# Update of Human Health Ambient Water Quality Criteria: Trichloroethylene (TCE) 79- 01 -6 Office of Water Office of Science and Technology EPA 820 -R- 15

- 06 6 June 2015EPA 820 -R- 15

- 06 6 June 2015



# Update of Human Health Ambient Water Quality Criteria: Trichloroethylene (TCE) 79

- 01 -6

Office of Science and Technology Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 2046TCE 79

- 01 -6

Table of Contents
1 Introduction: Background and Scope of Update

..................................................................... 2 2 Problem Formulation

............................................................................................................... 3 3 Criteria Formulas: Analysis Plan

.............................................................................................. 4 4 Exposure Factors

..................................................................................................................... 5 4.1 Body Weight

.................................................................................................................. 5 4.2 Drinking Water Intake

................................................................................................... 6 4.3 Fish Consumption Rate

................................................................................................ . 6 4.4 Bioaccumulation Factor

................................................................................................ 7 4.4.1 Approach

......................................................................................................... 7 4.4.2 Chemical

- specific BAFs

.................................................................................... 9 5 Hazard Identification and Dose Response

............................................................................. 10 5.1 Approach

..................................................................................................................... 10 5.2 Chemical

- specific Toxicity Value

................................................................................. 11 5.2.1 Reference Dose

.............................................................................................. 11 5.2.2 Cancer Slope Factor

....................................................................................... 12 6 Relative Source Contribution

................................................................................................ . 13 6.1 Approach

..................................................................................................................... 13 6.2 Chemical

- specific RSC

................................................................................................ . 14 7 Criteria Derivation: Analysis

.................................................................................................. 14 7.1 AWQC for Noncarcinogenic Toxicological Effects

...................................................... 15 7.2 AWQC for Carcinogenic Toxicological Effects

............................................................. 16 7.3 AWQC Summary

......................................................................................................... 16 8 Criteria Characterization

........................................................................................................ 17 9 Chemical Name and Synonyms

............................................................................................. 19 10 References

............................................................................................................................. 20

1TCE 79

- 01 -6

1 Introduction: Background and Scope of Update EPA’s recommended ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) for human health are scientifically derived numeric values that EPA has determined wil l adequately protect human health from the adverse effects of pollutants in ambient water. Section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to develop and publish, and from time to time revise, recommended criteria for the protection of water qu ality that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge. Water quality criteria developed under section 304(a) are based solely on data and scientific judgments on the relationship between pollutant concentrations and environmental and human health e ffects. Section 304(a) criteria do not reflect consideration of economic impacts or the technological feasibility of meeting pollutant concentrations in ambient water. EPA’s recommended section 304(a) criteria provide technical information for states and
a uthorized tribes a to consider and use in adopting water quality standards that ultimately provide the basis for assessing water body health and controlling discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States. Under the CWA and its implementing regulations, states and authorized tribes are required to adopt water quality criteria to protect the designated uses of waters (e.g., public water supply, aquatic life, recreational use, industrial use). EPA’s recommended water quality criteria do not substitut e for the CWA or regulations, nor are they regulations themselves. Thus, EPA’s recommended criteria do not impose legally binding requirements. States and authorized tribes may adopt, where appropriate, other scientifically defensible water quality criteri a that differ from these recommendations. The water quality criteria that are the subject of this document are national AWQC recommendations for human health issued under CWA section 304(a). Unless expressly indicated otherwise, all references to “criteria,” “water quality criteria,” “ambient water quality criteria recommendations,” or similar variants thereof are references to national AWQC recommendations for human health. In this 2015 update, EPA has revised the human health criteria for trichloroethylene (TCE) to reflect the latest scientific information, including updated exposure fa ctors (body weight [BW], drinking water intake [DI] rate, and fish consumption rate [FCR]), bioaccum ulation factors (BAFs), and human health toxicity value s ( reference dose [RfD] multiplied by relative source contribution [RSC] or 10 -6 divided by cancer slope factor [CSF]). Th e criteria continue to be based on EPA’s Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health , which is referred to as the “2000 Methodology” in this document (USEPA 2000a) . EPA accepted written scientific views from the public on the draft updated human health criteria for this chemical (and 93 others) from May t hrough August 201 4.

a Throughout this document, the term states means the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virg in Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The term authorized tribe or tribe means an Indian tribe authorized for treatment in a manner similar to a state under CWA s ection 518 for the purposes of s ection 303(c) water quality standards

.

2TCE 79

- 01 -6

I t is important for s tates and authorized tribes to consider any new or updated section 304(a) recommended criteria as part of their triennial review process to ensure that state or tribal water quality standards reflect current science and protect applicable designated uses. These final 2015 updated section 304(a) human health criteria recommendations supersede EPA’s previous recommendations.

2 Problem Formulati on Problem formulation provides a strategic framework for water quality criteria development by focusing on the most relevant endpoints and increasing the transparency of the effects assessment. The structure of this criteria document is intended to be con sistent with general concepts of effects assessments as described in EPA’s Framework for Human Health Risk Assessment to Inform Decision Making (USEPA 2014a)

. In developing AWQC, EPA currently follows the assessment method outlined in its 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a)

. The 2000 Methodology describes different approaches for addressing water and non

- water exposure pathways to derive human health AWQC depending on the toxicological endpoint of concern, the toxicological effect (non carcinogenic or carcinogenic ), and whether toxicity is considered a linear or threshold effect. Water sources of exposure include both consuming drinking water and eat ing fish or shellfish from inland and nearshore waters that have been exposed to pollutants in the water body

. For pollutants that exhibit a threshold of exposure before deleterious effects occur, as is the case for noncarcinogens and nonlinear carcinogens , EPA applies an RSC to account for other potential human exposures to the pollutant (USEPA 2000a)

. Other sources of exposure m ight include, but are not limited to, exposure to a particular pollutant from ocean fish or shellfish consumption (which is not included in the FCR ), non

- fish food consumption (e.g., consumption of fruits, vegetables, grains , meats, or poultry ), dermal exposure, and inhalation exposure.
For substances for which the toxic ity endpoint is carcinogenicity based on a linear low

- dose extrapolation, onl y the exposures from drinking water and fish ingestion are reflected in human health AWQC; that is , non
- water sources are not explicitly included and no RSC is applied (USEPA 2000a) . In these situations, AWQC are derived with respect to the incremental lifetime
cancer risk posed by the pres ence of a substance in water, rather than an individual’s total risk from all sources of exposure. The resulting criterion represent s the water concentration that is expected to increase an individual’s lifetime risk of ca ncer from exposure to the particular pollutant by no more than one chance in one million for the general population. EPA calculates AWQC at a 10 -6 (one in one million) cancer risk level for the general population (USEPA 2000a)

. The 2000 Methodology recommends that states set human health criter ia cancer risk levels for the target general population at either 10 -5 or 10 - 6 and also notes that states and authorized t ribes can choose a more stringent risk level, such as 10 -7

. For substances that are carcinogenic, EPA takes an integrated approach and considers both cancer and n oncancer effects when deriving AWQC (USEPA 2000a; USEPA 2000b)

. Where sufficient data are available, EPA derives AWQC using both c arcinogenic and noncarcinogenic toxicity endpoints and recommends the lower value fo r the AWQC. The AWQC might not utilize

3TCE 79

- 01 -6

the value obtained from the cancer analysis if it is less protective than that derived from the noncancer endpoint

. 3 Criteria Formulas : Analysis Plan
Human health AWQC for toxic pollutants are necessary to protect any designated uses related to ingestion of water and ingestion of aquatic organisms. These uses can include, but are not limited to, recreation in and on the water, consumption of fish or shellfish (including consumption associated with fishing or shellfish harvesting), and protection of drinking water supplies.
The derivation of human hea lth AWQC requires information about both the toxicological endpoints of concern for water pollutants and the pathways of human exposure to those pollutants. EPA considers the following two primary pathways of human exposure to pollutants present in a parti cular water body when deriving human health 304(a) AWQC: (1) d irect ingestion of drinking water obtained from the water body and (2) c onsumption of fish or shellfish obtained from the water body. The equations for deriving human health AWQC for non carcinog enic effects and carcinogenic effects are presented as Eq s . 1 and 2. EPA d erives recommended human health AWQC based on the consumption of both water and aquatic organisms (Eq

. 1) and based on the consumption of aquatic organisms alone (Eq

. 2). The use of one criterion over the other depends on the designated use of a particular water body or water bodies (i.e., drinking water source and/or fishable waters). EPA recommends applying organism

- only AWQC (Eq. 2) to a water bod y where the designated use includes supporting fishable uses under section 101(a) of the CWA but the water body is not a drinking water supply source (e.g., non

- potable estuarine waters that support fish or shellfish for human consumption) (USEPA 2000a)

. EPA recommends inclu ding the drinking water exposure pathway for ambient surface waters where drinking water is a designated use for the following reasons: (1) drinking water is a designated use for surface waters under the CWA , and therefore criteria are needed to en sure that this designated use can be protected and maintained; (2) although they are rare, some public water supplies provide drinking water from surface water sources without treatment; (3) even among the majority of water supplies that do treat surface waters, existing treatments
m ight not be effective for reducing levels of particular contaminants; and (4) in consideration of the Agency’s goals of pollution prevention, ambient waters should not be contaminated to a level where the burden of achieving health objectives is shifted away from those responsible for pollutant discharges and placed on downstream users that must bear the costs of upgraded or supplemental water treatment (USEPA 2000a)

.

4TCE 79

- 01 -6

The equations for deriving the criteria values are as follows (USEPA 2000a) : For consumption of water and organisms: AWQC (μg/L) = toxicity value (mg/kg -d) × BW (kg) × 1 , 000 ( μg/mg ) b (E q. 1) DI (L/d) + ∑ (FCR i (kg/d) × BAF i (L/kg)) 4 i=2 For consumption of organisms only: AWQC (μg/L) = toxicity value (mg/kg -d) × BW (kg) × 1 , 000 ( μg/mg ) c (Eq. 2) ∑ (FCR i (kg/d) × BAF i (L/kg))

4 i=2 Where: A WQC = ambient water quality criteria toxicity value = RfD x RSC ( mg/kg

- d) for non carcinogenic effects
or 10 -6 /CSF ( kg

- d/mg) for carcinogenic effects d RSC = relative source contribution (applicable to only noncarcinogenic and nonlinear low

- dose extrapolation for carcinogenic effects) BW = body weight DI = drinking water intake ∑ 4

i=2 = summation of values for aquatic trophic levels (TLs), where the letter i stands for the TLs to be considered, starting with TL2 and proceeding to TL4 FCR i = fish consumption rate for aquatic TLs 2, 3, and 4 BAF i = bioaccumulation factor for aquatic TLs 2, 3, and 4 EPA rounds AWQC to the number of significant figures in the least precise parameter as described in the 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a , s ection 2.7.3).

4 Exposure Factors
4.1 Body Weight EPA updated the default BW assumption to 80 .0 kg based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1999 to 2006 as reported in Table 8.1 of EPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 2011a) . The updated BW represents the mean weight for adults ages 21 and older. EPA’s previously recommended BW assumption for adults was 70 kg, which was based on the mean BW of adults from the NHANES III database (1988

– 1994) and a 1989 study conducted by the National Cancer Institute (USEPA 2000a)

.

b 1,000 μg/mg is used to convert the units of mass from milligrams to micrograms.

c 1,000 μg/mg is used to convert the units of mass from milligrams to micrograms. d 10 -6 or 1 in 1,000,000 risk level for the general p opulation.

5TCE 79

- 01 -6

4.2 Drinking Water Intake
EPA updated the default DI to 2.4 L/d, rounded from 2.414 L/ d, based on NHANES data from 2003 to 200 6 as reported in EPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 2011a , Table 3

- 23)

. This rate repre sents the per capita estimate of combined direct and indirect community water e ingestion at the 90 th percentile for adults ages 21 and older

. EPA selected the per capita rate for the updated DI because it represents the average daily dose estimates ; that is, it includes both people who drank water during the survey period and those who did not , which is appropriate for a national

- scale assessment such as CWA section 304(a) national human health criteria development (USEPA 2011a, section 3.2.1 ).
EPA’s updated DI of 2.4 L/ d is consistent with the 2000 Methodology . In that document, EPA recommended a default DI of 2 L/d , which represented the per capita community water ingestion rate at the 86 th percentile for adults surveyed in the U .S. Department of Agriculture’s 1994

– 1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) analysis (USEPA 2000 a , section 4.3.2.1 ).

4.3 Fish Consumption Rate
The updated FCR for the general adult population is 22.0 g/d, or 0.0220 kg/d (USEPA 2014b , Table 9a ). This FCR represents the 90 th percentile per capita consumption rate of fish from inland and nearshore waters for U.S. adults ages 21 years and older based on NHANES data from 2003

– 2010. The 95 percent confidence interval (CI) of the 90 th percentile per capita FCR is 19.1 g/d and 25.4 g/d. This updated FCR replaces EPA’s previously recommended default FCR of 17.5 g/d, which represented an estimate of the 90 th percentile per capita consumption rate of fish from inland and nearshore waters for U.S. adults ages 21 years and older. That default FCR was based on USDA’s CSFII 1994

– 1996 data (USEPA 2002a)

. As recommended in the 2000 Methodology, EPA updated the AWQC to reflect trophic level - ( TL

- ) specific FCRs to better represent human dietary consumption of fish. An organism’s trophic positi on in the aquatic food web can have an important effect on the magnitude of bioaccumulation of certain chemicals. The TL

- specific FCRs are numbered 2, 3, and 4, and they account for different categories of fish and shellfish species based on their position in the aquatic food web: TL2 accounts for benthic filter feeders; TL3 accounts for forage fish; and TL4 accounts for predatory fish (USEPA 2000a)

. EPA used the following TL

- specific FCRs to derive the updated AWQC: TL2 = 7.6 g/d (0.0076 kg/d ) (95 percent CI [6.4, 9.1] g/d ); TL3 = 8.6 g/d (0.0086 kg/d) (95 percent CI [7.2, 10.2] g/d ) ; and TL4 = 5 .1 g/d (0.005 1 kg/d) (95 percent CI [4.0, 6.4] g/d )

. Each TL

- specific FCR represent s the 90 th percentile per capita consumption rate of fish and shellfish from inland and nearshore waters from that particular TL for U.S. adult s ages 21 years and older (USEPA 2014b ,

e Community water includes direct and indirect use of tap water for household uses and excludes bottled water and other sources (USEPA 2011a, section 3.3.1.2 ). Direct ingestion is defined as direct consumption of water as a beverage, while indirect ingestion includes water added during food preparation (e.g., cooking, rehydration of beverages) but not water intrinsic to purchased foods (USEPA 2011a, section 3.1 ).

6TCE 79

- 01 -6

Tables 16a, 17a, and 18a ) . The sum of these three TL

- specific FCRs is 21.3 g/d, which is within the 95 percent CI of the overall FCR of 22.0 g/d. EPA recommends using the TL

- spec ific FCRs when deriving AWQC; however, the overall FCR rate (22.0 g/d) may be used if a simplified approach is preferred.

4.4 Bioaccumulation Factor
4.4.1 Approach Several attributes of the bioaccumulation process are important to understand when deriving national BAFs for use in developing national recommended section 304(a) AWQC. First, the term bioaccumulation refers to the uptake and retention of a chemical by an aquatic organism from all surrounding media, such as water, food, and sediment. The term bioconcentra tion refers to the uptake and retention of a chemical by an aquatic organism from water only. For some chemicals (particularly those that are highly persistent and hydrophobic), the magnitude of bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms can be substantially gre ater than the magnitude of bioconcentration. Thus, an assessment of bioconcentration alone might underestimate the extent of accumulation in aquatic biota for those chemicals. Accordingly, the EPA guidelines presented in the 2000 Methodology emphasize usin g, when possible, measured or estimated BAFs, which account for chemical accumulation in aquatic organisms from all potential exposure routes (USEPA 2000a)

. EPA estimated BAFs for this updated AWQC using EPA’s 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a) and its Technical Support Document, Volume 2: Development of National Bioaccumulation Factors (Technical Support Document, Volume 2) (USEPA 2003a) . Specifically, these documents provide a framework for identifying alternative procedures to derive national TL

- specific BAFs for a chemical based on the chemical’s properties (e.g., ionization and hydrophobicity), metabolism, and biomagnification potential (USEPA 2000a; USEPA 2003a)

. EPA’s approach for developing national BAFs represents the long

- term average bioaccumulation potential of a pollutant in aq uatic organisms that are commonly consumed by humans across the United States. National BAFs are not intended to reflect fluctuations in bioaccumulation over short periods (e.g., a few days) because human health AWQC are generally designed to protect humans from long

- term (lifetime) exposures to waterborne chemicals (USEPA 2003a)

. EPA followed the approach described in Figure 3

- 1 of the Technical Support Document, Volume 2 (USEPA 2003a) . EPA used peer

- revi ewed, publicly available information to classify each chemical using this framework to derive the most appropriate BAFs according to EPA’s 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a) . The framework provides six alternatives, or procedures, resulting in up to four possible methods for each chemical, based on the chemical’s properties. These four methods follow:

7TCE 79

- 01 -6

• BAF Method. This method uses measured BAFs derived from data obtained from field studies. Field

- measured BAFs were normalized by adjusting for the water

- dissolved portions of the chemical and the l ipid fraction of fish tissue for each species, as well as the fraction of the total concentration of chemical in water that is freely dissolved. EPA averaged multiple field BAFs using a geometric mean of the normalized BAFs by species and TL ; then EPA furt her averaged the BAFs across species to compute TL baseline BAFs. The national

- level BAF adjusts the TL baseline BAFs by national default values for lipid content, dissolved and particulate organic carbon content, and the n

- octanol

- water partition coefficient (K ow ). EPA chose the recommended 50 th percentile dissolved and particulate organic carbon content for the national

- level default values, as described in section 6.3 of the Technical Support Document, Volume 2 (USEPA 2003a)

. • BS AF Method. This method uses biota

- sediment accumulation factors (BSAFs) to estimate BAFs. EPA did not use measured BSAFs to calculate national BAFs because the two major compilations of these data

— EPA’s Biota

- Sediment Accumulation Factor Data Set, Version 1.0 (USEPA 2015a) , and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ BSAF database (USACE 2015)

— have not been peer

- reviewed.

• BCF Method. This method uses BAFs estimated from laboratory

- measured bioconcentration factors (BCFs) with or without adjustment by a food chain multiplier. Similar to field BAFs, laboratory

- measured BCFs are normalized with the lipid fraction and the fraction of the total concentration of chemical in wat er that is freely dissolved, then multiplied by the food chain multiplier where applicable. Multiple values are averaged using a geometric mean across species and then across TL to compute baseline BAFs. The national

- level BAF adjusts the TL baseline BAFs by national default values for lipid content, dissolved and particulate organic carbon content, and the K ow . EPA chose the recommended 50 th percentile dissolved and particulate organic carbon content for the national

- level default values, as described in s ection 6.3 of the Technical Support Document, Volume 2 (USEPA 2003a)

. • K ow Method. This method predicts BAFs based on a chemical’s K ow , with or without adjustment using a food chain multiplier, as described in section 5.4 of the Te chnical Support Document, Volume 2 (USEPA 2003a)

. Following the decision framework presented in Figure 3

- 1 of the Technical Support Document, Volume 2 (USEPA 2003a) , EPA selected one of the six procedures to develop a national

- level BAF for this chemical. For a given procedure, EPA selected the method that provided BAF estimates for all three TL s (TL2

– TL4) in the following priority:

1. BAF estimates using the BAF method (i.e., based on field

- measured BAFs) if possible. 2. BAF estimates using the BCF method if (a) the BAF method did not produce estimates for all three TL s and (b) the BCF method produced national

- level BAF estimates for all three TL s. 3. BAF estimates using the K ow method if (a) Procedure 1 or 3 was a pplicable (see Figure 3- 1 of the Technical Support Document, Volume 2 [ USEPA 2003a ] ) and (b) the BAF and BCF methods did not produce BAF estimates for all three TL s.

8TCE 79

- 01 -6

In cases where the p rocedure called for the BAF method but there were fewer than three TL estimates and the K ow method did not apply (i.e., Procedures 2, 4, 5, and 6), EPA used the BAF method estimate for the reported TL s by averaging the estimates using a geometric mean when there were two BAFs and us ing the single estimate when only one was available. EPA did not mix values from the BAF and BCF methods. If the BAF method did not have sufficient reliable data for any TL s, EPA used the BCF method estimates in the same manner. If none of the four methods provided sufficient data, or if none were appropriate for the procedure, EPA used the BCF from the previously recommended 2002/2003 criteria (USEPA 2002b; USEPA 2003b)

. EPA primarily used field

- measured BAFs and laboratory

- measured BCFs available from peer

reviewed, publicly available databases (Arnot and Gobas 2006; Environment Canada 2006) to develop national BAFs. If field

- measured BAFs and laboratory

- measured BCFs were not available from those sources, EPA selected K ow values from peer

- reviewed sources (i.e., Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] preferentially, followed by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ’ Hazardous Substances Data Ba nk ) for use in calculating national BAFs using the K ow method described in EPA’s Technical Support Document, Volume 2 (USEPA 2003a) . For those chemicals for which the K ow method was not applicable based on the Technical Support Do cument, Volume 2 (USEPA 2003a) , EPA performed open literature searches of peer

- reviewed journal articles to find field

- measured BAFs or laboratory

- measured BCFs.
4.4.2 Chemical

- specific BAFs EPA selected national BAF values of 8.7 L/kg (TL2), 12 L/kg (TL3), and 13 L/kg (TL4) for TCE

. EPA followed the framework for selection of methods for deriving national BAFs in Figure 3

- 1 of the Technical Support Document, Volume 2 (USEPA 2003a) to select a procedure for est imating national BAFs for TCE . Based on the characteristics of this chemical, EPA selected Procedure 3 for deriving a national BAF value. TCE has the following characteristics:

• Nonionic organic chemical (USDHHS 2014)

• Low hydropho bicity (log K ow < 4); log K ow = 2.61 (USDHHS 2014)

• Low/unknown metabolism
EPA was not able to locate peer

- reviewed, field

- measured BAFs or lab

- measured BCFs for TL s 2, 3, and 4. Therefore, EPA used the K ow method to derive the na tional BAF values for this chemical:

TL 2 = 8.7 L/kg TL 3 = 12 L/kg TL 4 = 13 L/kg

9TCE 79

- 01 -6

5 Hazard Identification and Dose Response
5.1 Approach EPA considered all available toxicity values for both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic toxicological effects to develop this updated AWQC for TCE . As described in the 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a) , where data are available EPA derives AWQC for both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects and recommends the more protective value for the AWQC. (See section 7, Criteria Derivation: Analysis.) For noncarcinogenic toxicological effects, EPA uses a chronic

- duration oral RfD to derive human health AWQC. An RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty span ning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure of the human population to a substance that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. An RfD is typically derived from a laboratory animal dosing study in which a no

- observed

- adverse

- effect level (NOAEL), lowest

observed

- adverse

- effect level (LOAEL), or benchmark dose can be obtained. Uncertainty factors are applied to reflect the limitations of the data (USEPA 2000a)

. For carcinogenic toxicological effects, EPA uses an oral CSF to derive human health AWQC . The oral CSF is an upper bound, approximating a 95 percent confidence limit, on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime oral exposure to a stressor. For this update, EPA conducted a systematic search of eight peer

- reviewed, publicly a vailable sources to obtain the toxicity value (RfD or CSF) for use in developing AWQC. EPA’s primary source of toxicity values for developing human health AWQC is its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program (USEPA 2015b) . EPA also systematically searched for toxicological assessments from the following EPA program offices, other national and international programs, and state programs:

• EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs (USEPA 2015c)

• EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (USEPA 2015d)

• EPA, Office of Water (USEPA 2015e)

• EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (USEPA 2015f)

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ATSDR (ATSDR 2015)

• Health Canada (HC 2015)

• California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (CalEPA 2014)
After identifying and documenting all available toxicity values, EPA followed a systematic process to select the toxicity values used to derive the AWQC for noncarcinogenic and
c arcinogenic effects. EPA selected IRIS toxicity values to derive the updated AWQC if any of the following conditions were met:

1. EPA’s IRIS toxicological assessment was the only available source of a toxicity value. 2. EPA’s IRIS toxicological assessment was th e most current source of a toxicity value.

10TCE 79

- 01 -6

3. EPA’s IRIS program was reassessing the chemical in question and had published the draft Toxicological Review for public review and comment, discussion at a public meeting, and subsequent expert peer review. f 4. The t oxicity value from a more current toxicological assessment from a source other than EPA IRIS was based on the same principal study and was numerically the same as an older EPA IRIS toxicity value. 5. A more current toxicological assessment from a source other than EPA IRIS was available , but it did not include the relevant toxicity value (chronic

- duration oral RfD or CSF). 6. A more current toxicological assessment from a source other than EPA IRIS was available, but it did not introduce new science (e.g., the to xicity value was not based on a newer principal study) or use a more current modeling approach compared to an older EPA IRIS toxicological assessment.
EPA selected the toxicity value from a peer
- reviewed, publicly available source other than EPA IRIS to de rive the upd a ted AWQC if any of the following conditions were met:

1. The chemical is currently used as a pesticide, and EPA Office of Pesticide Programs had a toxicity value that was used in pesticide registration decision

- making. 2. A toxicological assessment from a source other than EPA IRIS was the only available source of a toxicity value. 3. A more current toxicological assessment from a source other than EPA IRIS introduced new science (e.g., the toxicity value was based on a newer principal study) or used a more current modeling approach compared to an older EPA IRIS toxicological assessment.

5.2 Chemical

- specific Toxicity Value
5.2.1 Reference Dose EPA selected an RfD of 5 × 10 –4 mg/kg

- d (0.0005 mg/kg

- d) for TCE based on a 2011 EPA IRIS assessment (USEPA 2011b)

. EPA’s IRIS program developed multiple candidate RfDs ranging 0.0003

– 0.0008 mg

- kg/d based on three principal studies by Keil et al. (2009) , Peden

- Adams et al. (2006) , and Johnson et al. (2003) and two supporting studies from Woolhiser et al. (2006) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP 1988)

. In deriving the RfDs, EPA’s IRIS program applied uncertainty factors g as follows:

• Keil et al. (2009) : Composite uncertainty factor 100; extr apolation from LOAEL rather than NOAEL (10), interspecies extrapolation (3), and intraspecies variation (3).

• Peden

- Adams et al. (2006) : Composite uncertainty factor 1000; extrapolation from LOAEL rather than NOAEL (10), interspecies extrapolation (10), and intraspecies variation (10).

• Johnson et al. (2003) : Composite uncertainty factor 10; interspecies extrapolation (3) and intraspecies variation (3).

f Equival ent to Step 4 in the July 2013 EPA Process for Developing IRIS Health Assessments. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/process.htm

. g Note: Uncertainty factors of 1 are not included in this summary.

11TCE 79

- 01 -6

• National Toxicology Program (NTP 1988) : Composite uncertainty factor 10; inter species extrapolation (3) and intraspecies variation (3).

• Woolhiser et al. (2006) : Composite uncertainty factor 10; interspecies extrapolation (3) and intraspecies variation (3). The RfD of 0.0005 mg/kg

- d is based on the critical effects of heart malformations (rats), adult immunological effects (mice), and developmental immunotoxicity (mice), all from oral studies (USEPA 2011b) . This RfD is further supported by results from an oral study for the effect of toxic nephropathy (rats) and route

- to

- route extrapolated results from an inhalation study for the effect of increased kidney weight (rats)

. The RfD (0.0005 mg/kg

- d) reflects t he midpoint among the candidate RfDs for the critical effects

— 0.0004 mg/kg

- d for developmental immunotoxicity in mice and 0.0005 mg/kg

- d for both heart malformations in rats and decreased thymus weights in mice, and is within 25 percent of each candidate R fD (USEPA 2011b)

. E PA identified three other RfD sources through the systematic search described in section 5: a 2014 EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) assessment (USEPA 2014c), a 2014 draft ATSDR assessment (ATSDR 2014) , and a 2009 California EPA assessment (CalEPA 2009)

. Based on the selection process described in section 5, the 2011 EPA IRIS RfD is preferred for use in AWQC development at this time. The assessments from OPPT and draft ATSDR assessments were published more recently; however, they are based on the same principal studies and are numerically the same as the 2011 EPA IRIS RfD.
5.2.2 Cancer Slope Factor
Under the 2005 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (USEPA 2005a) , TCE is characterized as “carcinogenic to humans” by all routes of exposure (USEPA 2011c) . EPA’s IRIS program concluded, by a weight

- of

- evidence evaluation, that TCE is carcinogenic by a mutagenic mode o f action for induction of kidney tumors (USEPA 2011c)

. EPA selected a CSF of 5 × 10 – 2 per mg/kg

- d (0.05 per mg/kg

- d) for TCE based on a 2011 EPA IRIS assessment (USEPA 2011c) . EPA’s IRIS program identified Charbot el et al. (2006) as the critical study and renal cell carcinoma as the critical effect (USEPA 2011c) . The oral slope factor of 5 × 10 – 2 per mg/kg

- d, calculated from data from adult exposure, does not reflect presumed increased early

- life susceptibility h to kidney tumors for this chemical (USEPA 2011c)

.

h The 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a) does not discuss application of age
- dependent adjustment factors (ADAFs) because it was published prior to the 2005 EPA Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early

- Life E

xposure to Carcinogens (“ Supplemental Guidance ”) (USEPA 2005b)

. Generally, the app lication of ADAFs is recommended when assessing cancer risks for a carcinogen with a mutagenic mode of action. However, because the ADAF adjustment for trichloroethylene applies only to the kidney cancer component of the total cancer risk estimate, the imp act of the adjustment on full lifetime risk is minimal and the adjustment might reasonably be omitted. Nonetheless, for exposure scenarios with increasing proportions of exposure during early life, the impact of the ADAF adjustment becomes more pronounced and the importance of applying the ADAFs increases (USEPA 2011b; USEPA 2011c)

. For more information, see the IRIS toxicological review (USEPA 2011b; USEPA 2011c) or EPA’s S upplemental Guidance (USEPA 2005b)

.

12TCE 79

- 01 -6

E PA identified two other CSF source s t hrough the systematic search described in section 5: a 2014 EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) assessment (USEPA 2014c) and a 2009 California EPA assessment (CalEPA 2009) . B ased on the selection process described in section 5, the 2011 EPA IRIS RfD is preferred for use in AWQC development at this time

. The assessment from OPPT was published more recently; however, it is based on the same principal stud ies and is numerically the same as the 2011 EPA IRIS CSF

. 6 Relative Source Contribution
6.1 Approach
Th e RSC component of the AWQC calculation allows a percentage of the RfD’s exposure to be attributed to the consumption of ambient water and fish and shellfish from inland and nearshore waters when there are other potential exposure s ources. The RSC describes the portion of the RfD available for AWQC

- related sources (USEPA 2000a) ; the remainder of the RfD is allocated to other sources of the pollutant. The rationale for this approach is that for pollutants exhibiting threshold effects, the objective of the AWQC is to en sure that an individual’s total exposure from all sources does not exceed that threshold level. Exposures outside the RSC include, but are not limited to, exposure to a particular pollutant from ocean fish and shellfish consumption (which is not included i n the FCR ), non

- fish food consumption (e.g., fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, poultry), dermal exposure, and respiratory exposure.
EPA derived an RSC for each chemical included in this 2015 update by using the Exposure Decision Tree approach described in the 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a)

. To u s e th at approach, EPA compiled information for each chemical on its uses, chemical and physical properties, occurrences in other potential sources (e.g., air, food), and releases to the environment, as well as regulatory restrictions on other sources that are specific to the chemical (e.g., air quality standards, food tolerance levels) . The ATSDR “Toxicological Profiles” (ATSDR 2015) were the primary sources for this information. EPA used t he Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB) (USDHHS 2015) from the National Library of Medicine’s Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET) as the primary source for chemicals without ATSDR Toxicological Profiles. Both sources are peer
- reviewed compilations of chemical information.
EPA used a dditional references , including the following, to obtain specific types of information and to supplement the information from ATSDR and the HSDB :

• EPA ’s Six

- Year Review s (drinking water data) (USEPA 2009a; USEP A 2009b)

. • Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Total Diet Study (USFDA 2015)

. • FDA Everything Added to Food in the United States (USFDA 2013)

. • EPA National Lake Fish Tissue Study (USEPA 2009c)

. • EPA Toxic Release Inventory (USEPA 2015g)

. • International Bottled Water Association Standards of Quality (IBWA 2012)

. • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) Mussel Watch (NOAA 2014)

. • A dditional sources as needed.

13TCE 79

- 01 -6

T o determine the RSC to be used in the AWQC calculation , EPA then used the information compiled for each chemical to address the questions posed in the Exposure Decision Tree

. Some of the important items evaluated in the Exposure Decision Tree follow:

• T he adequacy of the data available for each rel evant exposure source and pathway

. • T he availability of sufficient information to characterize the likelihood of exposure to relevant sources

. • W hether there are significant known or potential uses/sources other than the source of concern (i.e., ambient wate r and fish/seafood from those waters)

. • W hether information o n each source is available to make a characterization of exposure
. In cases where there is a lack of environmental or exposure data, or both, the Exposure Decision Tree approach results in a recom mended RSC of 20 percent. This 20 percent value for the RSC may be replaced where sufficient data are available to develop a scientifically defensible alternative value. When appropriate, if scientific data demonstrating that sources and routes of exposure other than water and fish from inland and nearshore waters are not anticipated for the pollutant in question, the RSC may be raised to 80 percent based on the available data (USEPA 2000a)

. 6.2 Chemical

- specific RSC EPA derived recommended AWQC for this chemical using both noncarcinogenic and
c arcinogenic toxicity endpoints (RfD and CSF). For comparative purposes only , a default RSC of 20 percent was applied for AWQC derivation for noncarcinogenic effects (USEPA 2000a)

. 7 Criteria Derivation : Analysis
Table 1 summarizes the model inputs used to derive the 2015 updated human health AWQC that are protective of exposure to TCE from consuming drinking water and eating fish and shellfish (organisms) from inland and nearshore waters

. The c riteria calculations are presented below. These updated criteria recommendations are based on the 20 00 Methodology (USEPA 2000a) and th e updated exposure assumptions described above . ( See section 4, Exposure Factors ; section 5, Hazard Identification and Dose Response; and section 6, Relative Source Contribution.)

14TCE 79

- 01 -6

Table 1. Summary of I nput P arameters for 2015 H uman H ealth AWQC for TCE Input Parameter Value RfD 0.0005 mg/ kg

- d CSF 0.05 per mg/kg

- d RSC 0.20 BW 80 .0 kg DI 2.4 L/d

FCR TL2 0.00 76 kg/d TL3 0.00 86 kg/d TL4 0.00 51 kg/d

BAF TL2 8.7 L/kg TL3 1 2 L/kg TL4 13 L/kg

7.1 AWQC for N oncarcinogenic Toxicological E ffects
For consumption of water and organisms: AWQC (μg/L) = toxicity value (RfD [mg/kg

- d] × RSC) × BW (kg) × 1 , 000 (μg/mg) DI (L/d) + ∑ (FCR i (kg/d) × BAF i (L/kg)) 4 i=2

= 0.0005 mg/kg

- d × 0.20 × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

2.4 L/d + ((0.00 76 kg/d × 8.7 L/kg) + (0.00 86 kg/d × 12 L/kg) + (0.00 51 kg/d × 13 L/kg))

= 3.04 μg/L

= 3 μg/L (rounded) For consumption of organisms only: AWQC (μg/L) = toxicity value (RfD [mg/kg

- d] × RSC) × BW (kg) × 1 , 000 (μg/mg) ∑ (FCR i (kg/d) × BAF i (L/kg))

4 i=2

= 0.0005 mg/kg

- d × 0.20 × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

(0.0076 kg/d × 8.7 L/kg ) + (0.00 86 kg/d × 12 L/kg) + (0.00 51 kg/d × 1 3 L/kg)

= 34.0 μg/L

= 30 μg/L (rounded)

15TCE 79

- 01 -6

7.2 AWQC for C arcinogenic Toxicological E ffects For consumption of water and organisms: AWQC (μg/L) = toxicity value (1 0 -6 / CSF ) [mg/kg

- d] × BW (kg) × 1 , 000 (μg/mg) DI (L/d) + ∑ (FCR i (kg/d) × BAF i (L/kg)) 4 i=2

= (1 0 -6 / 0.05) mg/ kg

- d × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

2.4 L /d + ((0.00 76 kg/d × 8.7 L/kg) + (0.00 86 kg/d × 12 L/kg) + (0.00 51 kg/d × 13 L/kg))

= 0.607 μg/L

= 0.6 μg/L (rounded) For consumption of organisms only: AWQC (μg/L) = toxicity value (1 0 -6 / CSF ) [mg/kg

- d] × BW (kg) × 1 , 000 (μg/mg) ∑ (FCR i (kg/d) × BAF i (L/kg))

4 i=2

= (1 0 -6 / 0.05) mg/ kg

- d × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

(0.0076 kg/d × 8.7 L/kg) + (0.00 86 kg/d × 12 L/kg) + (0.00 51 kg/d × 13 L/kg)

= 6.79 μg/L

= 7 μg/L (rounded)
7.3 AWQC Summary
EPA derived the AWQC for TCE using both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic toxicity endpoints. The updated human health AWQC for noncarcinogenic effects for TCE are 3 μg/L for consumption of water and organisms and 30 μg/L for consumption of organisms only. The updated human health AWQC for carcinogenic effects (at a 10 -6 cancer risk level) for TCE are 0.6 μg/L for consumption of water and organisms and 7 μg/L fo r consumption of organisms only. EPA recommends the lower AWQC, based on the carcinogenic effects of TCE , as the updated human health AWQC (Table 2). These updated criteria replace EPA’s previously published values (USEPA 2002b)

.
Table 2. Summary of EPA’s Previously Recommended (2002 ) and U pdated ( 2015 ) H uman H ealth AWQC for TCE 2002 Human Health AWQC 2015 Human Health AWQC Water and Organism 2.5 μg/L 0.6 μg/L Organism Only 30 μg/L 7 μg/L

The se AWQC are intended to be protective of the general adult population from an increased cancer risk due to exposure to TCE a t a 10 -6 , o r one in one million, risk level. The 10 -6 risk level associated with the AWQC represents the concentration that would be exp e cted to increase an individual’s lifetime cancer risk from exposure to the particular pollutant by no more than one

16TCE 79

- 01 -6

chance in one million, regardless o f the additional lifetime cancer risk due to exposure, if any, to that particular substance from other sources.
8 Criteria Characterization
The updated 2015 human health AWQC for TCE take into account current data on health effects and exposure input paramet ers, consistent with the 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a)

. The following paragraphs describe the individual influence of each of the revised inputs and exposure assumptions on the overall change in value. Body Weight EPA’s updated AWQC assume a higher BW compared to the previously recommended 2002 criteria, reflecting a recent rise in average adult BW among the U.S. population. The updated BW assumption of 80.0 kg, based on recent survey data from the 1999−2006 NHANES data, is 10 kg greater than the previous assumption of 70 kg. Assuming all o ther input parameters remain constant, a higher average BW in the AWQC calculations (Eq s . 1 and 2 above) results in higher AWQC. That is, as BW increases, the level of a contaminant in water at or below which negative health effects are not anticipated fro m a lifetime of exposure also increases. Drinking Water Intake The updated DI assumption is 2.4 L/d , which is higher than the previo usly recommended rate of 2 L/d . Assuming all other input parameters remain constant, a higher DI assumption in the AWQC calc ulations (Eq s . 1 and 2 above) results in lower AWQC. That is, as DI increases, and thus overall exposure increases, the level of a contaminant in water at or below which negative health effects are not anticipated from a lifetime of exposure decreases.
Fis h Consumption Rate The updated FCR for fish and shellfish from inland and nearshore waters is 22.0 g/d; the TL

- specific FCRs are 7.6 g/d, 8.6 g/d, and 5.1 g/d for TLs 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The previously recommended FCR was 17.5 g/d. Assuming all other input parameters remain constant, a higher FCR assumption in the AWQC calculations (Eqs. 1 and 2 above) results in lower AWQC. That is, as fish consumption increases, and thus overall exposure increases, the level of a contaminant in water at or below which negative health effects are not anticipated from a lifetime of exposure decreases.
Bioaccumulation Factor The national lower (TL2), mid (TL3), and upper (TL4) TL BAFs used in the updated AWQC (Eqs. 1 and 2 above) are 8.7, 12, and 13 L/kg wet

- weight , respectively. These BAFs were derived using EPA’s 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a) and its Technical Support Document, Volume 2 (USEPA 2003a) . These national TL BAFs replace EPA’s previously recommended BCF of 10.6 L/kg. As an additional line of evidence, EPA used model

- estimated BAFs from the Estimation Progr am Interface (EPI) Suite (USEPA 2012) to support field

- measured or predicted BAFs developed using

17TCE 79

- 01 -6

the four methods described above. The BCFBAF program within EPI Suite estimates fish BAFs by using K ow and biotransformation data from a mode l designed by Arnot and Gobas ( 2003) . The model includes mechanistic processes for bioaccumulation , such as chemical uptake from the water at the gill surface and from the diet, chemical elimination at the gill surface, fecal egestion, growth dilution , and metabolic biotransformation. Other processes included in the calculations are bioavailability in the water column (only the freely dissolved fraction can bioconcen trate) and absorption efficiencies at the gill and in the gastrointestinal tract. The model requires the K ow of the chemical and the normalized whole

- body metabolic biotransformation rate constant as input parameters to predict BAF values. The EPI Suite mo del estimates are as follows :
TL 2 = 15.43 L/kg TL 3 = 17.18 L/kg TL 4 = 23.7 L/kg
Assuming all other input parameters remain constant, higher BAFs or BCFs result in lower AWQC. That is, as bioaccumulation or bioconcentration of a contaminant in fish and shel lfish increases, the level of a contaminant in water at or below which negative health effects are not anticipated from a lifetime of exposure decreases.
The utilization of a national

- level BAF rather than a BCF better represents the amount of a contaminan t accumulating in an organism because it accounts not only for the organism’s exposure to the pollutant in the water column, but also from the food chain and surrounding environment as well as biotransformation of the pollutant in the organism due to metab olic processes. The utilization of the three TL s of fish and shellfish consumed, as opposed to representing all TL s of fish and shellfish consumed by a single value, allows for better exposure representation.
Reference Dose EPA selected an RfD of 0.0005 mg/kg

- d for TCE based on a 2011 EPA IRIS assessment (USEPA 2011b) . EPA used the RfD of 0.0005 mg/kg

- d to derive AWQC for noncarcinogenic effects. EPA did not derive AWQC for noncarcinogenic effects of TCE in its previous criteria up date (USEPA 2002c)

. Cancer Slope Factor EPA selected a CSF of 0.05 per mg/kg

- d for TCE ba sed on a 2011 EPA IRIS assessment (USEPA 2011c) . This CSF replaces the previous value of 0.0126 per mg/kg

- d (USEPA 2002c) . EPA used the CSF of 0.05 per mg/kg

- d to derive AWQC for carcinogenic effects. Assuming all other input parameters remain constant, an increase in the CSF in the AWQC calculations (Eqs

. 1 and 2) results in lower AWQC.

18TCE 79

- 01 -6

Relative Source Contribution
An RSC of 20 percent was used for comparative purposes to calculate AWQC for noncarcinogenic effects. P reviously , the recommended AWQC were derived for carcinogenic effects only, and therefore, an RSC was not included

. 9 Chemica l Name and Synonyms

• Trichloroethylene (CAS Number 79

- 01

- 6)

• Acetylene trichloride

• AI3

- 00052

• Algylen

• Anamenth

• Benzinol

• Caswell No 876

• Cecolene

• Chlorilen

• 1- Chloro

- 2,2

- dichloroethylene

• Chlorylea, Chorylen, CirCosolv, Crawhaspol, Dow

- Tri, Dukeron, Per -A- Clor, Triad, Trial, TRI

- Plus M, Vitran

• Densinfluat

• 1,1

- Dichloro -2- chloroethylene

• Pesticide Code: 081202

• EPA Pesticide Chemical Code 081202

• Ethene, trichloro -
• Ethinyl trichloride

• Ethylene trichloride

• Ethylene, trichloro -
• Fleck

- Flip

• Flock Flip

• Fluate

• Germalgene

• La nadin

• Lethurin

• Narcogen

• Narkosoid

• NCI

- C04546

• NIALK

• NSC 389

• Perm -A- Chlor

• Petzinol

• Philex

• Threthylen

19TCE 79

- 01 -6

• Threthylene

• Trethylene

• TRI

• Triasol

• Trichloraethen (German)

• Trichloraethylen, tri (German)

• Trichloran

• Trichloren

• Trichlorethene (French)

• Trichlorethylene

• Trichlorethylene, tri (French)

• Trichloroethene

• 1,1,2

- Trichloroethylene

• Triclene

• Tricloretene (Italian)

• Tricloroetilene (Italian)

• Trielin

• Trielina (Italian)

• Triklone

• Trilene

• Trimar

• Tri

- Plus

• Vestro

10 References Arnot, J.A., and A.P.C. Gobas. 2003. A Generic QS AR for Assessing the Bioaccumulation Potential of Organic Chemicals in Aquatic Food Webs. QSAR & Combinatorial Science 22:337

– 345. Arnot, J.A., and A.P.C. Gobas. 2006. A review of bioconcentration factor (BCF) and bioaccumulation factor (BAF) assessments f or organic chemicals in aquatic organisms. Environmental Reviews 14(4):257

– 297.
ATSDR. 2014. Draft Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseas e Registry, Atlanta, GA. Accessed April 2015. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp19.pdf

. ATSDR. 2015. Toxic Substances Portal . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA. Accessed February 2015. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/index.asp

.

20TCE 79

- 01 -6

CalEPA. 2009. Public Health Goals for Chemicals in Drinking Water: Trichloroethylene . California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Accessed March 2015. http://www.oehha. ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/TCE_phg070909.pdf

. CalEPA. 2014. All Public Health Goals . California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Accessed February 2015. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/allphgs.html

. Charbotel, B., J. Fevotte, M. Hours, J.L. Martin, and A. Bergeret. 2006. Case

- control study on renal cell cancer and occupational exposure to trichloroethylene. Part II: Epidemiological aspects. The Annal s of Occupational Hygiene 50(8):777

– 787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mel039

. Environment Canada. 2006. Bioaccumulation Canada. In The OECD QSAR Toolbox, Version 3.3.2. An online database. Retrieved January 5, 2015. Organisation for Economic Co

- operation and Development, Paris, France. http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk

- assessment/theoecdqsartoolbox.htm

. HC. 2015. Health Canada . Home page. Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Accessed February 2015. http://www.hc

- sc.gc.ca/index

- eng.php

. IBWA. 2012. International Bottled Water Association Bottled Water Code o f Practice (Revised December, 2012) . International Bottled Water Association, Alexandria, VA. Accessed January 2015. Johnson, P., S. Goldberg, M. Mays, and B. Dawson. 2003. Threshold of trichloroethylene contamination in maternal drinking waters affecting fetal heart development in the rat. Environmental Health Perspectives 11:289

– 292. Keil, D.E., M.M. Peden

- Adams, S. Wallace, P. Ruiz, and G.S. Gilkeson. 2009. Assessment of trichloroethylene (TCE) exposure in murine strains genetically

- prone and non

- prone t o develop autoimmune disease. Ournal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A 44(5):443

– 453.
NOAA. 2014. National Centers for Ocean and Coastal Science, National Status and Trends Data Portal (NCCOS NS&T Data Portal) . U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Ocean and Coastal Science, Silver Spring, MD. Accessed March 2015. http://egisws02.nos.noaa.gov/nsandt/index.html#

. NTP. 1988. To xicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Trichloroethylene (CAS No. 79

- 01

- 6) in Four Strains of Rats (ACI, August, Marshall, Osborne

- Mendel) (Gavage Studies) . NTP Technical Report Series no. 273. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Public Heal th Service, National Institutes of Health, National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC. Accessed March 2015. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr273.pdf

.

21TCE 79

- 01 -6

Peden

- Adams, M., J. Eudaly, L. Heesemann, J. Smythe, J. Miller, G. Gilkeson, and D. Keil. 2006. Developmental immunotoxicity of trichloroethylene (TCE): studies in B6C3F 1 mice. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A 41(3):249

– 271.
USACE. 2015. Biota

- Sediment Accumulation Factor Database . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Accessed March 2015. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/bsafnew/BSAF.html

. USDHHS. 2014. Trichloroethylene (CASRN: 79

- 01

- 6) . Hazardous Substances Data Bank, a TOXNET database. Retrieved February 18, 2015. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Bet hesda, MD. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi

- bin/sis/search2/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+133

. USDHHS. 2015. TOXNET . Home page. Hazardous Substances Data Bank, a TOXNET databa se. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD. Accessed January 2015. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/newtoxnet/hsdb.h tm

. USEPA. 2000a. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000) . EPA

- 822 -B- 00

- 004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC. Accessed Februar y 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2005_05_06_criteria_hum anhealth_method_complete.pdf

. USEPA. 2000b. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000), Technical Support Document. Vol. 1, Risk Assessment . EPA

- 822 -B00

- 005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technolo gy, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/methodology/uplo ad/2005_05_06_criteria_humanhealth_method_supportdoc.pdf

. USEPA. 2002a. Estimated Per Capita Fish Consumption in the United States . EPA

- 821 -C- 02

- 003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Accessed F ebruary 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/upload/consumpti on_report.pdf

. USEPA. 2002b. National Recommende d Water Quality Criteria: 2002 . EPA

- 822 -R- 02

- 047. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2008_04_29_criteria_wqct able_nrwqc

- 2002.pdf

.

22TCE 79

- 01 -6

USEPA. 2002c. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002 Human Health Criteria Calculation Matrix . EPA

- 822 -R- 02

- 012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2002_12_30_criteria_wqct able_hh_calc_matrix.pdf

. USEPA. 2003a. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000), Technical Support Document. Vol. 2, Development of Nation al Bioaccumulation Factors . EPA

- 822 -R- 03

- 030. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2008/october/methodology.pdf

. USEPA. 2003b. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register, December 31, 2003, 68:75507

– 75515. Accessed February 2015. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2003

- 12

- 31/html/03

- 32211.htm

. USEPA. 2005a. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment . EPA

- 630 -P- 03

- 001F. U.S. Environment al Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013

- 09/documents/cancer_guidelines_fi nal_3

- 25

- 05.pdf

. USEPA. 2005b. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early

- life Exposure to Carcinogens . EPA

- 630 -R- 03

- 003F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Science Advisor, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/childrens_supplement_final.pdf

. USEPA. 2009a. Contaminant Occurrence Support Document for Category 1 Contaminants for the Second Six

- Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations . EPA 815 -B- 09

- 010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants/sixyearreview/second _review/upload/6YearCategory1Report.pdf

. USEPA. 2009b. Contaminant Occurrence Support Document for Category 2 Contaminants for the Second Six

- Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations . EPA

- 815 -B- 09

- 011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants/sixyearreview/second _review/upload/6YearCategory2Re port_final.pdf

.

23TCE 79

- 01 -6

USEPA. 2009c. The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue . EPA

- 823 -R- 09

- 006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/fishstudies/upload/2009_9_28_fish_study_ data_finalreport.pdf

. USEPA. 2011a. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition

. EPA

- 600 -R- 09

- 052F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/efh/pdfs/efh

- complete.pdf

. USEPA. 2011b. Trichloroethylene (CASRN 79

- 01

- 6) . Integrated Risk Information System. Oral RfD assessment Agency completion date September 28, 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0199.htm

. USEPA. 2011c. Trichloroethylene (CASRN 79

- 01

- 6) . Integrated Risk Information System. Carcinogenicity assessment Agency completion date September 28, 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. Accessed April 2015. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0199.htm

. USEPA. 2012. Estimation Programs Interface (EPI) Suite TM for Microsoft® Windows, v 4.10

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm

. USEPA. 2014a. Framework for Human Health Risk Assessment to Inform Decision Making

. EPA

- 100 -R- 14

- 001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Science Advisor, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014

- 12/documents/hhra

- framework

final

- 2014.pdf

. USEPA. 2014b. Estimated Fish Consumption Rates for the U.S. Population and Selected Subpopulations (NHANES 2003

- 2010) . EPA

- 820 -R- 14

- 002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/fishshellfish/fishadvisories/upload/Estimated

- Fish

- Consumption

- Rates

- for

- the -U-S- Population

- and

- Selected

- Subpopulations

NHANES

- 2003

- 2010.pdf

. USEPA. 2014c. TSCA Work Plan Chemical Risk Assessment. Trichloroethylene: Degreasing, Spot Cleaning and Arts & Crafts Uses. CASRN: 79

- 0 1 -6 . EPA 740

- R1

- 4002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Preven tion, Washington, DC. Accessed April 2015. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/TCE_OPPTWorkplanChemRA_FINAL_ 062414.pdf

.

24TCE 79

- 01 -6

USEPA. 2015a. Biota

- Sediment Accumulation Factor Data Set, Version 1.0 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://www.epa.gov/med/Prods _Pubs/bsaf.htm

. USEPA. 2015b. Integrated Risk Information System . Home page. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://www.epa.gov/iris/

. USEPA. 2015c. Pesticide Chemical Search . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pes ticides/f?p=chemicalsearch:1

. USEPA. 2015d. Existing Chemicals . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://www.e pa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/

. USEPA. 2015e. Water Home . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://water.epa.gov/

. USEPA. 2015f. Provisional Peer Reviewed To xicity Values for Superfund (PPRTV)

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/quickview/pprtv.php

. USEPA. 2015g. TRI Explorer . (2013 Dataset [released March 2015]) (Internet database) Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer , March 13, 2015. http://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/release_chem?p_view=USCH&trilib=TRIQ1&sort=_VIE W_&sort_fmt=1&state=All+states&county=All+counties&chemical=All+chemicals&indus try=ALL&year=2013&tab_rpt=1&fld=RELLBY&fld=TSFDSP

. USFDA. 2013. Everything Added to Food in the United States (EAFUS) . Home page. Priority

based Assessment of Food Additives dat abase. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD. Accessed January 2015. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnNavigation.cfm?filter=msg&sortColumn= &rpt=eafusListing

. USFDA. 2015. Total Diet Study: Introduction . Home page. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD. Accessed March 2015. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/TotalDietStudy/default.htm

. Woolhiser, M.R., S.M. Krieger, J. Thomas, and J.A. Hotchkiss. 2006. Trichlo roethylene (TCE): Immunotoxicity Potential in CD Rats Following a 4

- week Vapor Inhalation Exposure

. Technical Report 031020. Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI. Accessed March 201. http://hero.epa.gov/index.cfm/reference/details/reference_id/730431

.

25