives). 2003. WHO Food Additive Series: 50 

Nitrate (and potential endogenous formation of N-nitroso compounds). World Health 

Organization: Geneva. 

JECFA 2004a. Vinyl Chloride. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, (WHO Food Additives 

Series No. 19). 

JECFA. 2004b. Evaluation Of Certain Food Additives And Contaminants.Sixty-first Report. 

World Health Organization Technical Report Series 922. 

Jeffries, T; B Yano; J Ormand; et al. 1995. 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid: Chronic 

Toxicity/Oncogenicity Study in Fischer 344 Rats: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 

K/002372/064. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co., Health and 

Environmental Sciences. MRID 43612001. Available from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, 

Washington, DC 20460. 

JMPR (Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues). 1977. Methoxychlor. Pesticide residues in food. 

US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, United States. 

JMPR. 1979. 2,4,5-T. Pesticide residues in food. US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, United States. 

JMPR. 1986a. Chlordane: Evaluation for Acceptable Intake: Geneva: Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization. Available at: 

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/v86pr03.htm. 

JMPR. 1986b. Glyphosate. : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World 

Health Organization. 

JMPR. 1986c. Hexachlorobenzene: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 

World Health Organization. 

JMPR. 1991. Heptachlor. First draft prepared by Dr. W. Phang, US Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC, United States. World Health Organization: Geneva. 

JMPR. 1993. Pesticide Residues in Food Monographs and Evaluations, 86: Diquat. World Health 

Organization: Geneva. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 140 

JMPR. 1996. Pesticide residues in food Monographs and Evaluations, Part II: Carbofuran. World 

Health Organization: Geneva. 

JMPR. 2002a. Pesticide residues in food Monographs and Evaluations: Lindane. World Health 

Organization: Geneva. 

JMPR. 2002b. Oxamyl. Pesticide residues in food. First draft prepared by G. Wolterink and P.H. 

van Hoeven-arentzen. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, United States. 

Johnson, K; S Gorzinski; K Bodner; et al. 1986. Chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study on 

acrylamide incorporated in the drinking water of Fischer 344 rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 85: 

154-168. 

Kaur, P; and MP Bansal. 2005. Effect of selenium-induced oxidative stress on the cell kinetics in 

testis and reproductive ability of male mice. Nutrition 21(3): 351-7. 

Keller, J. 1965 Two-year chronic feeding study of disodium endothall to beagle dogs. EPA 

Pesticide petition 6G0503. EPA Accession No. 090586, Exhibit 7. MRID 00101735. Available 

from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460. 

Kennedy, GL. 1986 Chronic toxicity, reproductive, and teratogenic studies with oxamyl. Fundam. 

Appl. Toxicol. 7: 106-118. 

Khan, AT; A Atkinson; et al. 2004. Effects of inorganic mercury on reproductive performance of 

mice. Food Chem Toxicol. 42:571-577. 

Khasawinah, AM; and JF Grutsch. 1989. Chlordane: 24-month tumorigenicity and chronic 

toxicity test in mice. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 10: 244-254. 

Kimmerle, G; and A Eben. 1973. Metabolism, excretion and toxicology of trichloroethylene after 

inhalation. 1. Experimental exposure on rats. Arch. Toxicol. 30:115. 

Knapp, WK; WM Busey; and W Kundzins. 1971. Subacute oral toxicity of monochlorobenzene 

in dogs and rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 19: 393 (Abstract). 

Koop, CE. 1984. Letter to William D. Ruckelshaus. January 23. 

Landry, T; K Johnson; F Ciezlak; et al. 1986. Picloram: A two-year Dietary Chronic Toxicityoncogenicity Study in Fischer 344 Rats. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical USA. 

MRID 00155940. 

Laskin, S; AR Sellakumar; and M Kuschner. 1980. Inhalation carcinogenicity of epichlorohydrin 

in non-inbred Sprague-Dawley rats. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 65(4): 751-758. 

Levin, ED; SL Schantz; and RE Bowman. 1988. Delayed spatial alternation deficits resulting 

from perinatal PCB exposure in monkeys. Arch. Toxicol. 62: 267-273. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 141 

MacKenzie, RD; RU Byerrum; CF Decker; et al. 1958. Chronic toxicity studies. II. Hexavalent 

and trivalent chromium administered in drinking water to rats. Am. Med. Assoc. Arch. Ind. 

Health. 18: 232-234. 

Malle, L. 1997a. Acute Oral Neurotoxicity Study of Oxamyl technical in Rats: Lab Project 

Number: HLR 1118-96. Unpublished study prepared by DuPont Haskell Lab for Toxicology and 

Industrial Medicine. MRID 44254401. Available from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

Malley, L. 1997b. Acute oral neurotoxicity study of oxamyl technical in rats: supplement No. 1: 

Lab Project Number: 11268-001: 10730-001: 1118-96. Unpublished study prepared by E.I. du 

Pont de Nemours and Company. MRID 44420301. Available from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, 

Washington, DC 20460. 

Markel, E; C Nyakas; and S Ormai. 1989. Nitrate induced changes in sensorimotor development 

and learning behavior in rats. Acta Physiological Hungarica. 74(1): 69-75. 

Marks, TA; TA Ledoux; and JA Moore. 1982. Teratogenicity of a commercial xylene mixture in 

the mouse. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health. 9(1): 97-106. 

Maynard, EA; and HC Hodge. 1949. Studies of the toxicity of various uranium compounds when 

fed to experimental animals. In: The Pharmacology and Toxicology of Uranium Compounds. 

Nations Nuclear Energy Service. Division VI, Vol. I, C. Voegtlin, and H.C. Hodge, Eds. 

McGraw Hill: New York. pp.309-376. 

McCauley, PT; M Robinson; LW Condie; and M Purnell. 1990. The effects of subacute and 

subchronic oral exposure to cis-1,2-dichloroethylene in rats. Unpublished data. HERL, 

Cincinnati. 

McCauley, PT; M Robinson; FB Daniel; et al. 1995. The effects of subacute and subchronic oral 

exposure to cis-1,2-dichloroethylene in Sprague-Dawley rats. Drug Chem Toxicol 18:171–184. 

McCormick, GC; AT Arthur; JD Green. 1988. Simazine Technical: 104-week Oral Chronic 

Toxicity and Carcinogenicity Study in Rats. Ciba-Geigy Corp. Study No. 2-011-04. MRID 

406144-05. Available from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460. 

McNutt, N; R Amster; E McConnell; and F Morris. 1975. Hepatic lesions in mice after 

continuous inhalation exposure to 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Lab. Invest. 32: 642-654. 

Mecler, F. 1996. Fifty-two week repeated dose chronic oral study of pentachlorophenol 

administered via capsule to dogs. Study conducted by TSI Mason Laboratories, Worcester, MA; 

TSI Report #ML-PTF-J31-95-94. Submitted to the Pentachlorophenol Task Force, c/o SRA 

International, Inc., Washington, DC. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC; 

MRID 439827-01. (unpublished study). 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 142 

Moertel, CG et al. 1981. A pharmacologic and toxicological study of amygdalin. JAMA. 

245:591-594. 

Moertel, CG et al. 1982. A clinical trial of amygdalin (laetrile) in the treatment of human cancer. 

New England J. Med. 306: 201-206. 

Monsanto Company. 1967. 13-week oral administration - dogs. Monochlorobenzene. Final 

report. Prepared by Hazelton Laboratories. Project No. 241-105. February 24. 

Monsanto Company. 1980a. MRID 00046362. Rodwell DE; Tasker EJ; Blair AM; et al. 

Teratology Study in Rats: IRDC No. 401-054. (Study including IRDC 999-021; prepared by 

International Research and Development Corp., submitted by Monsanto Co., Washington, DC; 

CDL:242516-A.) 

Monsanto Company. 1980b. MRID No. 00046363. Rodwell DE; Tasker EJ; Blair M; et al. 

(1980). Teratology Study in Rabbits: IRDC No. 401-056. (prepared by International Research 

and Development Corp). 

Monsanto Company. 1981. A three-generation reproduction study in rats with glyphosate. 

Project No. 77-2063 of Bio/dynamics, Inc., for Monsanto Co. MRID 0081674. Available from 

EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460; Street, R. (1982); Letter sent to R. Taylor 

dated Jul 6, 1982: Roundup Herbicide: Addendum to pathology report for a three generation 

reproduction study in rates with glyphosate. (Unpublished study received Jul 7, 1982 under 524-

308; submitted by Monsanto Co., Washington, DC; CDL:247793-A. MRID No. 00105995. 

Monsanto Company. 1996. One year study of p-dichlorobenzene administered orally via capsule 

to beagle dogs. In: Naylor, MW; and LD Stout; eds. Monsanto Company. 

Moore, M. 1994a. 104-week dietary carcinogenicity study with 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene in 

mice. Hazleton Washington, Inc.: Rockville. HWA 2603-102. EPA/OTS 88-930000429. 

Moore, M. 1994b. Final report- 104-week dietary carcinogenicity study with 1,2,4-

trichlorobenzene in rats. Hazleton Washington, Inc.: Rockville. HWA 2603-103. OTS0558832. 

OPPTS-44612. 

Morgareidge, K; GE Cox; MA Gallo. 1976. Chronic Feeding Studies with Beryllium in Dogs. 

Food and Drug Research Laboratories, Inc. Submitted to the Aluminum Company of America. 

ALCAN Research and Development, LTD, Kawecki-Berylco Industries, Inc, and BrushWellman, Inc. 

Morseth, SL; LT Wetzel; JC Eldridge; and L Tyrey. 1996. Evaluation of the Luteinizing 

Hormone (LH) Surge in Atrazine-Exposed Female Sprague-Dawley Rats - 6 Month Report to 

Environmental Protection Agency. MRID 44152102. p.727. 

Moser, VC; TJ Shafer; TR Ward; et al. 2001. Neurotoxicological outcomes of perinatal 

heptachlor exposure in the rat. Toxicol. Sci. 60(2): 315-326. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 143 

Mukhopadhyay, S; D Ghosh; et al. 2005. Evaluation of possible goitrogenic and anti-thyroidal 

effect of nitrate, a potential environmental pollutant. Indian J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 49(3): 284-

188. 

Mullison, WR. 1966. Some toxicological aspects of silvex. In: Proc. 19th Ann. Meet., Southern 

Weed Conference. Jacksonville, FL. pp.420-435. 

Murray, FJ; FA Smith; KD Nitschke; CG Humiston; RJ Kociba; and BA Schwetz. 1979. Threegeneration reproduction study of rats given 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in the 

diet. Toxcol. Appl. Pharmacol. 50: 241-251. 

NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 1977. Drinking Water and Health, Volume I. Safe 

Drinking Water Committee, Board on Toxicology and Environmental Health Hazards, National 

Research Council. 

NAS . 1983. Drinking Water and Health, Vol. 5. Safe Drinking Water Committee, Board on 

Toxicology and Environmental Health Hazards, National Research Council, National Academy 

of Sciences, Washington, DC. 

NAS. 1986. Drinking Water and Health, Volume 6. Safe Drinking Water Committee, Board on 

Toxicology and Environmental Health Hazards, National Research Council. 

NAS. 1988a. Health Risks of Radon and Other Internally Deposited Alpha-Emitters. BEIR IV. 

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. National Academy Press, 

Washington, DC. 

NAS. 1990. Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. BEIR V. National 

Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

NAS. 1995. Nitrate and nitrite in drinking water. Committee on Toxicology, Subcommittee on 

Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking Water. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

NAS. 2000. Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Selenium, and Carotenoids. 

Panel on Dietary Antioxidants and Related Compounds. 

NAS. 2006a. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. BEIR VII Phase 

2. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. National Academy Press, 

Washington, DC 

NAS. 2006. Assessing the Human Health Risks of Trichloroethylene: Key Scientific Issues 

Committee on Human Health Risks of Trichloroethylene, The National Academies Press. 

Washington, D.C: National Research Council of The National Academies. Available online: 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11707.html 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 144 

NAS. 2007. Health Effects of Beryllium Exposure: A Literature Review. Committee on 

Beryllium Alloy Exposures, Committee on Toxicology, National Research Council, National 

Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

NCA (National Coffee Association). 1982). 24-month chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study of 

methylene chloride in rats. Final Report. Prepared by Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc.: 

Vienna (VA). Unpublished. 

NCA. 1983. Twenty-four month oncogenicity study of methylene chloride in mice. Final Report. 

Prepared by Hazleton Laboratories, America, Inc., Vienna, VA.

NCI (National Cancer Institute). 1978. Bioassay of 1,2-dibromoethane for possible 

carcinogenicity. National Cancer Institute: Bethesda. NTIS PB 288428. 

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). 2001. Evaluation of the 

Linear-Nonthreshold Dose-Response Model for Ionizing Radiation. NCRP Report N0. 136. 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements: Maryland. 

NDWAC (National Drinking Water Advisory Council). 2000. Recommended Guidance for 

Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. November 2000. 

NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). 2005a. Report on Carcinogens, 

Eleventh Edition; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 

National Toxicology Program. 

NRC (National Research Council). 1977. Drinking Water and Health. Volume 1. Safe Drinking 

Water Committee, Board on Toxicology and Environmental Health Hazards, National Research 

Council. 

NRC. 1983. Drinking Water and Health. vol. 5. Commission on Life Sciences, Safe Drinking 

Water Committee. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

NRC. 1986. Drinking Water and Health. Volume 6. Safe Drinking Water Committee, Board on 

Toxicology and Environmental Health Hazards, National Research Council. 

NRC. 2006a. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. BEIR VII Phase 

2. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. National Academy Press: 

Washington, DC. 

NRC. 2006b. Health Risks from Dioxin and Related Compounds: Evaluation of the EPA 

Reassessment. Committee on EPA's Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of TCDD and 

Related Compounds, National Research Council. ISBN: 978-0-309-10259-9. 

NRC. 2006c. Fluoride in drinking water: a scientific review of EPA’s standards. National 

Academy Press. Washington DC. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 145 

NTP (National Toxicology Program). 1982. Carcinogenesis bioassay experimental and status 

report. March 1, 1982. Research Triangle Park. National Toxicology Program. 

NTP. 1985. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of 1,2-dichlorobenzene (o-dichlorobenzene) 

(CAS No. 95-50-1) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (gavage studies). NTP TR 255. NIH Pub. 

No. 86-2511. 

NTP. 1986. Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis of Xylenes (mixed) 60% mxylene, 14% p-xylene 9% o-xylene and 17% ethylbenzene. CAS #1330-20-7 in F344/N rats and 

B6C3F1 mice (gavage studies). US DHHS, PHS, NIH, NTP: Research Trangle Park. NTP TR 

327, NIH Pub1, No. 87-2583. 

NTP. 1987. Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of 1,4-Dichlorobenzene in F344/N Rats and 

B6C3F1 Mice (Gavage Study). NTP TR319. NIH Pub. No. 87-2575. 

NTP. 1990. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of toluene (CAS No. 108-88-3) in F344/N 

rats and B5C3F1 mice (inhalation studies). Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services; NTP TR 371. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences: 

Research Triangle Park. 

NTP. 1993. Technical Report on toxicity studies of sodium cyanide (CAS No. 143-33-9) 

administered in drinking water to F344/N rats and B6C3FI mice. NIH Pub. No. 94-3386. Public 

Health Service, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

National Toxicology Program. 

NTP. 1994. Technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of barium chloride 

dihydrate (CAS No. 10326-27-9) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (drinking water studies). 

National Toxicological Program, Research Triangle Park, NC. NTP TR 432. NIH Pub. No. 94-

3163. NTIS Pub PB94-214178. 

NTP. 2000. Technical report on the toxicity studies of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (CAS no.71-55-

6) administered in microcapsules in feed to F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. PB2001-100476. 

NTP. 2002. Toxicity Studies of trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (CAS No. 156-60-5) Administered in 

Microcapsules in Feed to F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice. National Toxicology Program, 

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

NTP. 2007. Draft Report. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of Chromium Picolinate 

Monohydrate (CAS # 27882-76-4) in F344 rats and B6C3F1 mice (feed studies). TR-556. 

NTP. 2008. Final Report. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium dichromate dihydrate 

(CAS # 7789-12-0) in F344 rats and B6C3F1 mice (drinking water studies). TR-546. 

Naylor, M.; W Ribelin; D Thake; et al. 1984. Chronic Study of Alachlor Administered by 

Gelatin Capsule to Dogs: Project No. ML-82-279: Study No. 820165. MRID 00148923. HED 

004660. Unpublished study prepared by Monsanto Co. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 146 

Paynter, OE; TW Tusing; DD McCollister; and TW Rowe. 1960. Toxicology of Dalapon 

Sodium (2,2-dichloropropoionic acid, sodium salt). J. Agriculture Food Chemicals. 8: 47-51. 

Philbrick, DJ; JB Hopkins; DC Hill; JC Alexander; and RG Thomson. 1979. Effects of 

prolonged cyanide and thiocyanate feeding in rats. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health. 5: 579-592. 

Quast, JF; CG Humiston; RY Kalnins; et al. 1979. Results of a toxicity study of monomeric 

styrene administered to beagle dogs by oral intubation for 19 months. Final Report. Toxicology 

Research Laboratory, Health and Environmental Sciences, DOW Chemical Co., Midland, MI. 

Quast, JF; CG Humiston; CE Wade; et al. 1983. A chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study in 

rats and subchronic toxicity study in dogs on ingested vinylidene chloride. Fundam. Appl. 

Toxicol. 3: 55-62. 

RCC (Research and Consulting Company, Ltd). 1983. Lindane: Subchronic oral dosing (rat) 

study. EPA Pesticide Accession No. 250340. Available from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, 

Washington, DC 20460. 

Robinson, KS; RJ Kavlock; N Chernoff; and LE Gray. 1981. Multi-generation study of 1,2,4-

trichlorobenzene in rats. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health. 8: 489-500. 

Rothman, N; GL Li; M Dosemeci; et al. 1996. Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily 

exposed to benzene. Am. J. Ind. Med. 29: 236-246. 

Sanders, VM; KL White; GM Shopp; and AE Munson. 1985. Humoral and cell-mediated 

immune status of mice exposed to 1,1,2-trichloroethane. Drug Chem. Toxicol. 8(5): 357-372. 

Sanders, VM; KL White; GM Shopp; and AE Munson. 1985. Humoral and cell mediated 

immune status of mice exposed to 1,1,2-trichloroethane. Drug Chem Toxic 8:357-372. White KL, 

Sanders VM, Barnes DW, Shopp GM, Munson AE. 1985. Toxicology of 1,1,2-trichlorethane in 

the mouse. Drug Chem Toxicol. 8: 333-355. 

Schantz, SL; ED Levin; RE Bowman; et al. 1989. Effects of perinatal PCB exposure on 

discrimination-reversal learning in monkeys. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 11: 243-250. 

Schantz, SL; ED Levin; and RE Bowman. 1991. Long-term neurobehavioral effects of perinatal 

polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) exposure in monkeys. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10: 747-756. 

Schroeder, HA; M Mitchener; and AP Nason. 1970. Zirconium, niobium, antimony, vanadium 

and lead in rats: Life term studies. J. Nutr. 100(1): 59-68. 

Schroeder, HA; and M Mitchener. 1975. Life-term studies in rats: Effects of aluminum, barium, 

beryllium and tungsten. J. Nutr. 105(4): 421-427. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 147 

Schwetz, BA; JF Quast; PA Keeler; CG Humiston; and RJ Kociba. 1978. Results of 2-year 

toxicity and reproduction studies on pentachlorophenol in rats. In: Pentachlorophenol: Chemistry, 

Pharmacology and Environmental Toxicology, K.R. Rao, Ed. Plenum Press: New York. p.301. 

 

Serota, D; C Burns; G Burdock; et al. 1983. Subchronic toxicity study in Rats--2,4-

Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D): Project No. 2184-102. Final rept. Unpublished study. 

Received Oct 14, 1983. Unknown admin. no. Prepared by Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc. 

Submitted by 2,4-D Task Force, Washington, DC; CDL:251474-A. (Note – the OW DWCD and 

IRIS cite this study as accession number 251473.) 

Serota, D; AK Thakur; BM Ulland; et al. 1986. A two year drinking water study of 

dichloroethane in rodents. I. Rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 24: 951-958. 

Shalini, S; and MP Bansal. 2006. Alterations in selenium status influences reproductive potential 

of male mice by modulation of transcription factor NFkappaB. Biometals. 

Shapiro, JR. 1983. Report to the surgeon general: by the ad hoc committee on the non-dental 

health effects of fluoride in drinking water. September 26. Based upon discussion and 

recommendation made during a meeting held in Bethesda, MD. April 18-19, 1983. 

Sims, DE; A Singh; A Donald; et al. 1991. Alteration of primate ovary surface epithelium by 

exposure to hexachlorobenzene: A quantitative study. Histol Histopath 6:525-529. 

Smialowicz, RJ; WC Williams; CB Copeland; et al. 2001. The effects of perinatal/juvenile 

heptachlor exposure on adult immune and reproductive system function in rats. Toxicol. Sci. 

61(1): 164-175. 

SRI (Southern Research Institute). 1981. Subchronic Toxicity Report on 

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (C53607) in Fischer-344 rats. Unpublished Report for NTP. 

Stanko, JP; SE Fenton; D Wolf; RR Enoch; C Davis. 2008. Disposition and health effects of 

chlorotriazine metabolites in the pregnant rat and her offspring. Toxicol Sci. In press. 

Stolz, ML; MA Stedham; LK Brown; L Laber; AM El-hawari. 1986. Midwest Research Institute. 

Subchronic (90-day) toxicity of thallium (I) sulfate (cas no. 7446-18-6) in Sprague-Dawley rats. 

Final report. Project no. 8708-L(18). 

Stout, L.; W Ribelin; D Thake; et al. 1984 Chronic Study of Alachlor in Rats and a Risk 

Assessment: Study No. 800218. Unpublished study. Received Feb 28, 1984 under 524-285. 

Submitted by Monsanto Co., Washington, DC. CDL:252496-A; 252497. MRID 00139021. 

Su, YP; JM Tang; et al. 2005. Histological and ultrastructural changes induced by selenium in 

early experimental gastric carcinogenesis. World J. Gastroenterol. 11(29): 4457-4460. 

Tajtakova, M; Z Semanova; et al. 2006. Increased thyroid volume and frequency of thyroid 

disorders signs in schoolchildren from nitrate polluted area. Chemosphere. 62(4): 559-564. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 148 

Thorslund, T.W. 1982. Estimation of the effects of exposure to a carcinogen that fluctuate over 

time on the lifetime risk of cancer death. Draft. Presented at the Pacific Division, AAAS, Annual 

Meeting. 

Til, HP; HR Immel; VJ Feron. 1983. Lifespan oral carcinogenicity study of vinyl chloride in rats. 

Final report. The Netherlands: Civo Institutes. TNO. Report No. V 83.285/291099. TSCATS 

Document FYI-AX-0184-0353. Fiche No. 0353 

Til, HP; VJ Feron; HR Immel. 1991. Lifetime (149-week) oral carcinogenicity study of vinyl 

chloride in rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 29: 713-718. 

Trutter, J. 1986. Rabbit teratology study with methoxychlor, technical grade. Kincaid Enterprise, 

INC. MRID 00159929. Available from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460. 

Trutter, JA. 1995. Two-generation reproductive study in rats with disodium salt of endothall. 

Hazleton Washington, Inc. HWA 153-142 (9/15 93, 6/5/95). DPR Rec: 126192, 50757, 138416. 

MRID 43152101, 43629301. 

Tryphonas, H; S Hayward; L O'Grady; et al. 1989. Immunotoxicity studies of PCB (Aroclor 

1254) in the adult Rhesus (macaca mulatta) monkey-Preliminary report. Int J. Immunopharmacol. 

11: 199-206. 

Tryphonas, H; MI Luster; G Schiffman; et al. 1991a. Effect of chronic exposure of PCB (Aroclor 

1254) on specific and nonspecific immune parameters in the rhesus (Macaca mulatta) monkey. 

Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 16(4): 773-786. 

Tryphonas, H; MI Luster; KL White, et al. 1991b. Effects of PCB (Aroclor 1254) on nonspecific immune parameters in Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) monkeys. Int. J. Immunopharmacol. 13: 

639-648. 

Tseng, WP. 1977. Effects and dose-response relationships of skin cancer and blackfoot disease 

with arsenic. Environ. Health Perspect. 19: 109-119. 

Tseng, WP; HM Chu; SW How; et al. 1968. Prevalence of skin cancer in an endemic area of 

chronic arsenicism in Taiwan. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 40: 453-463. 

Tucker, AN; VM Sanders; DW Barnes; et al. 1982. Toxicology of trichloroethylene in the 

mouse. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 62:351–357. 

UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). 2000. 

Volume II: Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Annex I: Epidemiological Evaluation of Radiationinduced Cancer. United Nations: New York. 

USEPA. 1984. Quantification of Toxicological Effects. Arsenic. Office of Drinking Water. 

PB86-117892. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 149 

USEPA. 1985a. Drinking water criteria document on cadmium. Final draft. Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1985b. Draft for the drinking water criteria document on trichloroethylene. Office of 

Drinking Water: Washington, DC. PB86-118106. 

USEPA. 1985c. Drinking water criteria document on benzene. Final draft. Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. PB86-118122. 

USEPA. 1985d. Drinking water criteria document for fluoride. Final draft. Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. PB86-118163. 

USEPA. 1985e. Drinking Water Criteria Document for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Draft). PB86-

118130. 

USEPA. 1985f. Drinking water criteria document on vinyl chloride. Final draft. Office of 

Drinking Water: Washington, DC. TR-540-162. 

USEPA. 1986a. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Federal Register 51(185): 33992-

34003. 

USEPA. 1986b. Subchronic (90-day) toxicity of thallium sulfate in Sprague- Dawley rats. Office 

of Solid Waste, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1986c. National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; Fluoride; Final 

Rule. Federal Register 51(63): 11396. 

USEPA. 1986d. Drinking water criteria document for di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate. Final draft. 

Office of Drinking Water: Washington, DC. TR -832-93. 

USEPA. 1987a. National primary drinking water regulations- synthetic organic chemicals and 

inorganic chemicals; Monitoring for unregulated contaminants; Final rule. Federal Register 

52(130): 25690. 

USEPA. 1987b. Drinking water criteria document on xylenes. Final draft. Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. ECAO-CIN-416. 

USEPA. 1987c. Peer Review Workshop on Mercury Issues. Summary Report. Environmental 

Criteria and Assessment Office: Cincinnati. October 26-27. 

USEPA. 1987d. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Carbofuran. Oral RfD Assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1987. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0218.htm. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 150 

USEPA. 1987e. Drinking water criteria document for epichlorohydrin. Environmental Criteria 

and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. ECAO-CIN-413. 

USEPA. 1987f. Drinking water criteria document for ethylbenzene. Final draft. Office of 

Drinking Water: Washington, DC. PB89-192173. 

USEPA. 1987g. Drinking water criteria document for acrylamide. Final draft. Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. TR-832-104A. 

USEPA. 1987h. Drinking water criteria document for ethylene dibromide (EDB). Office of 

Drinking Water: Washington, DC. ECAO-CIN-412. 

USEPA. 1987i. Drinking water criteria document for heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, and 

chlordane. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental 

Assessment. ECAO-CIN-406. 

USEPA. 1987j. Quanitification of Toxicological Effects of tetrachloroethylene. Office of 

Drinking Water: Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1987k Drinking water criteria document for 2-(2,4,5- trichlorophenoxy) propionic acid 

(2,4,5-TP). Office of Drinking Water: Washington, DC. ECAO-CIN-419. 

USEPA. 1988a. Quantitative Toxicological Evaluation of Ingested Arsenic. Office of Drinking 

Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1988b. Drinking Water Criteria Document for DCBP. Washington, DC: Criteria and 

standards division, Office of drinking water. 

USEPA. 1988c. Drinking water criteria document for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Final 

draft. Office of Drinking Water: Washington, DC. PB90-215294. 

USEPA. 1988d. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS): 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)propionic 

acid (2,4,5-TP). Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental 

Assessment: Cincinnati. Noncancer assessment verified 1988. Cancer assessment verified 

1987.Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0323.htm. 

USEPA. 1988e. Drinking water criteria document for monochlorobenzene. Office of Drinking 

Water, Washington, DC. PB89192116. 

USEPA. 1988f. Drinking water criteria document for ortho-dichlorobenzenes, 

meta-dichlorobenzenes, and para-dichlorobenzenes. Final draft. Office of Drinking Water: 

Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1988g. Drinking Water Health Advisory Document on Alachlor. Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 151 

USEPA. 1988h. Drinking water criteria document for mercury. Office of Drinking Water, 

Washington, DC. ECAO-C I N-025. 

USEPA. 1988i. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Dichloromethane. Oral RfD 

Assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1985. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0070.htm. 

USEPA. 1988j. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1986. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0065.htm. 

USEPA. 1988k. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Tetrachloroethylene. Oral RfD 

Assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1987. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0106.htm. 

USEPA. 1988l Drinking Water Criteria Document for 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacteic Acid (2,4-D). 

Criteria and standards division, Office of Drinking Water: Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1988m. Drinking water criteria document on lindane. Final draft. Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. ECAO-CIN-402. 

USEPA. 1989a. Integrated risk information system (IRIS): Dalapon. Office of Research and 

Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment: Cincinnati. Verified 1988. 

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0146.htm. 

USEPA. 1989b Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS): Dinoseb oral RfD assessment. Office 

of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment: Cincinnati. 

Verified December 1986. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0047.htm. 

USEPA. 1989c. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Fluoride. Oral RfD assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1985. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0053.htm. 

USEPA. 1989d. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. 

Verified 1988. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0314.htm. 

USEPA. 1989e. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Uranium, Soluble salts. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. 

Verified 1989. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0421.htm. 

USEPA. 1990a. Drinking water criteria document on barium. Office of Drinking Water: 

Washington, DC. TR-1242-62A. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 152 

USEPA. 1990b. Drinking water criteria document for toluene. Environmental Criteria and 

Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment: Cincinnati. ECAO-CIN408. 

USEPA. 1990c. Drinking water criteria document for the dichloroethylenes. Final draft. Office 

of Drinking Water: Washington, DC. PB91143396. 

USEPA. 1990d. Drinking water criteria document on carbofuran. Final draft. Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. TR-1242-59. 

USEPA. 1990e Drinking Water Criteria Document for the Dichloroethylenes (1,1-

dichloroethylene) (cis-1,2-dichloroethylene) (trans-1,2-dichloroethylene). Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1990f. Drinking water criteria document for 1,2-dichloropropane. Office of Drinking 

Water, Washington, DC. ECAO-CIN-404.

USEPA. 1990g. Drinking water criteria document on selenium. Final draft. Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. TR-1242-65. 

USEPA. 1990h. Drinking water criteria document for nitrate/nitrite. Office of Drinking Water: 

Washington, DC. TR-1242-60B. 

USEPA. 1990i. Quantification of Toxicological Effects of tetrachloroethylene. Washington, DC: 

Office of Drinking Water. 

USEPA. 1990j. Drinking water criteria document for chromium. Office of Drinking Water: 

Washington, DC. TR-1242-64A. 

USEPA. 1990k. Drinking water criteria document for the dichloroethylenes. Final draft. Office 

of Drinking Water: Washington, DC. PB91143396. 

USEPA. 1990l. Drinking water criteria document on methoxychlor. Final draft. Office of 

Drinking Water: Washington, DC. PB89-192215. 

USEPA. 1990m. Drinking water criteria document for Uranium. Environmental Criteria and 

Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. PB91143396. 

USEPA. 1990n. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). 1,1,1-Trichloroethane. Cancer 

Assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1987. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0197.htm. 

USEPA. 1990o. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Glyphosate. Oral RfD Assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verification 1986. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0057.htm 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 153 

USEPA. 1990p. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Methoxychlor. Cancer Assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1987. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0369.htm.

USEPA. 1990q. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Styrene. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Verified 

1985. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0104.htm. 

USEPA. 1990r. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Thallium. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/iris. 

USEPA. 1990s. Drinking water criteria document on atrazine. Final draft. Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. 68-CO-006. 

USEPA. 1991a. Drinking Water; National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Monitoring for 

Volatile Organic Chemicals; MCLGs and MCLs for Aldicarb, Aldicarb Sulfoxide, Aldicarb 

Sulfone, Pentachlorophenol, and Barium. Final Rule. Federal Register 56(126): 30266. 

USEPA. 1991b. National primary drinking water regulations—synthetic organic chemicals and 

inorganic chemicals; Monitoring for unregulated contaminants; National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations Implementation; National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. Final Rule. 

Federal Register 56(30): 3526-3597. 

USEPA. 1991c. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Methoxychlor. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Verified 

1990. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0369.htm. 

USEPA. 1991d. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Toxaphene carcinogenicity 

assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0346.htm 

USEPA. 1991e. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Endrin. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Verified 

1988. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0363.htm. 

USEPA. 1991f. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Carbon tetrachloride. Oral RfD 

Assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1985. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0020.htm. 

USEPA. 1991g. Drinking water criteria document for phthalic acid esters (PAES). Final draft. 

Office of Drinking Water: Washington, DC. PB92- 173442. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 154 

USEPA. 1991h. Integrated risk information System (IRIS). 1,2-Dichlorobenzene. Cancer 

Assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1989. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0408.htm. 

USEPA. 1991i. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). 1,2-Dichloroethane. Cancer 

assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1986. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0149.htm. 

USEPA. 1991j. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Ethylbenzene. Cancer assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1987. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0051.htm. 

USEPA. 1991k. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Selenium. Oral RfD Assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1991. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0472.htm. 

USEPA. 1991l. Integrated risk information system (IRIS): Nitrate. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Verified 

1990. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0076.htm. 

USEPA. 1991m. Drinking water criteria document for styrene. Final draft. Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. ECAO-CIN-409. 

USEPA. 1991n. Drinking water criteria document on 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene. Final draft. Office 

of Drinking Water: Washington, DC. PB92173491. Draft 1988, revised 1991. 

USEPA. 1991o. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) for Antimony. Verified 1985. 

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0006.htm. 

USEPA. 1991p. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Heptachlor. Noncancer Assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1987. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0243.htm. 

USEPA. 1991q. Drinking water criteria document for hexachlorobenzene. Final draft. Office of 

Drinking Water: Washington, DC. PB 92-173400. 

USEPA. 1991r. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Carbon tetrachloride. Cancer 

assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1986. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0020.htm. 

USEPA. 1991s. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Chlorobenzene. Cancer assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1990. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0399.htm. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 155 

USEPA. 1991t. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Hexachlorobenzene. Oral RfD 

assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1988. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0374.htm. 

USEPA. 1991u. Drinking water criteria document for beryllium. Criteria and standards division, 

Office of Drinking Water: Washington, DC. ECAO-CIN-0003. 

USEPA. 1991v. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Cyanide. Cancer assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1988. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0031.htm. 

USEPA. 1991w. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Oxamyl. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Verified 

1986. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0181.htm. 

USEPA. 1991y. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS): Endothall. Office of Research and 

Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment: Cincinnati. Verified 1986. 

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0155.htm. 

USEPA. 1991x. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Oral RfD. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1986. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0014.htm. 

USEPA. 1991z. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene. Cancer risk 

assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1988. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0119.htm. 

USEPA. 1991aa. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Acrylamide. Oral RfD Assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1988. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0286.htm. 

USEPA. 1991bb. Drinking water criteria document for hexachlorocyclopentadiene. Criteria and 

standards division, Office of Drinking Water: Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1991cc. Drinking water criteria document for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Final 

draft. Washington;DC: Office of Drinking Water. PB92173459. 

USEPA. 1992a. Drinking water criteria document for Diquat. Criteria and standards division, 

Office of Drinking Water: Washington, DC. PB92-173368. 

USEPA. 1992b. National primary drinking water regulations- synthetic organic chemicals and 

inorganic chemicals; National primary drinking water regulation implementation. Final rule. 

Federal Register 57(138): 31776-31849. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 156 

USEPA. 1992c. Drinking water criteria document for endothall. Criteria and standards division, 

Office of Drinking Water: Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1992d. Drinking water criteria document on glyphosate. Final draft. Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. PB92-1973392. 

USEPA. 1992e. Final drinking water criteria document for oxamyl (vydate). Health and 

Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water. PB92173434. 

USEPA. 1992f. Final drinking water criteria document for picloram. Health and Ecological 

Criteria Division, Office of Water: Washington, DC. January. PB92-173467. 

USEPA. 1992g. Reregistration eligibility document heptachlor. List A. Case 0175. Office of 

Pesticide Programs: Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1992h. Drinking water criteria document for antimony. Office of Drinking Water, 

Washington, DC. PB92-173293. 

USEPA. 1992i. Drinking water criteria document for cyanide. Final draft. Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. PB92-173319. 

USEPA. 1992j. Drinking water criteria document for dalapon. Office of Drinking Water: 

Washington, DC. PB92-173327. 

USEPA. 1992k. Final drinking water criteria document for dinoseb. HECD/OST. Office of 

Drinking Water: Washington, DC. PB92-173350. 

USEPA. 1992l. Drinking water criteria document for Endrin. Final Report. Environmental 

Criteria Assessment Office: Washington, D.C. ECAO-CIN-423. 

USEPA. 1992m. Drinking water criteria document for thallium. Final draft. Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. PB92-173483. 

USEPA. 1992n. Final drinking water criteria document for picloram. Office of Drinking Water: 

Washington, DC. PB92-173467. 

USEPA. 1992o. Drinking water criteria document on simazine. Final draft. Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. PB92-173475. 

USEPA. 1992p. Drinking water criteria document for di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate. Final draft. 

Office of Drinking Water: Washington, DC. PB92-173343. 

USEPA. 1992q. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Cadmium. Cancer Assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1986. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0141.htm. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 157 

USEPA. 1992r. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. 

Verified 1991. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0420.htm. 

USEPA. 1992s. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Picloram. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Verified 

1987. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0420.htm. 

USEPA. 1992t Drinking water criteria document for 1,1,2-Trichloroethane. Office of Drinking 

Water: Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1993a. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Acrylamide. Cancer Assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1988. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0286.htm. 

USEPA. 1993b. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Arsenic. Oral RfD Assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1990. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0278.htm. 

USEPA. 1993c. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Asbestos carcinogenicity assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, 

Washington, DC. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0371.htm. 

USEPA. 1993d. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Cancer 

Assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1987. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0014.htm. 

USEPA. 1993e. Drinking water health advisory. Dichloromethane. Office of Drinking Water: 

Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1993f. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Chlorobenzene. Oral RfD assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, 

Washington, DC. Verified 1989. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0399.htm. 

USEPA. 1993g. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Pentachlorophenol. National Center 

for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. 

Noncancer assessment verified 1985. Cancer assessment verified 1990. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0086.htm. 

USEPA. 1993h. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Glyphosate. Carcinogenicity 

Assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1988. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0057.htm. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 158 

USEPA. 1993i. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Heptachlor. Carcinogenicity 

assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1987. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0057.htm. 

USEPA. 1993j. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Endrin. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Verified 

1988. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0363.htm. 

USEPA. 1993k. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Selenium and compounds. Cancer 

Assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1990. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0472.htm. 

USEPA. 1993l. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Chlorobenzene. Oral RfD assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1989. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0399.htm. 

USEPA. 1993m. Integrated risk information System (IRIS). Atrazine. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0209.htm. 

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1993n. Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS): Dinoseb carcinogenicity assessment. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1987. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0047.htm.

USEPA. 1993o. Integrated risk information System (IRIS). Lead. Cancer assessment. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. 

Verified 1988. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0277.htm. 

USEPA. 1993p. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Cyanide. Oral RfD Assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1985. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0031.htm. 

USEPA. 1993q. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Alachlor. Oral RfD Assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1991. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0129.htm. 

USEPA. 1994a. Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application 

of Inhalation Dosimetry. EPA/600/8-90/066F. October 1994. 

USEPA. 1994b. Revised EPA Methodology for Estimating Radiogenic Cancer Risk. EPA 402-

R-93-076. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 159 

USEPA. 1994c. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Benzo[a]pyrene. Cancer assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1991. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0136.htm. 

USEPA. 1994d. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Cadmium. Oral RfD Assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1988. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0141.htm. 

USEPA. 1994e. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate. Cancer 

Assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1991. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0420.htm. 

USEPA. 1994f. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS): Hexachlorocyclopentadiene. 

Cincinnati, OH: Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental 

Assessment. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0059.htm. 

USEPA. 1994g. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS): 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

carcinogenicity assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research 

and Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1986. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0198.htm. 

USEPA. 1994h. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS): Epichlorohydrin. National Center 

for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Verified 

1986. Available at: http://epa.gov/iris/subst/0050.htm. 

USEPA. 1994i. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Polychlorinated biphenyls. Cancer 

assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1996. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0294.htm. 

USEPA. 1994j. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Simazine. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Verified 

1991. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0263.htm. 

USEPA. 1994k. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Polychlorinated biphenyls. Oral RfD 

assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0294.htm. 

USEPA. 1995a. Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) for diquat dibromide. Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances: Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1995b. Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) picloram. Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides and Toxic Substances: Washington, DC. August. EPA738-R95-019. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 160 

USEPA. 1995c. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Dichloromethane. Cancer Assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1989. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0070.htm. 

USEPA 1995d. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS): Diquat. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Verified 

1986. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0153.htm. 

USEPA. 1995e. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Mercuric chloride. Noncancer 

Assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1988. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0692.htm. 

USEPA. 1995f. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Mercury. Cancer Assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1994. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0370.htm. 

USEPA. 1995g. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS): 1,1,2-Trichloroethane. Oral RfD 

assessment. Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental 

Assessment: Cincinnati. Verified 1988. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0198.htm. 

USEPA. 1995h. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS): Cis-1,2-dichloroethylene. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. 

Verified 1989. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0418.htm. 

USEPA. 1996a. Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Federal Register 

61(79):17960-18011. EPA/600/P-92/003C. 

USEPA. 1996b. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene. Oral RfD 

assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1991. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0119.htm. 

USEPA. 1996c. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Aroclor 1016. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Verified 

1992. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0462.htm. 

USEPA. 1996d. Drinking water health advisory: Toxaphene. Office of Drinking Water: 

Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1996e. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Hexachlorobenzene. Cancer 

Assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Verified 1989. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0374.htm. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 161 

USEPA. 1996f. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Aroclor 1254. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Verified 

1994. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0389.htm. 

USEPA. 1997a. Mercury Study Report to Congress; Volume V: Health Effects of Mercury and 

Mercury Compounds. EPA Report 452/R-97-007. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Office of Research and Development, December 1997. 

USEPA. 1997b. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Polychlorinated biphenyls. Cancer 

assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0294.htm. 

USEPA. 1998a. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Toxicological review of Hexavalent 

Chromium in support of summary information. National Center for Environmental Assessment, 

Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0144-tr.pdf. 

USEPA. 1998b. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Toxicological review of Trivalent 

Chromium in support of summary information. National Center for Environmental Assessment, 

Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0028-tr.pdf. 

USEPA. 1998c. Integrated risk information system (IRIS): Chlordane. Office of Research and 

Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment: Cincinnati. Agency Consensus 

Date 1997. Available at: http://epa.gov/iris/subst/0142.htm. 

USEPA. 1998d. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Alachlor. Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. EPA 738-R-98-020. December. 

USEPA. 1998e. Integrated risk information system (IRIS): Barium and compounds. Office of 

Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment: Cincinnati. Agency 

Consensus Date 1998. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0010.htm. 

USEPA. 1998f. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Toxicological review of beryllium 

and compounds. Noncancer. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research 

and Development: Washington, DC. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0012-tr.pdf. 

USEPA. 1998g. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS): 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid. 

Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment: 

Cincinnati. Verified 1986. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0150.htm. 

USEPA. 1998h. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Arsenic. Cancer Assessment. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. Verified 1994. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0278.htm. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 162 

USEPA. 1998i. Toxicological review of barium compounds. In support of summary information 

on the integrated risk information system (IRIS). Revised 2005. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0010-tr.pdf. 

USEPA. 1999a. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Review draft. NCEA-F-0644, July 

1999. 

USEPA. 1999b. Estimating Radiogenic Cancer Risks, Addendum: Uncertainty Analysis. EPA 

402-R-99-003. 

USEPA. 1999c. Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environment Exposure to Radionuclides, Federal 

Guidance Report No.13. EPA 402-R-99-001. 

USEPA. 2000a. Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance Document. External Review Draft. 

EPA/630/R-00/001. 

USEPA. 2000b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides; Final Rule. 

Federal Register 65(236): 76708. 

USEPA. 2000c. Interim reregistration eligibility decision (IRED): Oxamyl. Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides and Toxic Substances: Washington, DC. EPA-738-R-00-015. 

USEPA. 2000d. Toxicological review of vinyl chloride (CAS No. 75-01-4). In Support of 

Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). EPA/635R-00/004. 

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/1001-tr.pdf. 

USEPA. 2000e. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Benzene. Cancer assessment and 

Support Documents. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Agency Consensus Date 2000. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0276.htm. 

USEPA. 2000f. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides; Notice of Data 

Availability; Proposed Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 78, p. 21576. April 21, 2000. 

USEPA. 2000g. Technical Support Document for the Radionuclides Notice of Data Availability. 

Draft. March. 

USEPA. 2000h. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Human Health. 

USEPA. 2001a. Toxicology Disciplinary Chapter for the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility 

Decision (TRED) Document: Toxicology Chapter for Diquat Dibromide. Health Effects 

Division: Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances: Washington, DC. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 163 

USEPA. 2001b. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Toxicological review of 

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0059-tr.pdf. 

USEPA. 2001c. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications to 

Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Final Rule. Federal Register 66(14): 

6975-6976. January 22, 2001. 

USEPA. 2001d. Trichloroethylene Health Risk Assessment: Synthesis and Characterization. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: 

Washington, DC. EPA/600/P-01/002A. 

USEPA. 2001e. Implementation of the determinations of a common mechanism of toxicity for 

N-methyl carbamate pesticides and for certain chloroacetanilide pesticides. Memo from Marcia 

Mulkey, OPP, July 12. 

USEPA. 2001f. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST): Radionuclide Slope 

Factors. Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/heast/index.html. 

USEPA. 2002a. Protocol for the Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations. Draft. March. EPA Report 815-D-02-004. 

USEPA. 2002b. Announcement of the results of EPA’s review of existing drinking water 

standards and request for public comment; proposed rule. Federal Register 67(74): 19030. 

USEPA. 2002c. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes. 

EPA/630/P-02/002F. December. 

USEPA. 2002d. Glyphosate in/on pasture and rangeland grasses, Roundup Ready® wheat, and 

nongrass animal feeds. Health Effects Division (HED) Risk Assessment. PP#s 0F06130, 

0F06195, and 0F06273. Barcode D280831. PC Codes 103601 & 417300. Case 292955. 

Submission S579658. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. 

USEPA. 2002e. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). 1, 1-Dichloroethylene. Noncancer 

and Cancer. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development: Washington, DC. Consensus date 2002. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0039.htm. 

USEPA. 2002f. Toxicological review of 1,1-dichloroethylene (CAS No. 75-35-4) in support of 

summary information on the integrated risk information system (IRIS). National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. 

EPA/635/R02/002. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0039-tr.pdf. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 164 

USEPA. 2002g. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Lindane. Case 315. September 25, 

2002. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 

USEPA. 2002h. National primary drinking water regulations; announcement of the results of 

EPA's review of existing drinking water standards and request for public comment. Federal 

Register 67(74):19029-19090. April 17. Available at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

USEPA. 2002i. Determination of the Appropriate FQPA Safety Factor(s) in Tolerance 

Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs: Washington, 

DC. 

USEPA. 2003a. Protocol for the Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations. Final. EPA Report 815-R-03-002. 

USEPA. 2003b. Announcement of completion of EPA’s review of existing drinking water 

standards. Federal Register 68(138): 42908. 

USEPA. 2003c. Six-Year Review—Chemical Contaminants—Health Effects Technical Support 

Document. Final. EPA 822-R-03-008. 

USEPA. 2003d. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Toxicological review of Xylenes. 

Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of 

Research and Development: Washington, DC. Available at; 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0270-tr.pdf. 

USEPA. 2003e. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human 

Health. Fed .Reg. 68(250): 75507-75515. 

USEPA. 2003f. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Benzene. Noncancer assessment. 

Washington, DC: National Center for Environmental Assessment. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0276.htm. 

USEPA. 2003g.Toxicological Review of the Dichlorobenzenes. In support of Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS). External Review Draft. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. EPA/635/R-03/015. 

Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=56800. 

USEPA. 2003h. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pDioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds. NAS Review Draft. Available at: 

www.epa.gov/ncea/dioxin. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 165 

USEPA. 2004a. Toxicological Review of 1,2-Dibromoethane. In support of the summary 

information on the integrated risk information system (IRIS). Ethylene Dibromide. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC. 

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0361-tr.pdf. 

USEPA. 2004b. Human risk characterization. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic 

Substances. OPP-2004-0402-0012. 

USEPA. 2004c. Drinking water health advisory for oxamyl. September. EPA-822-B-04-002. 

USEPA. 2005a. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, 

DC. EPA/630/P-03/001B. 

USEPA. 2005b. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure 

to Carcinogens. EPA/630/R-03/003F. 

USEPA. 2005c. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Toxicological review of barium and 

compounds. Noncancer assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of 

Research and Development: Washington, DC. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0010-tr.pdf. 

USEPA. 2005d. Reregistration eligibility document 2,4-D. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and 

Toxic Substances, Washington, DC. EPA 738-R-05-002. 

USEPA. 2005e. Endothall: HED Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document 

(RED). Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. PC Code: PC038901, PC038904, 

and PC038905, Case #: 2245, DP Barcode: D315244. 

USEPA. 2005f. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Toxicological Review of Toluene 

(CAS No. 108-88-3). In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS). EPA/635/R-05/004. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0118-

tr.pdf. 

USEPA. 2005g. Reregistration eligibility decision for endothall. Office of Prevention, Pesticides 

and Toxic Substances, Washington DC. EPA 738-R-05-008. September 2005. 

USEPA. 2005h. Toxicological review of inorganic arsenic in Support of Summary Information 

on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). USEPA Office of Water. July 2005. IRIS 

review draft for the Science Advisory Board (SAB). Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/arsenic/sab/AsDraft_SAB.pdf. 

USEPA. 2006a. Atrazine: Finalization of interim reregistration eligibility decision and 

completion of tolerance reassessment and reregistration eligibility process. Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides and Prevention. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 166 

USEPA. 2006b. Modifying EPA Radiation Risk Models Based on BEIR VII. White Paper (draft 

August 1, 2006). Office of Radiation and Indoor Air: Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2006c Acetochlor/ Alachlor: Cumulative Risk Assessment for the Chloroacetanilides. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. March. 

USEPA. 2006d. Lindane; Cancellation Order. Office of Pesticide Programs. Federal Register 

71(239): 74905-74907. December 13, 2006. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPAPEST/2006/December/Day-13/p21101.htm. 

USEPA. 2006e. Carbofuran. Interim reregistration eligibility decision (RED) Document. Office 

of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. EPA-738-R-06-031. 

USEPA. 2006f. Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) for simazine. Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides and Toxic Substances. EPA 738-R-06-008. 

USEPA. 2006g. Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Alachlor. Office of Prevention, Pesticides 

and Toxic Substances, Washington DC. EPA 738-R-98-020. 

USEPA. 2006h. Addendum to the 2002 Lindane Reregistration Eligibility Decision. Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. USEPA 738-R-06-026. 

USEPA. 2006i. Drinking water criteria document for free cyanide. External Review Draft. 

Washington, DC: Office of Drinking Water. November. 

USEPA. 2006j. Sodium cyanide revised HED risk assessment for tolerance reassessment 

eligibility decision (TRED) Document PC Code No. 074002; DP Barcode No. 318015. July 10. 

Office of Pesticide Programs Memo supporting EPA-738-R-05-005. 

USEPA. 2007a. Gross Alpha Health Review Summary, in support of the Six Year II Review. 

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. March. 

USEPA. 2007b. Beta/Photon Health Review Summary, in support of the Six Year II Review. 

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. March. 

USEPA. 2007c Radium Health Review Summary, in support of the Six Year II Review. Office 

of Radiation and Indoor Air. March. 

USEPA. 2007d Report of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment 

Progress and Risk Management Decision (TRED) Glyphosate. Office of Pesticide Programs. 

USEPA. 2007e. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). Toxicological Review of 1,1,1-

Trichloroethane. EPA/635/R-03/013. USEPA, Washington, DC. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0197-tr.pdf. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 167 

USEPA. 2007f. Toxicological Review of cis/trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene in support of Integrated 

Risk Information System (IRIS). (In Progress). Washington, DC: National Center for 

Environmental Assessment. 

USEPA. 2007g. Toxicological Review of Pentachlorophenol in Support of Summary 

Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). (In Progress). National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2007h. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS); Announcement of 2008 Program; 

Notice. Federal Register. Vol. 72, No. 245. p. 72715, December 21, 2007. 

USEPA. 2008a. Toxicological Review of Thallium and Compounds. In Support of Summary 

Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). External Review Draft. January 

2008. Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=188304. 

USEPA. 2008b. Toxicological review of carbon tetrachloride (CAS No. 56-23-5) in support of 

summary information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. Agency Review Draft. EPA/635/R-08/005A. 

Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=119546. 

USEPA. 2009a. EPA Protocol for the Second Six Year Review of Existing National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations (Updated). 2009. 

USEPA. 2009b. Toxicological Review of Thallium and Compounds. In Support of Summary 

Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). September 30, 2009. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/1012-tr.pdf. 

USEPA. 2009c. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public Meeting. Federal Register. 

Vol. 74, No. 93. p. 51593, October 7, 2009. 

USEPA. 2009d. Carbofuran; Final Tolerance Revocations; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 74, 

No. 93. p. 23046, May 15, 2009. 

Velsicol Chemical Corporation. 1969. MRID 00030198. Available from EPA. Write FOI, EPA, 

Washington, DC. 20460. 

Vorhees, CV; RE Butcher; RL Bnunner; and V Wootlen. 1984. Developmental toxicity and 

psychotoxicity of sodium nitrite in rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 22(1): 116. 

Walton, G. 1951. Survey of literature relating to infant methemoglobinemia due to nitratecontaminated water. Am. J. Public Health. 41: 986-996. 

White, KL, Jr.; VM Sanders; and VW Barnes. 1985. Toxicology of 1,1,2-trichloroethane in the 

mouse. Drug Chem. Toxicol. 8(5): 333-355. 

WHO (World Health Organization). 1984. Guidelines for drinking water quality. Volume I. 

Recommendation. World Health Organization: Geneva. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 168 

WHO. 2001. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 

78, Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Some Internally Deposited Radionuclides. World Health 

Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Press: Lyon (France). 

WHO. 2003a. Antimony in drinking-water. Background document for development of WHO 

Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/74. 

WHO. 2003b. Atrazine in drinking water. Background document for development if WHO 

guidelines drinking water quality. WHO/SDE/ WSH/03.04/32. 

WHO. 2003c. 1,2-Dichloropropane (1,2-DCP) in Drinking-water: Background document for 

development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/61. 

WHO. 2003d. Selenium in drinking-water: Background document for development of WHO 

guidelines for drinking-water quality. Geneva. WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/13. 

WHO. 2003e. Xylenes in Drinking-water. Background document for development of WHO 

Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Geneva. WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/25. 

WHO. 2003f 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane in Drinking-water. Background document for 

development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. 

WHO. 2003e. Simazine in drinking water. Background document for development if WHO 

guidelines drinking water quality. WHO/SDE/ WSH/03.04/42. 

WHO. 2004a. Barium in drinking water. Background document for development of WHO 

guidelines for drinking-water quality. WHO/SDE/03.04/76. 

WHO. 2004b Diquat in drinking-water: Background document for development of WHO 

guidelines for drinking-water quality. Geneva. 

WHO. 2004c Endrin in drinking-water: Background document for development of WHO 

Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Geneva. WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/91. 

WHO. 2004d. Epichlorohydrin in Drinking Water. Background Document for the Development 

of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. 

WHO. 2004e. 1,2-Dibromoethane in drinking-water: Background document for development of 

WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Geneva. WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/66. 

WHO. 2004f. Heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide in drinking-water: Background document for 

development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Geneva. 

WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/99. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 169 

WHO. 2004g. Lindane in drinking-water: Background document for development of WHO 

Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Geneva. WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/102. 

WHO. 2004h. Methoxychlor in drinking-water: Background document for development of 

WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Geneva. WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/105. 

WHO. 2004i. Monochlorobenzene in drinking-water: Background document for development of 

WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Geneva. WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/107. 

WHO. 2004j. Toluene in drinking water. Background Document for the Development of WHO 

Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. 

WHO. 2004k 1,1-Dichloroethene in Drinking Water. Background Document for the 

Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. WHO/SDE/WSH/05.08/20. 

WHO. 2004l. Rolling Revision of the WHO Guidelines Drinking Water Quality Draft for 

Review and Comments: Nitrates and Nitrites in Drinking Water. July. 

WHO/SDE/WSH/04.08/56. 

WHO. 2007. Nitrates and nitrites in drinking water. Background document for the development 

of WHO guidelines for drinking-water quality. WHO/SDE/WSH/07.01/16 

Witherup, S; FP Cleveland; FG Shaffer; H Schlecht; and L Musen. 1955. The physiological 

effects of the introduction of heptachlor into the diet of experimental animals in varying levels of 

concentration. Unpublished report from the Kettering Lab to Velsicol Corporation, August 17. 

MRID No. 00062599. 

Wolf, MA; VK Rowe; and DD McCollister. 1956. Toxicological studies of certain alkylated 

benzenes and benzene. AMAS Arch. Ind. Health. 14: 387-398. 

Wolff, J; and JR Maurey. 1963. Thyroidal iodide transport. IV. The role of ion size. Biochem. 

Biophys. Acta. 69: 58-67. 

Wones, RG; BL Stadler; and LA Frohman. 1990. Lack of effect of drinking water barium on 

cardiovascular risk factor. Environ. Health. Perspect. 85: 355-9. 

Yang, G; S Wang; R Zhou; and S Sun. 1983. Endemic selenium intoxication of humans in china. 

American J. Clin. Nutr. 37:351-357. 

Yang, G; S Yin; R Zhou; et al. 1989. Studies of safe maximal daily dietary Se-intake in a 

seleniferous area in China. II. Relation between Se- intake and the manifestation of clinical signs 

and certain biochemical alterations in blood and urine. J. Trace Elem. Electrolytes Health Dis. 

3(2): 123-130. 
Six-Year Review 2 SUMMARY REPORT (FINAL) October 2009 

Health Effects Assessment Page 170 

Yonemura, T; F Takeamura; and Y Takahashi. 1983. Thirty-month chronic toxicity and 

tumorigenicity test in rats by chlordane technical. Unpublished study. Research Institute for 

Animal Science in Biochemistry and Toxicology, Japan. Chicago, IL. Accession N. 252267. 

Zaki, A; A Ait Chaoui; et al. 2004. Impact of nitrate intake in drinking water on the thyroid 

gland activity in male rat. Toxicol. Lett. 147(1): 27-33.