# EPA

December 2009



# REVIEW OF STATE SOIL CLEA NUP LEVELS FOR DIOXIN

National Center for En vironmental Assessment

Office of Research and Development

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

# REVIEW OF STATE SOIL CLEA NUP LEVELS FOR DIOXIN

Prepared by

Margaret MacDonell, Andrew Davidson, Molly Finster, Marci Scofield, and Boyan Peshlov

Environmental Science Division

DOE-Argonne National Laboratory

Argonne, IL 60439

In collaboration with

Kacee Deener

National Center for Environmental Assessment

Office of Research and Development

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

December 2009

# DISCLAIMER

This document is a review of state agency data and as such has not itself been peer reviewed.

EPA will consider any significant technical comm ents it receives. Mention of trade names or

commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Preferred citation:

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Review of State Soil Cleanup Levels for

Dioxin. December 2009. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.

Available from http://www.epa.gov/ncea

.

# REVIEW OF STATE SOIL CLEANUP LEVELS FOR DIOXIN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NOTATION

....................................................................................................................... ........ iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

.......................................................................................................... S-1

1 INTRODUCTION

................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Purpose and Scope

.................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Report Organization

................................................................................................... 1

2 APPROACH

.................................................................................................................... ... 2

2.1 Document/Literature Search

...................................................................................... 3

2.2 Evaluation Criteria

...................................................................................................... 4

3 RESULTS

..................................................................................................................... ... 5

3.1 Soil Dioxin Levels by State

......................................................................................... 5

3.2 Toxicity Values and Target Risks

............................................................................... 26

3.3 Derivation Methodology

.............................................................................................. 56

3.4 Evaluation Criteria

...................................................................................................... 80

4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

....................................................................................... 80

4.1 State Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin

....................................................................... 80

4.2 Factors Contributing to Similarities and Differences

............................................... 84

4.3 Evaluation Context

.................................................................................................. 85

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

................................................................................................ 86

6 REFERENCES

................................................................................................................. 8 7

APPENDIX A: Supporting Information for the Approach

..................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B: Detailed Data Tables

.................................................................................... B-1

TABLES

1 Scope of the Survey for Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels by State

.......................................... 3

2 Information Resources Pursued

....................................................................................... 4

3 Selected Tables and Figures of State Values for Dioxin in Soil

....................................... 5

4 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin by State: Unrestricted/Residential Use

.. 7

5 Additional State Concentrations Potentially Relevant to Soil Cleanup

............................. 17

December 2009 Page i

# TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d.)

TABLES (Cont’d.)

6 States without Formal Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin

..................................................... 25

7 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin by State: Commercial/Industrial

(Restricted) Use

.............................................................................................................. . 27

8 Additional State Concentrations: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use

...................... 37

9 Supporting State Context: Subsurface Values

................................................................. 45

10 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup Levels

........................................... 47

11 Supporting Context from Other Agencies

........................................................................ 50

12 Target Risks for the State Cleanup Levels

....................................................................... 53

13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology

.......................................................... 58

14 Summary Comparison of State Derivations for Incidental Soil Ingestion

......................... 70

15 Main Factors Leading to Differences in Dioxin Cleanup Levels for the

Unrestricted/Residential Scenario

.................................................................................... 74

A.1 Checklist to Support Field Review of Data Tables

........................................................... A-3

B.1 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 1

................................................................ B-5

B.2 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 2

................................................................ B-8

B.3 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 3

................................................................ B-10

B.4 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 4

................................................................ B-15

B.5 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 5

................................................................ B-21

B.6 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 6

................................................................ B-27

B.7 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 7

................................................................ B-31

B.8 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 8

................................................................ B-34

B.9 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 9

................................................................ B-37

B.10 Detailed Data for States in U.S. EPA Region 10

.............................................................. B-50

FIGURES

1 Phased Approach for Identifying Soil Dioxin Cleanup Levels

.......................................... 2

2a Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by State (arithmetic scale)

.............. 13

2b Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by State (logarithmic scale)

............ 14

3 Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by Concentration

............................. 15

4 Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by Region

........................................ 16

5 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by State

...... 19

6 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Unrestricted/Residential Use,

by Concentration

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

December 2009 Page ii

# TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d.)

FIGURES (Cont’d.)

7 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by Region

... 21

8 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Unrestricted/Residential Use

from Contaminated Site Applications, by State

................................................................ 22

9 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Unrestricted/Residential Use

from Contaminated Site Applications, by Concentration

................................................. 23

10a Soil Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by State

(arithmetic scale)

.............................................................................................................. 33

10b Soil Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by State

(logarithmic scale)

............................................................................................................ 34

11 Soil Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by Concentration

............. 35

12 Soil Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by Region

....................... 36

13 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use,

by State

..................................................................................................................... ..... 39

14 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use,

by Concentration

.............................................................................................................. 40

15 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use,

by Region

..................................................................................................................... .... 41

16 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Restricted Use from

Contaminated Site Applications, by State

........................................................................ 42

17 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Restricted Use from

Contaminated Site Applications, by Concentration

.......................................................... 43

18 Supporting State Context: Subsurface Values, by State

.................................................. 46

19 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup Levels

........................................... 52

20 Distribution of States Listing Specific Risk Targets for Dioxin Cleanup Levels:

Unrestricted/Residential Use

........................................................................................... 54

21 Distribution of States Listing Specific Risk Targets for Dioxin Cleanup Levels:

Commercial/Industrial Use

............................................................................................... 55

22 Distribution of Soil Cleanup Levels by Concentration: Unrestricted and Restricted Uses 82

B.1 States in U.S. EPA Regions

............................................................................................. B-3

December 2009 Page iii

# NOTATION

(This list includes many of the acronyms and abbreviations used in the report. Other terms used in

equations are defined with those equations. Note that certain state agencies use the same acronyms for

departments or divisions, so to avoid duplication in this report, acronyms are not necessarily the standard

agency acronyms.)



# ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management

ADHS Arizona Department of Health Services

AFB Air Force base

AK Alaska

AL Alabama

AMD amendment (to record of decision)

APEC Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission

AR Arkansas

ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement

ARBCA Alabama Risk-Based Corrective Action Guidance Manual

ARDEQ Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality

AS American Samoa

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

AT averaging time

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (DHHS)

AZ Arizona

AZDEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

BHRG baseline human health potential remediation goal

BCL basic comparison level (NV)

BRA baseline risk assessment

BW body weight

c cancer

CA California

CAG Carcinogen Assessment Group (U.S. EPA)

CalEPA California EPA

CARB California Air Resources Board

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

CDC Center for Disease Control and Prevention (DHHS)

CDHS California Department of Health Services

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as

amended

CEHTUF Center for Environmental and Human Toxicology at the University of Florida

CLARC cleanup levels and risk calculation (WA)

CO Colorado

CODPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment

conc concentration

CSEV Colorado soil evaluation value

CSF cancer slope factor

CT Connecticut

CTL cleanup target level (FL)

CWLP City Water, Light, and Power (Springfield, IL)

December 2009 Page iv

# NOTATION (Cont’d.)

d day(s)

DAF dilution attenuation factor

DC District of Columbia

DCC direct contact criteria(on) (MI)

DCV direct contact value

DE Delaware

DEC Department of Environmental Conservation; also Department of Ecology (WA)

DEDNREC Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

DEM Department of Environmental Management

DEP Department of Environmental Protection

Dept Department

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality (AZ, AR, MI, MS, MT, OK, OR)

DES Department of Environmental Services

DHHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

DLC dioxin-like compound(s)

DoA U.S. Department of the Army

DoD U.S. Department of Defense

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DoN U.S. Department of the Navy

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control (CalEPA)

EAL environmental action level

EC Ecology Center

eco ecological

ECOS Environmental Council of the States

ED exposure duration

EF exposure frequency

EFH Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA NCEA)

ELCR excess lifetime cancer risk

EPA Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. unless otherwise indicated)

ERP Environmental Restoration Program

ESD explanation of significant difference

ESL environmental screening level (AS, GM, HI, NMI, TT)

ET exposure time

EVS Environmental Science Division (DOE/Argonne)

FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FL Florida

FS feasibility study

GA Georgia

GADNR Georgia Department of Natural Resources

GCN generic cleanup number (OH)

GEPA Guam Environmental Protection Agency

GM Guam

GW groundwater

December 2009 Page v

# NOTATION (Cont’d.)

HDOH Hawaii Department of Health

HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Table

HEER Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (Office) (HI)

HHSL human health screening level (CalEPA)

HI Hawaii

HSRA Hazardous Site Response Act (GA)

HWS Hazardous Waste Section (NC)

IA Iowa

IADNR Iowa Department of Natural Resources

IAG interagency agreement

ID Idaho

IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management

IL Illinois

ILCR individual lifetime cancer risk

IN Indiana

IR intake rate

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System (U.S. EPA NCEA database)

ISL initial screening level (UT)

KDHE Kansas Department of Health and Environment

kg kilogram

KS Kansas

KY Kentucky

LA Louisiana

LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

LOAEL lowest observed adverse effect level

LRP Land Recycling Program (IA)

LUST leaking underground storage tank

MA Massachusetts

MADEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

MADL maximum allowable dose level

ME Maine

MEDEP Maine Department of Environmental Protection

MD Maryland

MDHSS Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services

MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources

mg milligram)(s)

mg/kg-d milligram(s) per kilogram (body weight) per day

MI Michigan

MIDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

MLE maximum likelihood estimate

MN Minnesota

MNDOH Minnesota Department of Health

MO Missouri

MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

December 2009 Page vi

# NOTATION (Cont’d.)

MRBCA Missouri Risk-Based Corrective Action

MRL minimal risk level (ATSDR)

MS Mississippi

MSC medium-specific concentration (PA)

MSDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality

MSSL medium-specific screening level (U.S. EPA Region 6)

MT Montana

MTCA Model Toxics Control Act

MTDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality

n noncancer

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command

NC North Carolina

NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment (U.S. EPA)

ND North Dakota

NDEQ Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality

NDEP Nevada Department of Environmental Protection

NE Nebraska

NH New Hampshire

NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

NIH National Institutes of Health

NJ New Jersey

NJDHSS New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services

NM New Mexico

NMED New Mexico Environment Department

NMI Northern Mariana Islands

NOAEL no observed adverse effect level

NSRL no significant risk level

NTP National Toxicology Program (DHHS)

NV Nevada

NY New York

NYDEC New York Department of Environmental Conservation

OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (CalEPA)

OH Ohio

OK Oklahoma

OKDEQ Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

OR Oregon

ORDEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (U.S. EPA)

OU operable unit

p para

PA Pennsylvania

PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

PBT persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic

December 2009 Page vii

# NOTATION (Cont’d.)

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl(s)

PCL protective concentration level (TX)

PEC probable effect concentration

PHAGM Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual

PHG public health goal

POTW publicly owned treatment works

ppb part(s) per billion

ppm part(s) per million

PPRTV provisional peer-reviewed toxicity value (U.S. EPA)

ppt part(s) per trillion

PR Puerto Rico

PRG preliminary remediation goal (U.S. EPA OSWER; Region 9)

PWG Pathology Working Group

RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund

RAIS Risk Assessment Information System (online ORNL database)

RBC risk-based concentration (U.S. EPA Region 3, AK, OR, others)

RBSC risk-based screening concentration

RBSL risk-based screening level (MI)

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended

RG remediation goal (NE)

RGO remedial goal objective

RI Rhode Island

RIDEM Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

RME reasonable maximum exposure

ROD record of decision

RODS Record of Decision System (U.S. EPA database)

RSL regional screening level (U.S. EPA)

SC South Carolina

SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

SCTL soil cleanup target level (FL)

SD South Dakota

sed sediment

SF slope factor

SF d 

# dermal slope factor

SF i 

# inhalation slope factor

SF

o 

# oral slope factor

SPHEM Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual

SPS soil performance standard

SRL soil remediation level (AZ)

SRSNE Solvents Recovery Service of New England

SRV soil reference value (MN)

SSL soil screening level (MI, U.S. EPA, others)

ST state

TAC Toxic Air Contaminant Program (CA)

TAGM Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum (NY)

TCDD 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo- p -dioxin

December 2009 Page viii

# NOTATION (Cont’d.)

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

TDH Texas Department of Health

TEC toxic equivalency concentration

TEF toxic equivalency factor

TEQ toxic equivalent(s)

TMDL target method detection limit

TN Tennessee

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons

TRG target remediation goal (MS)

TRRP Texas Risk Reduction Program

TRW Tittabawassee River Watch

TSG Toxic Steering Group

TT Trust Territories

TX Texas

TXNRCC Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

UCL upper concentration limit

μ g microgram(s)

μ g/kg-d microgram(s) per kilogram (body weight) per day

URS uniform risk-based remediation standard (DE)

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USAF U.S. Air Force

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

UT Utah

UTDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality

VA Virginia

VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program (NE)

VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

VI Virgin Islands

VRP Voluntary Remediation Program (NM, VA, WY)

VT Vermont

WA Washington

WADEC Washington State Department of Ecology

WHO World Health Organization

WI Wisconsin

WIDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

WV West Virginia

WVDEP West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

WY Wyoming

WYDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

y year(s)

December 2009 Page ix

# December 2009 Page x

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

S.1 OBJECTIVE

This report summarizes existing state cleanup levels for dioxin in soil, together with their

scientific bases where available. It is part of the Science Plan for Activities Related to Dioxins in

the Environment , which was announced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(U.S. EPA) Administrator in May 2009. The objective is to inform an interim recommended

preliminary remediation goal (PRG) for dioxin in soil, which is to be developed by the Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).

As context, the extant OSWER PRG or starting point for setting a cleanup level for residential

scenarios is 1 part per billion (ppb) or 1,000 parts per trillion (ppt) as dioxin toxic equivalents

(TEQ) in surface soil. The TEQ reflects the combined toxicity of the dioxin mixture for which

individual toxicities are weighted relative to the most potent form, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo- p

dioxin (hereafter referred to as TCDD) using toxic equivalency factors (TEFs). This cleanup

level considers a reasonable maximum exposure that emphasizes a childhood pattern of

incidental soil ingestion, and a TCDD cancer sl ope factor based on a scientific evaluation of

rodent bioassay data published in 1978. The parallel recommended starting points for

commercial/ industrial scenarios are in the range of 5 to 20 ppb, or 5,000 to 20,000 ppt.

S.2 APPROACH

State agency websites and other online resources were searched for all 50 states to identify soil

cleanup levels for dioxin, as well as their scientific bases. The District of Columbia (DC), Puerto

Rico, the Virgin Islands, and four Pacific Rim territories – American Samoa, Guam, Northern

Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territories – were also included in this review, bringing the total

entities checked to 57. The primary focus was levels for unrestricted/residential land use;

values for commercial/industrial (restricted) use were also compiled where readily available.

Because a number of states call for site-specifi c determinations of cleanup levels, context was

also pursued for recent cleanup decisions where generic state values were not found. The

combined data were tabulated and provided to technical contacts across the ten U.S. EPA

Regions to coordinate field reviews.

S.3 RESULTS

Nearly half the states and territories (26) have identified a cleanup level or guideline for dioxin in

soil. About 60 percent of these levels are as TCDD, with the rest as dioxin or TCDD TEQ.

The concentrations identified across these states and territories, as well as the scientific bases

in terms of the exposure calculations, target risks, and toxicity values used, are highlighted in

the following sections. Also summarized is context for four evaluation criteria considered for

these health-based values. (Note that to simplify this presentation, specific references are not

cited in the summary; citations are included in the body of the report and in the appendices.)

Some states list multiple dioxin concentrations that address different land use scenarios and

assumptions, such as extent of exposure and target risk level. About 280 values were identified

in this review, so to simplify comparisons the key figures and tables in this report emphasize a

representative value per state and land use category, grouped as unrestricted/residential and

commercial/industrial land use. More detailed data are available in Appendix B.

December 2009 Page S-1

# S.3.1 Soil Cleanup Levels

Soil cleanup levels have been identified for unrestricted/residential use by 26 states and

territories, ranging from nearly 4 to 1,000 ppt as shown in Figure S-1. Some values are not yet

available online, and parenthetical dates acco mpany those identified by the field during the

review phase (such as internal and provisional concentrations). Frequency distributions of the

cleanup levels for both unrestricted and restricted scenarios are presented in Figure S-2. The

commercial/industrial cleanup levels range from 18 to 5,000 ppt, differing by a factor of about

270, compared to 250 for the unrestricted/residential cleanup levels.

For unrestricted/residential use, more than 75 percent of the values (20) fall at or below 120 ppt,

and most (15) are less than 40 ppt. While values reported as TEQ may be expected to be

somewhat higher than those based on TCDD, and several are, half of the ten TEQ-based

cleanup levels are in the group below 120 ppt, and 30 percent of those below 36 ppt are TEQs.

At the lowest end of the concentration range are seven states with cleanup levels documented

in the last ten years that are the same as soil concentrations commonly used for preliminary

screening evaluations, i.e., 3.9 to 4.5 ppt. This suggests that nearly a third of the states with

cleanup levels have essentially adopted a value intended for screening purposes (generally

based on a target risk of 10 -6 

# with default residential assumptions).

In the concentration group above 120 ppt are four cleanup levels that are 100 times higher than

the lowest set. These four, which range from 390 to 450 ppt as dioxin TEQ, are for Hawaii and

three Pacific Rim territories (documented in 2006 and 2008, respectively).

Topping the range is the cleanup level of 1,000 ppt identified by two states, Alabama and Texas

(documented in 2007 and 2009, respectively). This is the recommended OSWER concentration

for residential soils, as TEQ. Alabama identifies the basis as TCDD, while Texas indicates

TEQ. The five states that join Texas, Hawaii, and three Pacific island territories in reporting

cleanup levels as TEQs are Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio. (Wyoming adopts

the EPA Regional screening level for TCDD and indicates TEFs may be considered for others.)

All but 5 of the 26 states with unrestricted use levels also identify cleanup levels for commercial/

industrial use. (These five are: Alaska, Geor gia, Michigan, Ohio, and Wyoming.) For the rest,

levels for restricted use are higher than for residential, as expected. This reflects less extensive

exposures and in some cases less restrictive target risks. As a group, these concentrations are

within a factor of 5 of the residential levels and thus span a wider range. (States use various

terms for these scenarios; for simplicity, they are grouped as “commercial/industrial” here.)

Soil concentrations that are not formal cleanup levels but could offer related insights were found

for nearly half the remaining states and territories (15 of 31). Most were clarified as screening

values during field review; these values are included in the report as potential context for those

cases where standard cleanup levels are unavailable. No generic cleanup levels for dioxin were

identified for the remaining 15 states and the last territory. In fact, these states (including

California and Utah) and the Trust Territories have deferred identifying generic cleanup levels,

calling instead for risk-based determinations that can incorporate site-specific factors. This

same approach is taken by a number of the states that identify screening values but no cleanup

levels. For example, while Arkansas lists concentrations of 4.5 and 18 ppt as screening levels,

and Massachusetts lists values of 20, 50, and 300 ppt (TEQ) from essentially a screening

approach, both refer to the need for site-specific determinations of an actual cleanup level.

December 2009 Page S-2AK, Jun-08 AL , A p r -08 A S, Oct-08 A Z , May- 0 7 D E , D e c- 9 9 FL, F eb-05 G A , 19 92 GM, Oct-0 8

HI , S um-08 IA, Jul-09

I N, 2006 ( Ju n-09) KS, Jun-07 MD ( Ju l- 0 9) ME (Jul -09 ) MI, Jan-06 MN, Jun - 0 9 MS , Feb - 02 NE, Oc t -0 8

N H, May-07

N MI, Oc t -08 OH , O ct -09 OR, Se p - 0 9 PA, No v -0 1 TX, Mar-09 W A , Jun- 0 9

W Y ( J ul -09)1,1001,00090080070060050040030020010001,0001,000450450450390120459080(60)6035.8381920114.54.5104.263.994.547

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)4.5FIGURE S-1 Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by State(A dark border indicates the basis is TEQ rather than TCDD; a dashed border and lighter shading indicates a draftvalue; parenthetical dates reflect field inputs for values not yet available online.)December 2009Page S-33.9 to 11 >1 1 to 120 >1 2 0 t o <1,0 0 0 1 6 t o 40 >40 to 1 60 >16 0 to <1 ,00 0

Frequency of Value1211109876543210Unrestricted (Residential)Restricted (Commercial/Industrial)11WA10ME9NH120PA7FL90MI80GA40DE5,000TX4.560KS(IN)38.2MS5,000ALAZ, MD,OR, WY45IN35MN38AK31ME530PA1,800AS, GM,NMI4.26MS35.8OH450AS, GM,NMI30FL160360IA4DE20MN1,000TX20ORAZ, NE300NH1,600HI3.9NE19IA390HI1,000AL18MD100KS180IN1,500WASoil Dioxin Concentration(ppt)FIGURE S-2 Distribution of Soil Cleanup Levels by Concentration: Unrestricted and Restricted Uses(A dark border indicates the basis is TEQ rather than TCDD; parenthetical italics indicate a draft value)December 2009Page S-4

# S.3.2 Exposure Calculations

The exposure calculation is central to the determination of health-based cleanup levels. The

current review of soil cleanup levels for dioxin indicates that states generally follow the standard

EPA approach for deriving such concentrations , tapping the standard equation from the EPA

1989 risk assessment guidance for Superfund or 1996 soil screening guidance. The same

basic equation also underlies the EPA Regional screening levels (RSLs), which have been

adopted as cleanup levels by several states.

In most cases, dioxin is one of many chem icals for which states have derived soil cleanup

levels, so the agencies have identified generic exposure calculations for broad application.

Although individual terms vary, the basic structure and concepts are similar across

organizations. For dioxin, incidental ingestion is the dominant exposure route for unrestricted/

residential use, and four states (Delaware, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Washington) base

their cleanup levels on this pathway alone. Most others incorporate inhalation and/or dermal

exposures, but those contributions tend to be relatively small. However, under certain scenarios

(such as for excavation workers), these additional exposure routes can contribute substantially

to the derived cleanup level.

Regarding the parameter values, most states apply common EPA default assumptions so the

exposure factors are generally similar. However, relatively minor differences exist, with some

reflecting state-specific context. For example, the Washington averaging time and the

Minnesota exposure duration are slightly long er than the traditional EPA default residential

values. The equations and values used by states to derive dioxin cleanup levels are presented

in the body of the report and Appendix B. The combined exposure factors generally produce

differences within a factor of ten. For example, values used for exposure frequency differ by

about 2.4-fold, and those for the age-adjusted soil ingestion factor differ by less than 3-fold.

S.3.3 Target Risks

Target risks used to derive state cleanup levels for both unrestricted and restricted use range

from 10 -4 

# to 10 -6 

# (which is also the EPA target incremental risk range for contaminated sites).

These risks are shown in Table S-1 and Figures S-3 and S-4. Almost half the states that

indicate a target risk for their unrestricted cleanup levels (11 of 24) use a value of 10 -6 

# . Eight

use 10 -5 

# , and one (Iowa) uses a value halfway between the two, at 5 x 10 -6 

# . The last four

(Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) use the upper-end value

of 10 -4 

# . The same target risks are used for the commercial/industrial cleanup levels, except 2 of

the 11 states that apply 10 -6 

# for residential levels (Nebraska and Washington) use a value ten

times higher for the restricted scenarios.

S.3.4 Toxicity Values

Nearly all states that identify dioxin cleanup levels (24 of 26) indicate the health endpoint, and

all but one are based on cancer. This one level is the Iowa soil standard for nonresidential use,

which applies if dioxin is the only chemical of concern. The reference dose used to derive this

value is 10 -9 

# mg/kg-d (which is the same as the chronic oral minimal risk level [MRL] established

by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] in 1998). For all other state

cleanup levels, including the standard residential level for Iowa, cancer is the limiting effect and

the oral slope factor is the toxicity value of interest.

(As a note, an online file for Texas indicates the cleanup levels are based on a noncancer effect

[“n”] but no toxicity value is provided; field followup clarified that the basis is cancer.)

December 2009 Page S-5

# TABLE S-1 Target Risks for the State Cleanup Levels

State per

Risk Level Soil Concentration per Land Use Scenario (ppt)

Unrestricted/Residential Commercial/Industrial Terminology for Dioxin Cleanup Level

(as TCDD or Dioxin TEQ)

10

-6 

# Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk

NE 3.9 (see entry under 10 -5 

# ) Remediation goal for TCDD

DE 4 40 Uniform risk-based re mediation standard

for TCDD

MS 4.26 38.2 Target remediation goal for TCDD

AZ 4.5 (see notes below) Soil remediation level for TCDD

MD 4.5 18 Cleanup level for TCDD

OR 4.5 20 Risk-based concentration for TCDD

WY 4.5

- Cleanup level for TCDD

FL 7 30 Soil cleanup target level for TCDD TEQ

NH 9 300 Risk-based soil standard for TCDD

ME 10 31 Generic soil cleanup level for dioxin TEQ

WA 11 (see entry under 10 -5 

# ) Cleanup level for TCDD

5×10 -6



# Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk

IA 19 (see notes below) Cleanup level for TCDD

10

-5 

# Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk

MN 20 35 Soil reference value for TCDD or TEQ

OH 35.8

- Generic cleanup number for TCDD TEQ

AK 38

- Risk-based concentration for TCDD

IN 45 (60) 180 Soil default closure level for TCDD

KS 60 100 Risk-based standard for TCDD

GA 80

- Notifiable concentration for TCDD

MI 90

- Direct contact criterion; risk-based

screening level for TCDD TEQ

PA 120 530 Medium-specific concentration for TCDD

NE (see entry under 10 -6 

# ) 160 Remediation goal for TCDD

WA (see entry under 10 -6 

# ) 1,500 Cleanup level for TCDD

10

-4 

# Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk

HI 390 1,600 Action level for dioxin TEQ

AS 450 1,800 Action level for dioxin TEQ

GM 450 1,800 Action level for dioxin TEQ

NMI 450 1,800 Action level for dioxin TEQ

Notes: TCDD = tetrachlorodibenzo -p- dioxin; TEQ = toxicity equivalent(s). Values are for states that indicate a target

risk. AL adopted cleanup levels from the 1998 OSWER directiv e; TX adopted similar values without explicitly stating

they are from the directive. Although the AZ nonresidential remediation level of 160 ppt is not accompanied by an

explicit target risk, but general language in the regulation indicates the cumulative excess lifetime cancer risk should

not exceed 10 -4 

# . The IA nonresidential cleanup level for dioxin is based on the noncancer endpoint. The IN draft

provisional value for unrestricted use is in parentheses. The OR value is for t he occupational scenario, direct contact.



# December 2009 Page S-650010-6510-610-510-4

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)400300200100045045045039012090806045(60)3835.820191110974.54.54.54.54.2643.9NE DE MS OR AZ MD WY FL NH ME WA IA MN OH AK IN KS GA MI PA HI AS GM NMIFIGURE S-3 Distribution of States with Specific Risk Targets for Dioxin Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use(A dark border indicates the basis is TEQ rather than TCDD;a dashed border and lighter shading indicate a draft value.)December 2009Page S-710-410-610-52,0001,8001,6001,4001,2001,0008006004002000MD OR FL ME MS DE NH MN KS AZ NE IN PA WA HI AS GM NMI1820303138.240300351001,5001,6001,800 1,800 1,800160160180530

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)FIGURE S-4 Distribution of States Listing Specific Risk Targets for Dioxin Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial Use(A dark border indicates the basis is TEQ rather than TCDD; a dashed border indicates a draft value.)December 2009Page S-8

# (More information is summarized for toxicity values than for the other topics in this report

because of broad interest, considering the availability of more recent toxicological data and

ongoing evaluations by EPA and other agencies.)

Across the 24 states and territories (hereafter generally referred to as states), four different

slope factors have been used to determine dioxin cleanup levels: 75,000; 130,000; 150,000;

and 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# . These toxicity values are presented in Figure S-5 and Table S-2,

together with the states that use them. They were derived using toxicity data from one of two

rodent bioassays published more than 25 years ago, combined with modeling conducted by

U.S. EPA work groups, California EPA (CalEPA), and other scientific groups to estimate the

incremental lifetime risk of cancer incidence for humans. Cited sources range from old EPA

Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) to former and current U.S. EPA Regional

screening level tables, the 2003 draft EPA dioxin reassessment, and CalEPA documents.

All but two of the 24 states use a slope factor of either 150,000 or 130,000 (mg/kg-d) -1



# . Although very similar, each value is based on a different bioassay: the 1978 study by Kociba

and colleagues, and the 1982 National Toxicology Pr ogram (NTP) study, respectively. These

original toxicity studies were independently peer reviewed as part of their publication process,

as were the evaluations conducted to derive the slope factors. Three of the four slope factors

listed above are based on the Kociba study, and these three are summarized first below.

The slope factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# is used most often, underlying more than half the state

cleanup levels that include a toxicity value (13 of 24). It is based on the two-year dietary study

of Sprague-Dawley rats by Kociba et al., wh ich showed a higher incidence of hepatocellular

carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of lungs, hard palate, nasal turbinates, and tongue at

the highest dose, yet a decreased incidence of other tumors. This slope factor has also been

applied by other states to establish supporting concentrations for dioxin in soil, such as the

Nevada basic comparison levels (which are screening values rather than cleanup levels).

Updated evaluations of these same data were used by Michigan and Minnesota, the two states

with different slope factors than the rest. In 1986, the NTP revised its tumor classification

scheme, and scientists (including Kociba and his colleague Squire, as well as EPA work groups)

used the new method to reevaluate the incidence of female rat liver tumors and other tumors

from the 1978 data. This reevaluation identified a lower tumor incidence, which produced a

lower toxicity value. A slope factor of 52,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# was determined based on liver tumors

alone, and a slope factor of 75,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# was determined based on total significant

tumors. Michigan used the latter (half the older slope factor) to determine its soil cleanup level.

In 2003, the Minnesota Department of Health (MNDOH) selected the draft slope factor of

1,400,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# from the range of values presented in the EPA 2003 draft dioxin

reassessment. This value, derived from the Kociba study, was identified as the upper bound for

animal bioassays. At roughly 10 times the two most commonly applied values (and nearly

20 times the Michigan value), this slope factor was also used in a supporting role by the Pacific

island group (American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands). That is, it

was used to estimate a concentration that could be applied for the lower bound of an

operational cleanup range, as a companion to the standard cleanup levels above which

remedial action should be considered. Those main cleanup levels (which are the representative

concentrations shown in key figures and tables of this report) were derived using the toxicity

value of either 150,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# (for Hawaii) or 130,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# (for the three Pacific

island territories).

December 2009 Page S-9FIGURE S-5 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup Levels(Italics indicate the value is used for a draft or supporting level; see Notation and body for acronyms and references.)December 2009Page S-10TABLE S-2 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup LevelsaCancerToxicity Value(mg/kg-d)-1Numberof StatesSpecificStatesScientific BasisNature of Valueand Peer Review150,00013AK, DE,FL, HI,IA, IN,KS, MS,NE, NH,OH, PA,WAThe source of this value is commonly given as EPA HEAST from 1997, whichlists several citations including the 1985 EPAHealth Assessment Documentfor Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin. This slope factor is based on the femalerat bioassay by Kociba et al. from 1978. The two-year dietary study of TCDDin female Sprague-Dawley rats indicated the highest dose (0.1 μg/kg-d, orestimated dietary amount 2,200 ppt) produced multiple toxicological effects,with lesser effects reported at 0.01 μg/kg-d (210 ppt). (This was considered tosupport a previous study indicatingchronic ingestion of 5,000 ppt causedmany toxicological effects.) No adverse effects were reported at 0.001 μg/kg-d(22 ppt), and no carcinogenic effects reported at 0.01 or 0.001 μg(210 or22 ppt).This older toxicity value reflects earlier methodology for classifying livertumors, which was updated by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in1986. Many states cite the (outdated, indirect) EPA HEAST as the source.(Note this earlier EPA value from HEAST was also listed in the previousRegion 9 PRG table – which precededthe 2008 harmonization of regionalscreening levels, or RSLs.)HEAST identified this as aprovisional value, and qualified itas being under further evaluation.Specific peer review informationwas not found; however, the 1985EPAHealth Assessmentdocument (listed as one of thesources) underwent external peerreview. (It is not clear that theHEAST value was based solelyon this document, however, sincethat lists a cancer slope factor of156,000 per mg/kg-d.) TheHEAST tables are now outdated.(From the HEAST introduction:“The HEAST is a comprehensivelisting consisting almost entirely ofprovisional risk assessmentinformation .... Although theseentries in the HEAST haveundergone review and have theconcurrence of individual AgencyProgram Offices, and each issupported by an Agencyreference, they have not hadenough review to be recognizedas high quality, Agency-wideconsensus information.” TheHEAST document also states thatwhen used, “the provisionalnature of the value should benoted.”)December 2009Page S-11TABLE S-2 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup LevelsaCancerToxicity Value(mg/kg-d)-1Numberof StatesSpecificStatesScientific BasisNature of Valueand Peer Review75,0001MIThis value is based on a reevalution of tumor data from the 1978 rat study byKociba et al. (see above), using the 1986 NTP update of the liver tumorclassification scheme. This reevaluation indicated lower tumor incidencerates, which resulted in a slope factor of 52,000 (mg/kg-d)-1based on livertumors alone, and a slope factor of 75,000 (mg/kg-d)-1based on totalsignificant tumors – which updated the factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1that hadbeen based on the older methodology.Seven independent pathologistsreassessed the tumor data fromthe Kociba study and subsequentanalyses by Squire, a pathologistconsultant to the EPA CarcinogenAssessment Group.1,400,0001(+4,to derive asupportinglowerbound fora cleanuprange)MN(AS, GM,HI, NMI)MN adopted this draft value, the upper bound slope factor based on animaldata that was included in the EPA (2003) draft reassessment, which wasderived from the Kociba et al. (1978) bioassay described above. (This value is40 percent higher than the draft upper bound slope factor in the reassessmentbased on epidemiological data.) The MNDOH documentation notes: drivingpathway-oral; endpoints-immune, repro,cancer; cancer target organ-liver;class-human carcinogen. Per the MNDOH overview, concerns about thequality of exposure estimates in human epidemiological studies precludequantitative use of these data in developing a slope factor, but results frommodeling the human studies are consistentwith the cancer slope derived bymodeling data from animal studies. MNDOH also notes this slope factor wasderived from the same study as theprevious value of 156,000 (mg/kg-d)-1, andthat its development utilized current methods ofanalysis, including use of bodyburden as the dose metric for animal-to-human dose equivalence calculations(i.e., adjustments to account for the differences in half-life of dioxins in thebodies of laboratory animals and humans), and a re-evaluation of liver tumorsin the Kociba study using the latest pathology criteria.These four entries are shown in parenthetical italics because this value onlyunderlies supporting soil concentrations, not the basic cleanup levels for thisPacific island set. That is, this draft toxicity value was used to generate a lowerbound as a companion to the standard cleanup levels based on150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1for HI, and on 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1for the other threeislands. This toxicity value supports the lower end of the cleanup range, whilethe main cleanup level above which remedial action is to be considered isbased on these two other slope factorsapplied by nearly all other states.The EPA draft reassessmentunderwent extensive internal andexternal agency peer review, andsubsequent peer review by anindependent NAS committee from2004 to 2006.In noting this draftbasis, MNDOH indicated it willupdate its guidance andrecommendations if appropriate,but at this time continues torecommend using its currentguidance for assessing potentialcarcinogenic health risks (whichincludes not recommending earlylife adjustment for cancerpotency).December 2009Page S-12TABLE S-2 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup LevelsaCancerToxicity Value(mg/kg-d)-1Numberof StatesSpecificStatesScientific BasisNature of Valueand Peer Review130,0008AS, AZ,GM, MD,ME, NMI,OR, WYThis slope factor is listed in the current EPA Regional screening level table forresidential soil, with the source givenas CalEPA; its derivation is documentedby California EPA (CalEPA). (As a note, the CalEPA soil screening level for2,3,7,8-TCDD is 4.6 ppt.) The asterisk* in the RSL table for the cancer basisindicates that a screening level based on the noncancer endpoint is <1% ofthat based on the cancer endpoint (indicated as "[n SL < 100X c SL]"). Thistoxicity value is based on the NTP rat gavage studies from 1982. Summarizingfrom the CalEPA derivation document: A linearized multistage model was usedwith the NTP male mouse hepatocellular adenoma/carcinoma tumor data forTCDD, providing point estimates of extra risk for both maximum likelihoodestimate (MLE) and linearized 95% upper confidence value (UCL); the UCLwas calculated by maximizing the linear term, or forcing a best fit (methodconsistent both with expected low-dose linearity and linear nonthresholdtheory). The slope of 95% UCL (q1*) was taken as the plausible upper boundcancer potency of TCDD at low doses.Rodent exposure data were convertedto equivalent human exposures with scalingfactors. Assumptions include: oraland inhalation routes are equivalent, air concentration is assumed to be dailyoral dose, route of exposure does not affect absorption, and no differenceexists in metabolism/ pharmacokinetics between animals and humans. Totalweekly dose levels were averaged for a daily dose level; this assumes dailydosing in the NTP studies would give the same results as the actual twiceweekly dosing schedule (as described, the TCDD half-life is relatively long soboth schedules should give similar tissue concentrations). A significantincrease in hepatocellular hyperplastic nodules was observed in female ratsexposed to 0.1 or 0.01μg/kg-d, while the next lower dose (0.001μg/kg-d)showed no effect. (Note CalEPA is currently evaluating more recent toxicitydata, notably the 2004 NTP study. Implications for an updated oral toxicityvalue are anticipated to be available later in 2009 or early 2010, followingcompletion of the external review process.)This value was developed by theCalifornia Department of HealthServices in 1986, as documentedin the derivation report developedfor the California Toxic AirContaminant program. Itunderwent external peer reviewby the California Air ResourcesBoard (CARB) scientific reviewpanel and was endorsed in 2002when it was summarized andincluded in the 2002 CalEPA HotSpots document.External review by the scientificpanel (primarily from academia)was in accordance with a processthat has been in place since1983, per the original state airtoxics legislation from the early1980s. As described in theCalEPA overview of this value,comprehensive reviews of humanstudies available when theevaluation was written for theToxic Air Contaminant (TAC)program are found in 1980sdocuments from the U.S. EPAand Veterans Administration.(+1)(IN)This entry is in parenthetical italics because 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1underlies theinternal draft cleanup level being considered by Indiana (60 ppt), based on fieldinput during the review phase of this data compilation effort. The slope factorof 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1underlies the current provisional level of 45 ppt.aSee the Notation section and report body for acronyms; see thebody and references for the documentation indicated in this summary table.December 2009Page S-13

# The slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# is used by one-third of the states and is being

considered by an additional state. This value was derived from the 1982 chronic NTP study of

rats and mice (Osborne-Mendel, dosed by gavage 3 times/week and B6C3F1, gavaged

2 days/week, respectively). This toxicity value underlies the cleanup levels identified for Arizona

and Oregon, as well as the three Pacific island territories as noted above. This value also

underlies the current EPA Regional screening levels (RSLs) for dioxin, which have been

adopted by Maryland and Wyoming. In addition, it underlies the draft cleanup level recently

identified by Maine and the internal draft provisional value developed by Indiana – bringing the

total number (including draft values) considering this slope factor to nine.

The following summary of the toxicity basis for this slope factor is taken from the 1998/2008

ATSDR toxicological profile for chlorinated dibenzo -p- dioxins. About 0.007 μ g/kg-d significantly

increased the incidence of thyroid follicular cell adenoma, and a dose 10 times higher increased

the incidence of neoplastic nodules in the liver and hepatocellular carcinoma in females. Doses

of 0.1 and 0.01 μ g/kg-d resulted in a significant increase in hepatocellular hyperplastic nodules

for females, while the next lower dose (0.001 μ g/kg-d) did not. Total weekly doses were

averaged to estimate a daily dose, which assumes daily dosing would give the same results.

(The TCDD half-life is relatively long so both schedules were expected to give similar tissue

concentrations.) These rodent data were conver ted to equivalent human exposures using basic

scaling factors; assumptions included: oral and inhalation routes are equivalent, the air

concentration is assumed to be the daily oral dose, the route of exposure does not affect

absorption, and TCDD metabolism/pharmacokinetics do not differ between animals and

humans. CalEPA has documented the application of the linearized multistage model to these

rodent hepatocellular adenoma/carcinoma tumor data to derive the cancer slope factor.

S.3.4 Key Differences

Differences among state values used to calculate exposures from incidental ingestion are

illustrated in Table S-3, together with the slope factors and target risks applied. While the

averaging time is generally the same (Washington uses a slightly higher value), the exposure

frequency can differ by about 2.4-fold, the soil ingestion factor by nearly 3-fold, the slope factor

by about 20-fold, and the target risk by 100-fold. The input from inhalation and/or dermal

exposures also contributes somewhat to the range of cleanup levels across states. Additional

factors include the chemical basis (TCDD only, or dioxin TEQ), as well as whether the state has

derived a soil concentration or adopted an existing (e.g., screening) value as the cleanup level.

S.3.5 Evaluation Criteria

The information compiled for state cleanup levels was considered in terms of four evaluation

criteria commonly used to assess health-based values (including by OSWER). These criteria

are: (1) nature of peer review, (2) transparen cy-public availability, (3) scientific basis, and

(4) incorporation of most recent science.

In many cases, only limited information was found during the online searches to address these

criteria , and little more was obtained from field review inputs. This was particularly an issue for

transparency and the nature of peer review, but in several cases it also extended to

documentation of the scientific basis, notably for derivation of the underlying toxicity value. The

CalEPA toxicity values tend to address these crit eria fairly well because of the extensive peer

review by external experts in accordance with a long-standing process, public availability, and

typical scientific rigor.

December 2009 Page S-14TABLE S-3 Summary Comparison of State Derivations for Incidental Soil Ingestion(main route for residential cleanup levels)aGeneric equation for residential/unrestricted scenario,(incidental ingestion:Cres_ing= TR×AT / SFo×EF×IFSadj×10-6kg/mgStateConc(ppt)Oral Cancer Slope Factor.SFo(mg/kg-d)-1Target Cancer Risk,TRAveraging Time(d)Exposure Frequency,EF(d/y)Soil Ingestion Factor, IFSadjor (IR×ED)/BW(mg-y/kg-d)NE3.9150,00010-625,550350114DE4150,00010-625,550350114MS4.26150,00010-625,550350114AZ4.5130,00010-625,550350114MD4.5130,00010-625,550350114OR4.5130,00010-625,550350114WY4.5130,00010-625,550350114FL7150,00010-625,55035069NH9150,00010-625,550160105ME10130,00010-625,550150120WA11150,00010-627,37536575IA19150,0005×10-625,550350114MN201,400,00010-525,55035045OH35.8150,00010-525,550350114AK38150,00010-525,550330114IN45150,00010-525,550250114KS60150,00010-525,55035042GA80(not specified)10-525,55035048MI9075,00010-525,550350114PA120150,00010-525,55025057HI390150,00010-425,550350114AS450130,00010-425,550350114GM450130,00010-425,550350114NMI450130,00010-425,550350114aShading highlights variations within related entries. Note the internal draft provisional value of 60 ppt for Indiana uses aSF value of 130,000.AL and TX identify a cleanup level of 1,000 ppt, which is the concentration recommended in the OSWER directive for a residential scenario.December 2009Page S-15

# For dioxin, the CalEPA slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# used by eight states (and being

considered by a ninth) is well documented in terms of scientific basis, methodology, and peer

review. This value was derived using the linearized multistage model with slightly more recent

bioassay data (1982 NTP study) than used for the other slope factors (which are based on the

1978 Kociba data), and its derivation and review process are publicly available online.

In contrast, documentation for the slope factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# used by more than half

the states is limited. It is based on an outdated methodology, and the common citation is an

outdated EPA HEAST source. That HEAST cancer slope factor was indicated as being a

provisional value and was qualified as being under further evaluation. The HEAST tables were

described in the 1997 EPA document as containing “provisional risk assessment information”

that “have not had enough review to be recognized as high quality, Agency-wide consensus

information.” Specific peer review information fo r this earlier slope factor is not readily available;

however, the 1985 EPA Health Assessment Document (which is listed as one of the sources for

the HEAST value) underwent external peer review. Note it is not clear that the HEAST value

was based solely on this document, since the 1985 EPA health assessment document lists a

cancer slope factor of 156,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# , while the HEAST value is 150,000 (mg/kg-d) -1



# . Thus,

this value is considered relatively weak in terms of the evaluation criteria.

The third slope factor, 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# used by Minnesota, was taken from the draft EPA

dioxin reassessment, which remains under review. The lack of a final peer-reviewed publication

basis for this value limits its broader strength.

The fourth slope factor, 75,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# used by Michigan, is a final published value based

on an updated, peer-reviewed evaluation of the Kociba data using the updated NTP tumor

classification. However, documentation of its derivation, independent peer review, and public

availability of supporting information were not found to be as extensive as for the CalEPA value.

S.4 SUMMARY

Information on soil dioxin cleanup levels was pursued for all 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, the

Virgin Islands, and four Pacific island territori es. Nearly half (26 of 57) have established cleanup

levels, and another quarter have identified screening levels. The rest call for site-specific

determinations (which incorporate relevant conditions) rather than identifying generic values.

For those states, additional insights were pursued from site records of decision.

The state cleanup levels for dioxin span three orders of magnitude, reflecting differences in:

(1) target risk; (2) cancer slope factor; (3) exposure assumptions; (4) reporting basis (TCDD or

TEQ); and (5) whether a value was adopted or derived. More than half the derived cleanup

levels reflect an older slope factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# , which was qualified as provisional and

under review. For unrestricted use, two states use the OSWER value of 1,000 ppt. About half

the site-specific cleanup decisions also reflect this concentration.

Several state cleanup levels fall in the middle range of around 400 ppt, but most are at or below

120 ppt. More than a quarter (7 of 26) are roughly 4 ppt, which indicates a number of states

have essentially adopted values developed fo r screening purposes (rather than cleanup

decisions) as their cleanup level. These low levels match the U.S. EPA Regional screening

level for unrestricted use. The scientific basis, external peer review, and transparency of these

adopted values do not appear to be well documented for such an application, i.e., for other than

the screening purpose for which they were designed.

December 2009 Page S-16

# 1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose and scope of this report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)

National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) is identified in Section 1.1, and the

report organization is given in Section 1.2.

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this report is to provide information on soil cleanup levels for dioxin across the

United States. In late May 2009, the U.S. EPA Administrator released the Science Plan for

Activities Related to Dioxins in the Environment (U.S. EPA, 2009), which includes the following

commitments:

“ EPA will evaluate information about the basis for dioxin soil clean-up levels.

 NCEA will review information about the basis for state dioxin soil clean-up

levels.

 NCEA will prepare a report for OSWER that includes a survey and evaluation

of the clean-up levels in the states.

 The report will characterize the science that these values are based on, as

well as the degree of peer review, if any that was done.

 This report will be completed before December 31, 2009, and provided to

OSWER.

 OSWER will announce an updated interim dioxin soil clean-up level to the

public by December 31, 2009.”

The extant directive from the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) for

dioxin in soil identifies a cleanup level of 1,000 parts per trillion (ppt) for unrestricted land use

(U.S. EPA, 1998). In the time since this directive was released, several states have developed

their own values to guide the cleanup of contaminated sites, which are lower than the OSWER

value. Many in the broader community are interested in updated U.S. EPA guidance to support

cleanup activities that are under way or being planned. The Agency is responding to this need

through the commitments outlined above.

The scope of this evaluation focuses on 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo -p- dioxin (TCDD) or total

dioxins as toxic equivalents (TEQ). It does not include dioxin-like compounds, such as

polychlorinated biphenyls. Further details on the scope are given in Chapter 2.

1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report is organized as follows:

 Chapter 2 outlines the approach for identifying soil cleanup levels across states.

 Chapter 3 presents the results, includi ng the scientific basis where available.

 Chapter 4 provides a brief discussion of the results.

 Chapter 5 acknowledges contributors, and Chapter 6 lists references for the main report.

 Appendices present supporting information on the approach (Appendix A) and detailed

data for individual states, organized by U.S. EPA Region (Appendix B).

December 2009 Page 1

# 2 APPROACH

The identification of state soil cleanup levels for dioxin involved three main phases:

 Survey existing information sources including the scientific literature to identify

state cleanup levels for dioxin-contaminated soil, and supporting documentation,

including for the toxicity value applied.

 Compile the state levels and their scientific bases, and provide to applied

experts across states and U.S. EPA Regions for review and input; include in this

compilation information for several criteria used to evaluate health-based levels.

 Integrate the information into a summary technical report.

These phases are illustrated in Figure 1. Information for Phases I and II is highlighted in

Sections 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. Supporting details for the approach are provided in

Appendix A.

FIGURE 1 Phased Approach for Identifying Soil Dioxin Cleanup Levels

Note that “state” is used as a broad term to include entities such as U.S. territories for which

information on soil cleanup levels was also pursued. That is, the scope extends beyond the

50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico to the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Northern

Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territories (the last four are in EPA Region 9; see Table B.9).

December 2009 Page 2

# 2.1 DOCUMENT/LITERATURE SEARCH

The scope of the literature survey to identify state soil cleanup levels for dioxin is summarized in

Table 1. The information resources pursued in this search are highlighted in Table 2.

TABLE 1 Scope of the Survey for Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels by State

Component Focus Note

Benchmark type Cleanup level, not screening va lue While many states identify screening

values, this effort focuses on soil

cleanup levels.

Contaminant 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo -p- dioxin

(TCDD) or toxic equivalents (TEQ),

total dioxins Dioxin-like compounds (DLCs) such as

polychlorinated biphenyls are not

included.

Environmental medium Soil When soil data are limited for a given

state, other data are collected for

potential insight (e.g., values for related

use such as amendments for surface

soil).

Scenario (land use) Primary focus:

Unrestricted, residential use

Also considered:

Commercial/industrial use Where a data source includes other

scenarios (e.g., combined ecologicalhealth protection), those are also

collected for potential insight.

Receptor Primary focus:

Most exposed human

(e.g., resident/child)

Also considered:

Other human receptors for other

scenarios A key interest is on the receptor

assumed to be most exposed, to

represent a level considered protective

for others.

Exposure route Primary focus:

Soil direct contact, oral (incidental

ingestion)

Also considered:

Other routes (e.g., inhalation, dermal)

that contribute but to a lesser extent to

unrestricted/residential and other land

use scenarios The dominant exposure route for

unrestricted use (residential) is oral/

incidental ingestion. The equations

and parameter values highlighted in

the data tables focus on this route to

simplify presentation and field review.

Toxicity value Slope factor or similar term (cancer)

Reference dose or similar term

(noncancer) Oral toxicity values are the main focus.

Where not found online, field input was

requested for the scientific study and

derivation methodology underlying the

toxicity value used.



# The primary searches for state cleanup levels for dioxin were conducted through June 2009, to

allow state agencies an opportunity to review the data compiled during the summer and provide

feedback by early fall, as coordinated by EPA regional counterparts. The intent was to present

information current through summer 2009. However, in finalizing this report, a number of

weblinks were rechecked during October and November 2009, and several recent updates were

discovered. These updates have been added to the report where identified (including one from

early December 2009).

December 2009 Page 3

# TABLE 2 Information Resources Pursued

Information Resource Search Note

Primary

State websites Multiple divisions and departments.



# Supporting

U.S. EPA Region websites Links to information for specific cleanup sites (including voluntary

cleanups), as well as regional values that have been adopted by

various states and cleanup sites.

Other agency websites Includes the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

(ATSDR) website, which contains so il dioxin values (and supporting

context) that have been adopted by va rious states and cleanup sites.

Scientific literature Peer-reviewed journal articles that include information on state cleanup

levels and supporting context, where available.

OSWER RODS database

(Record of Decision System) Database of decision documents and links to related technical reports

that identify dioxin cleanup levels established for contaminated sites on

the National Priorities List. (These checks were conducted to help

address gaps where state policy or guideline values were not found

online, and as general supporting insight.)

Other organizational websites Summaries or extracts of soil dioxin cleanup levels from various groups.

Other online sources Data via open google searches using selected key words and

combinations (including [state], dioxin, TCDD, TEQ, soil, cleanup,

remediation, site, concentration, level, limit, guideline, guidance, risk,

RBC, CERCLA, RCRA, voluntary, brownfield, record of decision, fiveyear review, toxicity value, reference dose, slope factor, potency).



# 2.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Four criteria were considered to evaluate the state soil cleanup levels:

 Nature of peer review.

 Transparency-public availability.

 Scientific basis.

 Incorporation of most recent science.

These criteria are indicated in OSWER Directive 9285.7-53, Human Health Toxicity Values in

Superfund Risk Assessments (U.S. EPA, 2003b), for toxicity values in Tier 3. That tier is tapped

when no values are available from Tier 1 (U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System, IRIS)

or Tier 2 (U.S. EPA provisional peer reviewed toxicity values, PPRTVs). Such is the case for

dioxin.

Similar criteria have been applied across other programs, including as reflected in a joint work

group of the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD),

which included technical input from OSWER (ECOS, 2007).

December 2009 Page 4

# 3 RESULTS

Results of the data collection and evaluation effort are organized as follows. Soil concentrations

identified across states are summarized in Section 3.1, and the toxicity reference values

underlying these concentrations are presented in Section 3.2. The derivation methodologies

used to establish the state cleanup levels and associated toxicity values are described in

Section 3.3, and the evaluation criteria are discussed in Section 3.4.

3.1 SOIL DIOXIN LEVELS BY STATE

State data relevant to dioxin cleanup levels in soil are organized in groups based on land use.

The first set addresses unrestricted/residential use, and the second addresses restricted use,

notably for commercial and industrial settings. Key tables and figures for each group are listed

in Table 3 and described in the sections that follow.

TABLE 3 Selected Tables and Figures of State Values for Dioxin in Soil a



# Tables and Figures

per Land Use Category Data Ordered by:

State

(alphabetical) Concentration

(decreasing) EPA

Region Scale

Basic Log

Unrestricted/Residential

Table 4: State cleanup levels 

Figure 2a: Representative level per state  

Figure 2b: As for 2a but log scale  

Figure 3: As for 2b, by concentration  

Figure 4: As for 2b, by Region  

Table 5: Additional values, by state 

Table 6: States with no soil cleanup level 

Figure 5: As for 2b, plus screening values  

Figure 6: As for 5, by concentration  

Figure 7: As for 5, by Region  

Figure 8: Site-specific levels, by state  

Figure 9: As for 8, by concentration  

Restricted Commercial/Industrial

Table 7: State cleanup levels 

Figure 10a: Representative level per state  

Figure 10b: As for 10a but log scale  

Figure 11: As for 10b, by concentration  

Figure 12: As for 10b, by Region  

Table 8: Additional values, by state 

Figure 13: As for 10b, plus screening values  

Figure 14: As for 10b, by concentration  

Figure 15: As for 10b, by Region  

Figure 16: Site-specific levels, by state  

Figure 17: As for 16, by concentration  

a 

# Additional supporting tables and figures, including for toxicity values, follow this set.

December 2009 Page 5

# 3.1.1 Unrestricted/Residential Use

Soil Cleanup Levels

 

# About half the states have established a standard cleanup level or guideline for dioxin in

soil, with some identifying multiple concentrations. Variations reflect differences in input

assumptions such as extent of child exposures, target risk level, and type of carcinogen.

To simplify comparisons, Figure 2a and Table 4 emphasize one cleanup level per state.

(Other values identified for individual states are presented in supporting tables and

figures.) These concentrations are shown by state in alphabetical order on a standard

arithmetic scale. Note for Indiana, the current provisional value (45 ppt) is shown

together with the draft proposed value (60 ppt) identified by the state during field review.

Similarly, while no published level was found for Maine, the value identified by the state

during field review is shown in the figures. Dark borders indicate a TEQ basis.

 

# The range of cleanup levels across states is considerable. Several concentrations at the

lower end reflect the fact that some states have adopted values established for

screening purposes to serve as cleanup levels. The wide distribution of cleanup levels

makes it difficult to distinguish the smaller values when graphed on an arithmetic scale.

To facilitate readability and comparisons across all levels, Figure 2b presents the same

information as Figure 2a but on a logarithmic scale.

 

# Figure 3 presents these same cleanup concentrations shown in Figure 2 but in

decreasing order rather than by state, for potential insights into concentration groupings.

 

# Figure 4 presents the same cleanup levels as Figures 2 and 3 but organized by EPA

Region, for potential insights into regional patterns (similarities and differences), if any.

Supporting Context: Screening Values and Illustrative Site-Specific Cleanup Levels

 

# The survey of existing state limits for dioxin in soil uncovered a variety of data that

extend beyond the cleanup levels shown in Figures 2 through 4. Table 5 identifies these

additional values (see lower portion), and Figure 5 presents the fuller set of

concentrations, which includes screening values for dioxin in soil for these scenarios.

Given that certain states have adopted screening values as cleanup levels, these data

are considered useful as supporting context. This complement of concentration data is

presented together with the cleanup levels, alphabetized by state, to offer potential

insights into similarities and differences within and across these sets.

 

# Figure 6 presents the same data as Figure 5 but in decreasing numerical order rather

than by state, to offer potential insights into concentration groupings.

 

# Figure 7 presents the same data as Figure 5, organized by EPA Region.

 

# Many states have not established a standard concentration for dioxin (see Table 6),

invoking instead a site-specific determination of soil cleanup levels. In light of this basis,

Figure 8 presents illustrative cleanup levels identified in documents prepared for

contaminated sites, organized by state, for practical application insights.

 

# Figure 9 presents the same site-specific values as Figure 8, organized by concentration.

December 2009 Page 6TABLE 4 Representative Soil Cleanup Level for Dioxin by State: Unrestricted/Residential UseaStateSoilConc(ppt)DateToxicityValue(mg/kg-d)-1Term and ScenarioContextScientific BasisExposure ToxicityRiskPeer Review andAvailabilitySelection RationaleAK38Jun-08150,000Risk-basedconcentration forTCDD, residentialuse, direct contact.General equation fordirect contact,incidental ingestionand dermal exposureconsidered.Slope factorsource is given asHEAST.10-5Equations are givenin ADECdocuments,available online.Represents the mostconservative of the threeRBCs developed for threedifferent annual exposurefrequencies, taken from thestate website.AL1,000Apr-08Not found;see note atright for thetoxicitybasis.Preliminaryscreening or cleanupvalue for TCDD,residential use, directcontact.(Adopted value fromOSWER directive.)Reflects theOSWER value;derivation basis isthe evaluation byKimbrough et al.(1984) of datafrom Kociba et al.(1978).Cleanup value andtoxicologicalcontext areavailable online.Cited in document from thestate website as a value thatcan be used for “screeningor cleanup” purposes.AS450Oct-08130,000Tier 2 action level fordioxin TEQ,residential use, directcontact. (Tier 1 is ascreening level; seeright-most column forTier 2 context.)General equation fordirect contact;considers ingestion,inhalation, and dermalroutes of exposure.Slope factorreflects the valuelisted in the 2008EPA RSL table(U.S. EPA,2009b).10-4Information isavailable online.Action level adopted fromGuam EPA represents thevalue above whichresidential use is notrecommended absentremedial action to reducepotential exposure.AZ4.5May-07(Jul-09)130,000Soil remediation levelfor TCDD, residentialuse, direct contact.(Field review input ofJuly 2009 indicatesAZ has adopted theEPA RSL and toxicityvalue.)General equation fordirect contact;considers ingestion,inhalation, and dermalroutes of exposure.Slope factor isfrom CalEPA, asreflected in theEPA RSL table.10-6Adopted equationsand toxicityinformation fromRegional EPARSLs, for whichdocuments areavailable online.Current residential SRL fromstate website for current orintended future use ofcontaminated site as a childcare facility or school wherechildren <18 are reasonablyexpected to be in frequent,repeated contact with soil.December 2009Page 7TABLE 4 Representative Soil Cleanup Level for Dioxin by State: Unrestricted/Residential UseaStateSoilConc(ppt)DateToxicityValue(mg/kg-d)-1Term and ScenarioContextScientific BasisExposure ToxicityRiskPeer Review andAvailabilitySelection RationaleDE4Dec-99150,000Uniform risk-basedremediation standardfor TCDD,unrestricted use,protection of humanhealth.General equation fordirect contact;incidental ingestion isprimary contributor.Slope factorsource is given asHEAST.10-6Calculations andrisk-based tablesare available online.Current residential URSfrom state document.FL7Feb-05150,000Soil cleanup targetlevel for TCDD TEQ,residential use, directcontact.General equation fordirect contact;considers incidentalingestion, inhalation,and dermal exposureroutes.Slope factorsource is given asHEAST.10-6Derivation basisand equations areavailable online.(Default andchemical-specificparameter valuesare in the FDEP2005 technicalreport.)Current residential SCTLfrom the state website.GA801992Not found.Notifiable concentration for TCDD,unrestricted usescenario. (This is adefault starting pointfor the cleanup levelthat is determined ona site-specific basis,which in some casesmay be this sameconcentration.)General equation fordirect contact;considers ingestionand inhalationexposure pathwaysNot found.10-5Soil valuesavailable online, butspecific derivationbasis is unclear;toxicity value andsome chemicalspecific parametervalues are notprovided.Value identified from thestate website.GM450Oct-08130,000Tier 2 action level fordioxin TEQ,residential use, directcontact.General equation fordirect contact;considers incidentalingestion, inhalation,and dermal exposureroutes.Slope factors andtoxicologicalinformation arefrom CalEPA, asreflected in 2008EPA RSL table.10-4Information isavailable online.Represents value abovewhich residential use is notrecommended in absence ofremedial actions to reducepotential exposure, takenfrom the agency website.December 2009Page 8TABLE 4 Representative Soil Cleanup Level for Dioxin by State: Unrestricted/Residential UseaStateSoilConc(ppt)DateToxicityValue(mg/kg-d)-1Term and ScenarioContextScientific BasisExposure ToxicityRiskPeer Review andAvailabilitySelection RationaleHI390Sum-08150,000Tier 2 action level fordioxin TEQ,residential use, directcontact.General equation fordirect contact;considers incidentalingestion, inhalation,and dermal exposureroutes.Slope factorsource is given asHEAST.10-4Information isavailable online.Represents value abovewhich residential use is notrecommended in absence ofremedial actions to reducepotential exposure, takenfrom the state website.IA19(Jul-09)150,000Cleanup level forresidential land use.Exposure equationtakes into accountingestion and dermalcontact.Slope factorsource is given asHEAST.5×10-6Formula used forrisk calculations isavailable online.Field review feedbackidentified this as the dioxinresidential cleanup level,statewide soil standard,within the voluntary cleanupprogram, Iowa LandRecycling Program.IN45(60)2006(Jun-09)150,000130,000TCDD, residentialsoil default closurelevel, direct contact.Internal draft valuefor TCDD, residentialsoil default closurelevel, direct contact.Exposure equationconsiders ingestion,inhalation, and dermalexposure routes.Slope factorsource is given asHEAST.Exposure equationconsiders ingestion,inhalation, and dermalexposure routes.Slope factorsource is given asCalEPA.10-510-5Current technicalguide is availableonline.Internal draft value,pending possiblechanges inalgorithms ortoxicological data.Represents the currentprovisional value, availableonline from the statewebsite.The soil concentration of60 ppt was identified in fieldfeedback as a draft internalvalue under consideration.KS60Jun-07150,000Tier 2 risk-basedstandard for TCDD,residential scenario.“Chemical-specificand media-specificrisk-based cleanupgoals ...” (see Tier 2context in right-mostcolumn).Exposure equationconsiders ingestion,inhalation, and dermalexposure routes.Slope factorsource is given asHEAST.10-5Cleanup levels andequations with soilexposure factorsare available online.From the state website,Tier 2: single contaminantand medium, standard andconservative defaultexposure assumptions;does not include soil to airtransfer, cumulative riskfrom multiple contaminantsor media, and risk toecological receptors.December 2009Page 9TABLE 4 Representative Soil Cleanup Level for Dioxin by State: Unrestricted/Residential UseaStateSoilConc(ppt)DateToxicityValue(mg/kg-d)-1Term and ScenarioContextScientific BasisExposure Toxicity RiskPeer Review andAvailabilitySelection RationaleMD4.5(Jul-09)130,000Cleanup level forTCDD, residentialscenario.Exposure equationconsiders ingestion,inhalation, and dermalexposure routes.Slope factorsource is given asCalEPA.10-6EPA RSL equationsare available online.Field review feedbackindicated the EPAresidential RSL is the soilcleanup level for MD.ME10Jul-09130,000Draft generic soilcleanup level fordioxin TEQ,residential scenario.Value considersincidental ingestion,dermal contact, andinhalation of fugitivedust.Slope factorsource is given asCalEPA.10-6Equations and asummary ofcalculations areavailable online.(Not known if this ispending finalpublication.)Concentration found viaweblinks provided in fieldreview feedback. This valueof 10 ppt for residential useis considered representative(with its more conservativetarget ILCR, 10-6), as it is“applicable at sites withmore than one contaminantof concern.”MI90Jan-0675,000Direct contactcriterion (DCC) andrisk-based screeninglevel (RBSL) forTCDD TEQ.Exposure equationconsiders ingestionand dermal routes ofexposure.Slope factor basedon reanalysis ofKociba et al.(1978) data usingupdated (1986)NTP methodology.10-5DCC derivationmethodology isavailable online.Current direct contactcriterion from the statewebsite.MN20Jun-091,400,000Soil reference value,residential scenario,direct contact forTCDD (or TCDDTEQs).General equationconsiders incidentalingestion, dermalcontact, andinhalation.Draft upper-boundslope factor fromEPA (2003), whichwas derived fromKociba et al.(1978) data.10-5Methodology andupdates toparameter valuesare available online.Current residential SRVfrom the state website.December 2009Page 10TABLE 4 Representative Soil Cleanup Level for Dioxin by State: Unrestricted/Residential UseaStateSoilConc(ppt)DateToxicityValue(mg/kg-d)-1Term and ScenarioContextScientific BasisExposure ToxicityRiskPeer Review andAvailabilitySelection RationaleMS4.26Feb-02150,000Tier 1, targetremediation goal forTCDD, unrestrictedland use scenario.(See right-mostcolumn for Tier 1context.)General equation fromEPA (1996) SoilScreening Guidance;incidental ingestion isthe primarycontributor.Slope factorsource is given asHEAST (undated;field reviewfeedback citedpg. 3-33 of thatdocument).10-6Equations fromEPA are availableonline; the HEASTinformation is not.Field review feedbackindicates target risk isdefault;“Tier 1 TRGs mayeither be used as “default”remediation goals or asscreening values that willinitiate a Tier 2 Evaluation orTier 3 Evaluation.”NE3.9Oct-08150,000Remediation goalestablished underthe NDEQ VoluntaryCleanup Programguidance for TCDD,based on directcontact.General equation;considers ingestion,inhalation, and dermalexposure routes.Slope factorsource given asHEAST.10-6Cleanup levels andremediation goalsare available online.Field review feedbackindicatedthe VCP RGs “areboth screening levels forinvestigation and sitecharacterization purposesand preliminary cleanupgoals for the remedial actionphase.”NH9May-07150,000Risk-based S-1 soilcategory for sensitiveuses of property andaccessible soils.(See right-mostcolumn for context.)General equation fordirect contact;considers ingestionand dermal exposureroutes.Slope factor citesRAIS (ORNL,2005/2006);appears to reflectHEAST.10-6Riskcharacterizationand derivations areavailable online.From the state website,relatively conservative S-1means potential receptors ofall ages may be exposed vianormal everyday activities(160 d/y, 30 y).NMI450Oct-08130,000Tier 2 action level fordioxin TEQ,residential use, directcontact. (Tier 1 is ascreening level; seeright-most column forTier 2 context.)General equation fordirect contact;considers ingestion,inhalation, and dermalroutes of exposure.Slope factorreflects the valuelisted in the 2008EPA RSL table.10-4Information isavailable online.Action level adopted fromGuam EPA, per website;represents the value abovewhich residential use is notrecommended absentremedial action to reducepotential exposure.OH35.8Oct-09150,000Generic cleanupnumbers for TCDDTEQ, direct contactwith soil.General equation;considers ingestion,inhalation, and dermalexposure routes.Slope factorsource is given asHEAST.10-5Derivationmethodology isavailable online.Current generic cleanupnumber from the statewebsite.December 2009Page 11TABLE 4 Representative Soil Cleanup Level for Dioxin by State: Unrestricted/Residential UseaStateSoilConc(ppt)DateToxicityValue(mg/kg-d)-1Term and ScenarioContextScientific BasisExposure ToxicityRiskPeer Review andAvailabilitySelection RationaleOR4.5Sep-09130,000Risk-basedconcentration forTCDD, residentialscenario, directcontact.General equationadopted from RSLs;considers ingestion,inhalation, and dermalroutes of exposureSlope factorunderlying theRSL is fromCalEPA.10-6Values andderivationmethodology areavailable online.RBC from recent stateupdate (of previous term,“acceptable risk level” abovewhich action is to be takento reduce exposure).PA120Nov-01150,000Medium-specificconcentration (MSC)for TCDD, residentialscenario, directcontact.General equation;considers ingestionroute.Slope factorsource is given asHEAST.10-5PADEP documentsare available online.Current residential MSCfrom the state website.TX1,000Mar-09Not found;see note atright for thetoxicitybasis.Protectiveconcentration levelfor dioxin TEQ,residential scenario.Exposure equationaccounts for ingestion,inhalation, dermalcontact, andvegetableconsumption.Reflects theOSWER value, forwhich thederivation basis isthe evaluation byKimbrough et al.(1984) of datafrom Kociba et al.(1978).Soil concentrationis available online,but TX does notdescribe derivationbasis. Toxicityvalues and somechemical-specificparameter valuesare not provided.PCL identified on the statewebsite; “TRRP Tier 1protective concentrationlevels (PCLs) are the defaultcleanup standards in the TXRisk Reduction Program.”WA11Jun-09150,000Cleanup level forTCDD, unrestrictedscenario, directcontact.General equation;considers ingestionexposure route.Slope factorsource indicatedas HEAST.10-6Equations, cleanuplevels, and riskcalculations areavailable online.Current soil cleanup levelfrom the state website.WY4.5(Jul-09)130,000Cleanup level forTCDD.Exposure equationtakes into accountexposure fromingestion, inhalation,and dermal contact.Slope factorsource is given asCalEPA.10-6EPA RSL equationsare available online.Field review feedbackindicated WY uses 4.5 pptas its residential soilcleanup level.aSee Notation section and report text for acronym definitions.Field input from the review phase is in italics, and the inputdate is in parentheses.December 2009Page 12AK, J un-08 AL, Apr- 08 AS , Oc t-08 AZ , Ma y- 07

D E, D ec-9 9 FL, F e b-05 GA, 1992 GM, Oct- 0 8 HI, S um - 0 8 IA, Jul-0 9 IN, 20 0 6 (Jun- 09) KS , Ju n - 0 7 MD ( Jul-09) ME (Jul-09) MI, J an-06 MN , Jun -0 9 MS , Fe b-0 2 N E, Oc t-08 NH, May -07 NMI, Oct-08 O H, Oct - 09 OR, Sep-09 PA, N ov - 0 1 TX, M a r - 09

WA , Ju n-0 9 WY ( J ul -09 )1,1001,00090080070060050040030020010001,0001,000450450450390120459080(60)6035.8381920114.54.54.5104.263.994.547

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)FIGURE 2a Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by State(Standard arithmetic scale; a dark border indicates the basis is TEQ vs. TCDD; a dashed border and lighter shadingindicates a draft value; parenthetical dates reflect field inputs for values not yet found online.)December 2009Page 13A K, Jun - 0 8 AL , Apr-08 AS, Oc t -08

A Z, M ay-0 7 DE, D e c -99 FL , Feb -0 5 GA, 1992 GM , O ct-0 8

H I, Sum - 08 I A, Ju l - 09 IN, 2006 (Ju n -09) KS, J un -07

MD (J ul-09) ME (Jul-09) MI, Jan-0I, Jan-06 M N, Jun-0 9 MS, Fe b -02 N E, Oct - 08

N H, May-0 7 NM I, Oct - 0 8 O H, O ct -09 OR, Sep-09 PA, N o v-01 TX , M a r -09 WA, J un-09 WY ( Jul-0 9 )10,000

Soil Dioxin C Soil Dioxin Concentration ncentration (ppt)1,0001,000450450450390120904580(60)603835.820191110974.54.54.54.54.2643.91,000100101FIGURE 2b Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by State(Logarithmic scale; a dark border indicates the basis is TEQ vs. TCDD; a dashed border and lighter shading indicates adraft value; parenthetical dates reflect field inputs for values not yet found online.)December 2009Page 14AL, A pr-0 8 TX , M a r -0 9 AS , Oct-08 GM, Oct-08

N M I, Oc t- 08 HI, Sum-08

P A, No v- 01 MI , Jan -0 6 G A , 1 992 KS , J un- 07

IN, 2006 (Jun-09) AK , Jun-08 OH , Oct- 09 MN, Jun-09

I A, J u l - 09 W A, J un- 09 ME (Jul-09)

N H , M a y- 0 7 FL , Feb-05 MD (Jul-09) WY ( Jul- 0 9 ) AZ, Ma y -07 O R , S e p-0 9 M S, Feb- 02 DE, Dec-99 NE , Oct- 0 810,0001,000100101

Soil Diox Diox in Conc Conc entration (ppt)1,0001,000450 450 45039012090458060(60)3835.820191110974.5 4.5 4.54.54.2643.9FIGURE 3 Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by Concentration(A dark border indicates the basis is TEQ vs. TCDD; adashed border and lighter shadingindicates a draft value;parenthetical dates reflect field inputs for values not yet found online.)December 2009Page 15ME (Jul-09) NH , Ma y - 0 7 DE, D e c-9 9 MD ( J u l-09) PA, Nov-0 1 AL, Apr- 0 8 FL , F e b-05 G A, 19 9 2 MS , Feb - 0 2

N , 2 0 0 6 ( J u n-09) MI , J a n-06 MN , Jun-0 9

O H, Oct - 0 9 TX, M ar- 0 9 IA, Jul-09 KS , Jun -07 NE, O c t - 0 8

W Y ( J u l-0 9 ) AS , Oc t -08 AZ, M ay - 07 GM, Oct-08

H I , Su m- 08 NMI , Oc t -08 AK, Jun-08

O R, S e p-09

W A , Jun -0910,0 0 01 345678 91011010 01,0 0 0109412 04. 571, 0 0 04.2 68045(60)9035 . 8201, 0 0 019603. 94.545 039 045 04. 545 0384.511

Soil Dioxin Co Co ncentration (ppt) IFIGURE 4 Soil Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by Region(EPA Regions are numbered across the top; a dark border indicates the basis is TEQ vs. TCDD; a dashed border andlighter shading indicates a draft value; parenthetical dates reflect field inputs for values not yet found online.)December 2009Page 16

# TABLE 5 Additional State Concentrations Potentially Relevant to Soil Cleanup a



# State Conc

(ppt) Context

AR 4.5

18 No cleanup level was found for dioxin, but ARDEQ used U.S. EPA Region 6 mediumspecific screening levels (MSSLs) as a point of departure. (These values were recently

harmonized as EPA RSLs.) Also, "Arkansas has not implemented a single set of soil

cleanup levels for general usage. Instead, the State uses standards set in Regulation

No. 23 ..., usually arriving at a site-specific standard for each clean-up.” (For further

information including the citation, see the AR entry in Table B.6 of the appendix.)

CA 4.6

19 No cleanup levels were identified for dioxin, but CA has developed human health

screening levels (HHSLs) for TCDD.

KY 4.5

18 KY regulations indicate that the state uses Region 9 PRGs for screening purposes.

(These values were recently harmonized as EPA RSLs.)

MA 20

50

300 MA has developed Method 1 soil standards for dioxin TEQ for three different exposure

scenarios. Field review feedback indicated that Method 1 standards are “essentially a

screening approach. If dioxin concentrations exceed this level a risk assessment can be

used to evaluate the site and derive cleanup levels.” (For further information including

the citation, see the MA entry in Table B.1 of the appendix.)

MT 4.5

18 State-specific risk-based screening levels (RBSLs) are listed on the MTDEQ website;

none were found for dioxin or dioxin congeners . Instead, the MTDEQ flow chart directs

users to screen soil dioxin concentrations based on the EPA RSLs.

NC 1,000

0.64 NC identifies two preliminary soil remediation goals (PSRGs) for TCDD TEQ: a

“preliminary health-based PSRG” (1,000) and “protection of groundwater SRG” (0.64).

NV 3.9

17.7

38.1 NDEP has developed basic comparison levels for dioxin in soil for residential,

commercial/industrial worker, and indoor worker (without dermal contact) scenarios.

BCLs essentially represent a screening approach.

NY 600

60,000 NYDEC has developed an allowable soil concentration and a soil cleanup objective

(SCO) for dioxin TEQ, both of which are to be protective of groundwater quality. The

allowable concentration assumes contaminated soil is in direct contact with the water

table; the SCO value assumes contaminated soil is in the unsaturated zone above the

water table and is subject to attenuating processes during transport to groundwater.

Neither was used to develop a “recommended” cleanup objective for the State of NY.

OK 3.9

18

38 OK indicates that EPA Region 6 MSSL s were used for screening purposes,

representing residential, industrial outdoor worker, and industrial indoor worker

scenarios. (The MSSLs were recently harmonized as EPA RSLs.)

SC 3.9

16 SCDHEC fact sheet suggests EPA Region 9 PRGs were used for screening purposes.

(The PRGs were recently harmonized as EPA RSLs.)

TN 50 Soil screening level for dioxin TEQ, based on 10 -6 

# lifetime cancer risk over a 70-year life

(reflects the recent ATSDR [2008a] guideline).

VA 4.5

18 VADEQ indicates that EPA RSLs are used for scr eening purposes.

VT 4.5

18 VTDEC indicates that EPA RSLs are used for scr eening purposes.

WI 1.2

0.5 WIDNR identifies risk-based standards for human and wildlife protection, as total dioxin

equivalent; values of 0.5 and 1.2 ppt are ident ified for agricultural land with and without

grazing, respectively.

WV 4.1

370 WVDEP identifies these values for 2,3,7,8- TCDD, for the residential and industrial

scenario, respectively, based on EPA Region 3 risk-based concentrations (screening

values) from July 1996, except industrial value is for 10 -5 

# risk rather than 10 -6



# .

a 

# This table emphasizes levels developed for unrest ricted/residential use; values for some other

scenarios are also included; italics indicate information from the field review phase. See Appendix B for

further details. See Notation and text for acronym de finitions. Many states consider the EPA Regional

screening values to assess dioxin-contaminated soil (U.S. EPA, 2009b).

December 2009 Page 17

# (Page intentionally left blank.)

December 2009 Page 18110100 AK, Jun-08

A K, Ju n -08 AK, Ja n- 0 4 AK, Jun-08

A L , Apr-08

A L , Ap r -0 8 AL, Apr-08

A R, Ma y-0 9

A S , O ct -0 8 AS, Oct-08 AS, O ct-08

A Z , M a y-0 7 AZ , May-07 CA, J an- 0 5 DE, D e c - 9 9 FL , Fe b -05 GA, 1992

G M , O ct-0 8

G M, O ct-08 GM, Oct-08

HI , S u m- 08

HI , S u m-0 8 HI, Sum-08 IA ( J ul-0 9 )

I A ( J u l- 0 9 ) IA, J u l-04

IN ( J un-09)

I N , 2 0 0 6 KS, Jun- 0 7 KY, A p r -0 9

MA , De c-0 7 MA , Dec-07 MD (Jul-09) ME , Ju l-0 9 MI, Jul- 0 8 MI, Jan-06 MI, A ug - 9 8 MI, J an-06 MN , Ju n -09 MS, Feb - 02 MT, De c-0 9 NC, Oct - 09 NC, O ct - 0 9 NE, Oct -0 8 NH, Ma y -07

N H , May- 0 7 NJ, M ar -0 1

N MI , O ct-08 NMI, Oct - 08 NMI, Oct -0 8

N V, Feb-09 NY, J a n-94

N Y, Ja n- 9 4 OH , Oct-0 9 OK, Feb-03

O R, S e p -0 9 OR , S e p -0 9 OR, Sep-09

O R, S e p -0 9

O R, Ma y- 0 5 PA, Nov-01 TN, S e p -0 3 TX , M a r- 09

V A, Jul- 0 9 VT, Ma y - 0 9

W A , J a n -9 8 WA, Ja n -9 8 WA, Jun-09 WA , Jan - 98

W V , Mar - 01 WY (Jul-09) WY , Jun-09 WY ( J u l -0 9 )100,00060,00010,0001,0003, 00 01, 00 038 545 045 039 01, 00 01, 0001, 00 045 060 01, 00 0 1, 00 02126347393842458042 42726045609 0 90 90504235 .86612 050504. 5 4. 5 4. 54. 6474. 53. 919144. 5204. 510204. 264. 53. 994. 53. 93. 919124. 53. 94. 5 4 . 5116. 674. 14. 5 4 .50. 640. 15

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)0FIGURE 5 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by State(Cleanup levels are solid bars, dark borders indicate the basisis TEQ not TCDD, dashed borders are for draft or supporting values; screening values are unshaded.)December 2009Page 19100,00010,000

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)1,000100101060,0003,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,000600450 450 45039038521212090 90 908072666360 6050 50 504745 4542 42 42 42393835.820 2019 1914121110976.674.64.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.54.264.143.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.90.640.15FIGURE 6 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by Concentration(Cleanup levels are solid bars, dark borders indicate the basisis TEQ not TCDD, dashed borders are for draft or supporting values; screening values are unshaded.)December 2009Page 20ME, Jul-09 MA , Dec-07 MA , Dec- 07 NH , M ay -07 NH , M ay -07

V T , M a y -09 NJ, M ar- 01 NY , J an-94 NY, Jan-94 DE, Dec - 99 MD ( Jul- 09)

P A , Nov - 01

V A , Jul-09 WV , M ar -01 A L, A pr -08 AL, Ap r -08 AL, Apr-08

F L, Feb-05 GA, 1992

K Y , A pr-0 9

M S , F eb- 02 NC , Oct - 09 NC , Oct - 09 TN, S e p-03 IN (Jun-09) IN, 2006 MI, Jul-08

M I , J an- 06

M I , A ug-9 8

M I , J an- 06

M N , Jun-09 OH, Oc t -09 AR, May-09 OK , F eb - 03

T X , M ar -09 IA ( J ul - 09) IA, J ul-04

I A ( J ul - 09) KS, Jun- 07 NE, Oct-08 MT, Dec -09 WY (J ul-09) WY, Jun-09 WY (J ul - 09) AS, O c t - 08 AS, O c t - 08 AS, Oct-08 AZ, May-07

A Z , May - 07 CA, Jan-05 GM , Oc t - 08

GM , Oc t -08 GM , Oct-08 HI, Sum-08 HI, Sum-08 HI, Sum-08 NMI, Oct-08 NMI, Oct-08 NMI, Oct-08 NV , F e b- 09 A K , Jun- 08 AK, Jun- 08 AK, Jan- 04 AK, Jun-08 OR , Sep- 09 OR , Sep- 09 OR , Sep- 09 OR, May - 05 OR , S ep- 09 WA , J an- 98 WA , J an- 98 WA , Jun-09

W A, Jan-9812345678910100, 0006 0 , 00010, 0003, 00 01, 0001, 00 060 01, 00 038 51, 00 01, 00 01, 00 045 045 039 045 01, 00010100102094. 55044. 51204. 54. 121 27804. 54. 2650604590 90 902035. 84. 53. 9191472603. 94. 5 4 . 5 4. 5424. 5454. 54. 6424. 5423. 9424. 53. 9634739386619123. 94. 550116. 6710. 6400. 15

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt).FIGURE 7Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Unrestricted/Residential Use, by Region(EPA Regions are numbered across the top; cleanup levels are solid bars; a dark border indicates the basis is TEQ; a dashed border indicates a draft or supporting value; screening values are unshaded.)December 2009Page 21A K , Ju l - 9 6 AR, Sep-96 AZ, A pr - 0 1 CA, M ar-99 CA, Sep - 03

C A , M a r -08 CA, M ay -0 8 CA , Fe b- 9 5 CT, Sep-0 5 DC, Sep-07 FL, Su m -97

FL , Su m - 97 FL, Sep-06 FL , Au g- 06 FL, Sum-97 GA, Su m - 9 7 GM, Jul-02 GM , Aug-07 GM, Dec - 03 GM, D e c- 0 3 ID, Apr-03 ID, Aug - 02

I L , Apr-02 IN , Jun-89

L A, Apr- 9 3 LA, Nov-97

L A , Jun - 02 LA, Jul-95

M A , Sep -0 4

M N, Sep-08

M O, Ap r -9 3 MO, Sep - 05 MO, Sep-86

M S , S ep- 0 7

MT, J u n- 0 8

NC , Jul-0 5 NC , Sep-06 NC, Sep - 06 NJ, Ma y -0 4 NY, Mar - 0 3 OH, Jun-89 PA, S e p- 0 7 PA, Apr-06 PA, A u g -0 3 PR, Apr-04 SC, Aug - 04 SD, Jun - 96 TN, Ju l -03 TX, J un- 0 0 TX, Oct-98 WA , M a y- 9 3 WA, Fe b -00 WA, Ju l - 9 4 WA, Fe b -00 WY , M a y- 0 4100,000

Dioxin Soil Concentration (ppt)10,0001,000100101020,0001,000 1,000 1,0001,0001,0001,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,0001,000 1,000 1,0001,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000400390200200120107.762.55040383814.59.137 76.76.674.34.34.143.9 3.93.93.921.20.4FIGURE 8 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Unrestricted/Residential Use from Contaminated Site Applications, by State(Reflects site-specific cleanup decisions, so all are shaded.)December 2009Page 22110 MO , A pr- 93

C A , M a r - 9 9

C A , S ep - 03

M O , Se p-05

M O , Se p-86

A R, S ep-96

C T , S ep - 05 GM , Jul-0 2 ID, Ap r -03 ID, Aug-02 IL, Apr-02 IN, Jun-89 LA , Apr-93 LA, Nov-97 LA, J u n-02 LA, Jul - 95 MA , S e p- 0 4 MN, S ep-08 MS , S ep-07

N J, May-04

N Y , M a r - 0 3

O H , Ju n- 8 9

P R , Apr- 04

S D , J u n-96 TN, J ul -0 3

TX , J un- 0 0 TX, O c t - 98

WA , M a y- 9 3

G M , A u g-07 FL , Sum- 9 7 GA, Sum-97 NC, J ul-05 WA, Feb-00 MT, Jun-08 FL, Sum-97 PA, Sep-07 AZ, Apr-01 WY, May-04 NC, Sep - 0 6

G M, De c -0 3 FL, Se p- 0 6 FL, Au g- 0 6 WA, Jul -94 WA, Fe b- 0 0

P A , A pr -06

D C , S ep - 0 7 PA, Au g- 0 3

N C , S ep - 0 6

C A , M a r-08

C A , M ay- 0 8

G M , D e c- 0 3 SC, A ug-04 FL, Sum- 9 7 CA, Feb - 95 A K , Jul-96100,00010,0001,0001001, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 00 0 1 , 0 0 0 1, 0 0 0 1 , 000 1 , 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000400390200 20012010 7. 762 .5504038 3814. 59. 137 76. 76. 674. 3 4 . 34. 143. 9 3 . 9 3. 9 3 . 921.20.420, 000

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)0FIGURE 9 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Unrestricted/Residential Use from Contaminated Site Applications, by Concentration(Reflects site-specific cleanup decisions, so all are shaded.)December 2009Page 23(Page intentionally left blank.)December 2009Page 24

# TABLE 6 States without Formal Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin

State Context

CO CODPHE has develo ped and tabulated CO soil evaluation values (CSEVs), but no value for

dioxin or TCDD was found in the table. Field feedback during the review phase indicated CO uses

the equations and toxicity value from the EPA Regional screening level tables to develop

preliminary remediation goals for dioxin in soil.

CT No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup or screening levels were found.

DC No dioxin cleanup or screening level was identified for DC. Field review feedback indicated “DC

does not have a dioxin level for site cleanups for the RCRA Corrective Action Program, since DC

does not have this authority. The Voluntary Cleanup Program relies on the EPA RBCs Table for

screening criteria for all chemicals but ma y be developing their own cleanup standards for the

Voluntary Cleanup Program which may be used by other environmental programs in the District.”

ID No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup or screening levels were identified for ID. Field review

feedback indicated that Region 10 states (which include ID) are “using (with some chemical- or

exposure-specific exceptions) the Regional Screening Level tables that Superfund is sponsoring.”

IL No state-specific dioxin soil clean up (or screening) value was found.

LA No state-specific dioxin soil cl eanup (or screening) value was found.

MO No state-specific dioxin soil cl eanup (or screening) value was found.

ND No state-specific dioxin soil clean up (or screening) value was found. Field review feedback

indicated ND uses the equations and toxicity value from the EPA Regional screening level tables

to develop preliminary remediation goals for dioxin in soils.

NJ No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup (or screening) value was found. Field review feedback

indicated NJ follows the 1998 OSWER directive in coordinating with responsible parties and uses

the 2008 ATSDR value of 50 ppt as a screening level to consider the need for further evaluation

of sites. Final cleanup levels are site-specific.

NM No state-specific dioxin soil cl eanup (or screening) value was found.

PR No state-specific dioxin soil cl eanup (or screening) value was found.

RI No state-specific dioxin soil clean up (or screening) levels were found.

SD No state-specific dioxin soil clean up (or screening) value was found. Field review feedback

indicated SD uses the equations and toxicity va lue from the EPA Regional screening level tables

to develop preliminary remediation goals for dioxin in soil.

TT No state-specific dioxin soil cl eanup (or screening) value identified (per field review feedback).

UT No state-specific dioxin soil cleanup (or screening) value was found. Field review feedback

indicated UT uses the equations and toxicity value from the EPA Regional screening level tables

to develop preliminary remediation goals for dioxin in soil.

VI No state-specific dioxin soil cl eanup (or screening) value was found.

a 

# Italics indicate information from the field review ph ase; see tables in Appendix B for further details.

See Notation and text for acronym definitions.

December 2009 Page 25

# 3.1.2 Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use

Soil Cleanup Levels

The figures and tables outlined below parallel those given for unrestricted use in Section 3.1.1.

This information is presented to support consideration of a potential interim guideline for

commercial/industrial scenarios.

 

# Cleanup levels identified by states for commercial/industrial (restricted) use are identified

in Table 7, focusing on one representative value per state where multiple levels were

identified. Figure 10a presents these soil cleanup levels on the standard arithmetic

scale, alphabetized by state.

 

# Figure 10b illustrates the same data as Figure 10a, on a logarithmic scale to facilitate

readability and comparisons.

 

# Figure 11 shows the same data as Figure 10b, organized by concentration in decreasing

order, for possible insight into concentration groupings.

 

# Figure 12 gives the same information as Figure 11 but organized by EPA Region, for

potential insights regarding similarities and differences, if any, across regions.

Supporting Context: Screening Values and Illustrative Site-Specific Cleanup Levels

 

# Additional state levels identified for commercial/industrial use are identified in Table 8.

Figure 13 includes these values as the counterpart to Figure 5 (which addresses

unrestricted land use), extending beyond state cleanup levels for dioxin in soil to also

present screening values for these restricted land uses. As in Figure 9b, the data are

alphabetized by state and shown on a logarithmic scale

 

# Figure 14 shows the same information as Figure 12, organized by concentration in

decreasing order, for potential insights into concentration groupings. Figure 15 shows

the same information organized by EPA Region to facilitate comparisons.

 

# Figure 16 illustrates cleanup levels identified in documents prepared for contaminated

sites, organized by state. Figure 17 presents the same information as Figure 16,

ordered by concentration.

 

# Table 9 and Figure 18 present information for subsurface cleanup levels.

3.2 TOXICITY VALUES AND TARGET RISKS

 

# Table 10 identifies the slope factors used by states to determine cleanup levels. The

distribution of toxicity values is shown in Figure 19. Supporting information on toxicity

values from other agencies is presented in Table 11.

 

# The target risks applied to determine state cleanup levels for dioxin in soil are identified

in Table 12 (states are alphabetized within each risk level). Figure 20 presents the

distribution of states by target risk for the unrestricted/residential scenarios, and

Figure 21 presents this information for the commercial/industrial (restricted) scenarios.

December 2009 Page 26TABLE 7 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin per State: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) UseStateSoilConc(ppt)DateToxicityValue(mg/kg-d)-1Term and ScenarioContextScientific BasisExposure Toxicity RiskPeer Review andAvailabilitySelection RationaleAL5,000Apr-08Not found;see note atright for thetoxicitybasis.Preliminary screening orcleanup value for TCDD,commercial scenario,direct contact.(Adopted valuefrom OSWERdirective.)Reflects theOSWER value;derivation basisis the evaluationby Kimbrough etal. (1984) of datafrom Kociba etal. (1978).Cleanup value andtoxicological contextare available online.Cited in the statedocument as a value thatcan be used for“screening or cleanup”purposes.AS1,800Oct-08130,000Tier 2 action level fornonresidential scenario(upper end) for dioxinTEQ. Remedial actionguide varies for dioxinconcentrations between170 and 1,800 ppt.General equationfor direct contact;considersingestion,inhalation, anddermal routes ofexposure.Slope factorreflects the valuelisted in the 2008EPA Regionalscreening level(RSL) table.10-4The informationsummarized here isavailable online.Action level adopted fromGuam EPA representsthe value above whichnonresidential use is notrecommended absentremedial action to reducepotential exposure.AZ160May-07(Jul-09)NotidentifiedSoil remediation level forTCDD, nonresidentialscenario.General equation;considersingestion,inhalation, anddermal exposure.Adopted fromRegion 9 PRGs.Not identified.Remediation levelsand the guidancedocument areavailable online.Specific toxicityvalue not provided.Current SRL fornonresidential use,perField input. (Specificinformation regarding thetoxicity value or risktarget was not provided.)DE40Dec-99150,000Uniform risk-basedremediation standard forTCDD, restricted usewith protection of humanhealth.General equationfor direct contact;incidental ingestionis primarycontributor.Slope factor fromHEAST.10-6Calculations andrisk-based tablesare available online.Current restricted useURS, from state website.December 2009Page 27TABLE 7 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin per State: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) UseStateSoilConc(ppt)DateToxicityValue(mg/kg-d)-1Term and ScenarioContextScientific BasisExposure ToxicityRiskPeer Review andAvailabilitySelection RationaleFL30Feb-05150,000Soil cleanup target levelfor dioxin TEQ,commercial/industrialuse based on directcontact.General equationfor direct contact;considersincidentalingestion,inhalation, anddermal exposureroutes.Slope factor fromHEAST.10-6Derivation basis andequations areavailable online.(Default andchemical-specificparameter valuesare given in theFDEP 2005technical report.)Current commercial/industrial SCTL.GM1,800Oct-08130,000Tier 2 action level fornonresidential scenario(upper end) for dioxinTEQ. Remedial actionguide varies for dioxinconcentrations between170 and1,800 ppt.General equationfor direct contact;considersingestion,inhalation, anddermal routes ofexposure.Slope factorreflects the valuelisted in the 2008EPA RSL table.10-4The informationsummarized here isavailable online.This action levelrepresents the valueabove whichnonresidential use is notrecommended absentremedial action to reducepotential exposure.HI1,600Sum-08150,000Tier 2 action level fornonresidential scenario(upper end of range) fordioxin TEQ. Remedialactions vary when soildioxin concentration isbetween 170-1,600 ppt.General equationfor direct contact;considersincidentalingestion,inhalation, anddermal exposureroutes.Slope factor fromHEAST.10-4The informationsummarized here isavailable online.This action levelrepresents the valueabove whichnonresidential use is notrecommended absentremedial action to reducepotential exposure.IA360(Jul-09)RfD: 1×10-9mg/kg-dCleanup level fornonresidential land usebased on noncancerendpoint, if dioxin is theonly chemical ofconcern.Specific sourcenot identified(RfD is same asthe ATSDRchronic MRL;field inputindicated as anEPA source).The formula usedfor the riskcalculations isavailable online.Field review feedbackidentified as the dioxinnonresidential cleanuplevel, statewide soilstandard, within thevoluntary cleanupprogram, Iowa LandRecycling Program.December 2009Page 28TABLE 7 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin per State: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) UseStateSoilConc(ppt)DateToxicityValue(mg/kg-d)-1Term and ScenarioContextScientific BasisExposure ToxicityRiskPeer Review andAvailabilitySelection RationaleIN1802006150,000Commercial/industrialprovisional defaultGeneral equationuses incidentalSlope factor fromHEAST.10-5The extant technicalguide is availableThe current online(published) state value is(Jun-09)(130,000)closure level for TCDDin soil, based on directcontact. (The 2009internal draft value is thesame.)ingestion asprimary contributor.(More recentslope factor isbeing consideredas part of theinternal update.)online. (2009values have not yetbeen published andare pending anychanges inalgorithms ortoxicological data.)180 ppt; this is also thevalue identified by IDEMas an internal draftupdate in development,as part of field input tothis data compilationeffort.KS100Jun-07150,000Tier 2 risk-basedstandard for TCDD,nonresidential scenario.“Chemical-specific andmedia-specific riskbased cleanup goals.”(See Tier 2 context inright-most column.)Exposure equationconsidersingestion,inhalation, anddermal exposureroutes.Slope factor fromHEAST.10-5The cleanup leveland equation withsoil exposurefactors are availableonline.Tier 2 addresses a singlecontaminant and medium,with standardconservative defaultexposure assumptions; itdoes not include soil-toair transfer, cumulativerisk from multiplecontaminants or media,or risk to ecologicalreceptorsMD18(Jul-09)130,000Cleanup level forindustrial scenario.Exposure equationconsidersingestion,inhalation, anddermal exposureroutes.Slope factor fromCalEPA.10-6EPA RSL equationsare available online.Field review feedbackidentified the EPA RSLfor the industrial scenarioas the soil cleanup levelfor MD.December 2009Page 29TABLE 7 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin per State: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) UseStateSoilConc(ppt)DateToxicityValue(mg/kg-d)-1Term and ScenarioContextScientific BasisExposure ToxicityRiskPeer Review andAvailabilitySelection RationaleME31Jul-09130,000Draft generic soilcleanup level for dioxinTEQ, based on acommercial workerscenario.Value considersincidentalingestion, dermalcontact, andinhalation offugitive dust.Slope factor fromCalEPA.10-6Equations and asummary ofcalculations areavailable online.Concentration found viaweblinks from field reviewfeedback. Thecommercial scenariovalue of 31 ppt isconsidered representative(with a more conservativetarget ILCR, 10-6), as it is“applicable at sites withmore than onecontaminant of concern.”MN35Jun-091,400,000Soil reference value forindustrial worker, directcontact, for dioxin TEQ.Exposure equationtakes into accountexposure fromingestion,inhalation, anddermal contact.Draft slope factorfrom EPA(2003), whichwas derived fromKociba et al.(1978).10-5Derivationmethodology andupdates toparameter valuesare available online.Current industrial workerSRV.MS38.2Feb-02150,000Tier 1, targetremediation goal forTCDD, restricted landuse scenario.General equationuses incidentalingestion asprimary contributor.Slope factorsource is givenas HEAST.10-6Equations takenfrom EPA sources,for EPA RAGS areavailable online.State document explains,“Tier 1 TRGs may eitherbe used as “default”remediation goals or asscreening values that willinitiate a Tier 2 Evaluationor Tier 3 Evaluation.”NE160Oct-08150,000Remediation goalestablished under theNDEQ VoluntaryCleanup Programguidance for TCDD,based on direct contact.General equationuses incidentalingestion asprimary contributor.Slope factorsource is givenas HEAST.10-5Cleanup levels andremediation goalsare available online.Current industrial VCPRG.December 2009Page 30TABLE 7 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin per State: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) UseStateSoilConc(ppt)DateToxicityValue(mg/kg-d)-1Term and ScenarioContextScientific BasisExposure ToxicityRiskPeer Review andAvailabilitySelection RationaleNH300May-07150,000Risk-based S-2 soilcategory for workerswho come into contactwith soil as part of theiremployment.General equationfor direct contact;considers ingestionand dermalexposure routes.Slope factortaken from RAIS(ORNL,2005/2006),appears toreflect 1997HEAST.10-6Riskcharacterization andgeneral derivationsare available online.Derived for an adultworker exposed in a workenvironment or passiverecreational setting,assuming soil ingestion of100 mg/d, 146 d/y, 25 y.NMI1,800Oct-08130,000Tier 2 action level fornonresidential scenario(upper end) for dioxinTEQ. Remedial actionguide varies for dioxinconcentrations between170 and 1,800 ppt.General equationfor direct contact;considersingestion,inhalation, anddermal routes ofexposure.Slope factor from2008 EPA RSLtable.10-4The informationsummarized here isavailable online.Action level adopted fromGuam EPA representsthe value above whichnonresidential use is notrecommended absentremedial action to reducepotential exposure.OR20Sep-09130,000Risk-basedconcentration for TCDD,occupational scenario.Equation is basedon exposure fromdirect contact,ingestion, dermal,and inhalation.Equationsadopted fromformer EPARegion 9 PRGdocument.10-6Values andderivationmethodology areavailable online.Risk-based concentrationreplaces previousacceptable risk level.PA530Nov-01150,000Medium-specificconcentration for TCDD,based on nonresidentialscenario and directcontact.General equation;considers ingestionroute.Slope factorsource is givenas HEAST(undated).10-5PADEP documentsare available online.Current nonresidentialMSC for surface soil.TX5,000Mar-09Not found;see note atright for thetoxicitybasis.Protective concentrationlevel for dioxin TEQ insoil, commercial/industrial scenario.Exposure equationtakes into accountingestion,inhalation, dermalcontact, andvegetableconsumption.Reflects theOSWER value;derivation basisis the evaluationby Kimbrough etal. (1984) of datafrom Kociba etal. (1978).Soil values availableonline, but thederivation basis isambiguous. Toxicityvalues and somechemical-specificparameter valuesare not provided.“The TRRP Tier 1protective concentrationlevels (PCLs) are thedefault cleanup standardsin the TX Risk ReductionProgram.”December 2009Page 31TABLE 7 Representative Soil Cleanup Levels for Dioxin per State: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) UseStateSoilConc(ppt)DateToxicityValue(mg/kg-d)-1Term and ScenarioContextScientific BasisExposure Toxicity RiskPeer Review andAvailabilitySelection RationaleWA1,500Jun-09150,000Cleanup level for TCDDin soil, direct contact,industrial scenario.Equation considersingestion asprimary contributor.Slope factorsource is givenas HEAST.10-5Equations, cleanuplevels, and riskcalculations areavailable online.Current cleanup level forthe industrial scenario.Notes:Field input from the review phase is in italics, and the input date is in parentheses.More details including citations are in Appendix B.For the AZ concentration, it is not clear from information available whether the state maystill be using a cancer slope factorof 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1and a target risk of 10-5for the nonresidential scenario; specific valueswere not provided for this compilation.December 2009Page 32A L, Apr- 08 AS, O ct-08 AZ, M ay-07 DE, Dec-99 FL , F eb-05 GM, O c t- 08 HI, Sum - 08 I A , Jul- 0 9 I N, 2006 KS, Jun-07 MD (Jul-09) ME (Jul-09) M N, Jun-09

M S , Fe b -02 NE, Oct-08 NH , M a y -0 7 NM I , Oct -08

O R, Sep-09 PA, Nov-01 TX, Ma r-09 W A, Ju n- 0 9

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)6,0005,0005,000 (C)5,000 (C/I)4,0003,0002,0001,800 (I)1,800 (I)1,800 (I)1,600 (I)1,500 (I)1,000530 (C/I)160 (C/I)40 (C/I)30 (C/I)360 (C/I)180 (C/I)100 (I)18 (I)31 (I)35 (I)38.2 (C/I)160 (I)300 (I)20 (C/I)0FIGURE 10a Soil Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by State(Standard arithmetic scale; a dark border indicates the basis is TEQ; a dashed border indicates a draft value [ME];C = commercial; I = industrial.)December 2009Page 33A L, A pr- 0 8 AS, Oct-08 AZ, May - 07 DE, Dec-99 FL, Feb- 05 GM, O ct-08

H I , S um-0 8 IA, Jul-09 I N , 2006 KS, Jun-07 MD ( Jul-09) ME (J ul-09 ) M N , J un- 09 M S , Feb-02 N E , Oc t -08 NH, Ma y -0 7 NM I , Oc t - 08 OR , S ep- 09

P A, Nov-01 TX , Mar-09 WA, Jun-095,000 (C)1,800 (I)160 (C/I)40 (C/I)30 (C/I)1,800 (I)1,600 (I)360 (C/I)180 (C/I)100 (I)18 (I)31 (I)35 (I)38.2 (C/I)160 (I)300 (I)1,800 (I)20 (C/I)530 (C/I)5,000 (C/I)1,500 (I)1101001,00010,000

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)FIGURE 10b Soil Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by State(Logarithmic scale; dark border indicates basis is TEQ rather than TCDD; draft values have dashed borders.)December 2009Page 34AL, Apr-0 8 T X , Mar - 09 A S , Oc t -0 8 GM, Oct- 0 8

N MI, Oc t -0 8 H I , Sum -08 WA, Jun -09 PA, N o v-0 1 I A , Jul - 09 NH, Ma y-0 7 I N , 2 0 06

N E, Oct - 08 AZ, May-07 KS, Jun-07 DE, Dec-99 MS, Feb-02 M N , Ju n -09 M E (Ju l -09) F L , F e b-0 5 OR , Se p -09 MD (Ju l - 0 9 )18 (I)20 (C/I)30 (I)31 (I)35 (I)38.2 (C/I)40 (C/I)100 (I)160 (C/I)160 (I)180 (C/I)300 (I)360 (C/I)530 (C/I)1,500 (I)1,600 (I)1,800 (I)1,800 (I)1,800 (I)5,000 (C/I)5,000 (C)1101001,00010,000

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)FIGURE 11Soil Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by Concentration(A dark border indicates the basis is TEQ; a dashed border indicates draft values; parentheses indicate field input.)December 2009Page 35M E ( J u l - 0 9 )

N H , M a y - 0 7 D E , D e c- 9 9

M D ( Ju l - 0 9 )

P A , N o v- 0 1 A L , A p r - 0 8

F L , F e b - 0 5

M S , F e b - 0 2 IN , 2 0 0 6

M N , J u n - 0 9 T X , M a r - 0 9 IA J u l - 0 9

K S , Ju n - 0 7

N E , O ct - 0 8 A S , O ct - 0 8

A Z , M a y - 0 7 GM , O c t - 0 8

H I, S u m - 0 8

N M I, Oct - 0 8 O R , S e p - 0 9 W A , J u n - 0 9

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)10,0001 35,000 (C)455,000 (C/I)67 9 101,800 (I)1,800 (I)1,600 (I)1,800 (I)1,500 (I)1001,00031 (I)300 (I)40 (C/I)18 (I)530 (C/I)30 (C/I)38.2 (C/I)180 (C/I)35 (I)360 (C/I)100 (I)160 (I)160 (C/I)20 (C/I)101FIGURE 12 Soil Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by Region(EPA Regions are across top; a dark border indicates TEQ; a dashed border indicates draft values; parentheses indicate field input.)December 2009Page 36TABLE 8 Additional State Concentrations for Dioxin: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) UseStateSoilConc(ppt)DateToxicityValue(mg/kg-d)-1Term and ScenarioContextScientific BasisPeer Reviewand AvailabilitySelection RationaleExposure ToxicityRiskAS170Oct-081,400,000Tier 2 action level forTCDD TEQ, lower boundfor nonresidential scenario,where remedial actionsvary when soil dioxinconcentration is between170 and 1,800 ppt.General equationfor direct contact,incidental ingestionas primarycontributor butinhalation alsoconsidered.From MNDOH(2003), animalbioassay upperbound derivedfrom Kociba etal., tapped fromrange of valuesin EPA draftreassessment(2003a).10-4Information isavailable online.Value adopted from GuamEPA. Represents lowerend of Tier 2 action level,below which no remedialaction is required.GM170Oct-081,400,000Tier 2 action level forTCDD TEQ, lower boundfor nonresidential scenario,where remedial actionsvary when soil dioxinconcentration is between170 and 1,800 ppt.General equationfor direct contact,incidental ingestionas primarycontributor butinhalation alsoconsidered.From MNDOH(2003), animalbioassay upperbound derivedfrom Kociba etal., tapped fromrange of valuesin EPA draftreassessment(2003a).10-4Information isavailable online.Represents lower end ofTier 2 action level, belowwhich no remedial action isrequired.HI170Mar-061,400,000Tier 2 action level forTCDD TEQ, lower boundfor nonresidential scenario,where remedial actionsvary when soil dioxinconcentration is between170 and 1,800 ppt.General equationfor direct contact,incidental ingestionas primarycontributor butinhalation alsoconsidered.From MNDOH(2003), upperbound derivedfrom Kociba et al.(1978) bioassay,from range ofvalues in EPAreassessment(2003a).10-4Information isavailable online.Represents lower end ofTier 2 action level, belowwhich no remedial action isrequired.December 2009Page 37TABLE 8 Additional State Concentrations for Dioxin: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) UseStateSoilConc(ppt)DateToxicityValue(mg/kg-d)-1Term and ScenarioContextScientific BasisPeer Reviewand AvailabilitySelection RationaleExposure ToxicityRiskME310(Jul-09)130,000Generic soil cleanup levelfor dioxin TEQ, based on aconstruction/excavationworker.Value considersincidental ingestion,dermal contact, andinhalation of fugitivedust.Slope factor fromCalEPA.10-6Equations and asummary ofcalculations areavailable online.Commercial use, 31 pptindicated in field reviewfeedback is used as therepresentative value forcommercial/industrial use.NH5,000May-07Soil standard for TCDDTEQ, commercial scenario.Reflects OSWERdirective, per theKimbrough et al.(1984) evaluationof Kociba et al.(1978) data.Value reflects the 1998OSWER directive. SeeTable 7 for the statespecific soil value identifiedfor the commercialscenario.OR140Sep-09Risk-based concentration(RBC) for TCDD,occupational scenarioprotective of groundwater.General equationfor direct contact,incidental ingestion,dermal contact, and10-6The concentration of20 ppt identified for theoccupational scenariobased on direct contact150RBC for TCDD,construction scenario,direct contact, consideringingestion, dermal, andinhalation allconsidered.10-6was selected as therepresentative statespecific value forcommercial/industrial use.inhalation.4,200RBC for TCDD, excavationscenario, direct contact,considering ingestion,dermal, and inhalation.10-6December 2009Page 38A L , Apr-08

A R, M ay-09 AS, O c t-08 AS , Oct-08

A S, Oct-0 8 AZ, M ay - 07

C A , J a n- 05 DE, Dec- 9 9 FL, Feb-05 GM, Oct-08

G M , Oct-08

G M , O ct-08 HI , S u m -0 8 HI , S u m -0 8 IA, J ul- 0 9

I N (Jun-09) IN, 2006 KS, Jun- 0 7

K Y, A p r-0 9

M A , Dec - 07

M A , D ec - 07

M D, F e b -99 MD ( J ul -0 9) ME, Jul-09 MI, Jan-06 MN, Jun-09 MN, J un - 09

M S , F eb -02 MT, De c -0 9 NE, O c t-0 8 NH, M a y-07 NH, May- 0 7 NH, May- 0 7 NH, May- 0 7

NM I , O c t- 0 8 NMI, Oct- 0 8 NMI, Oct- 0 8 NV, Fe b -0 9 NV, Feb-09

O K , Feb-03

O K , F eb - 03 OR , M a y- 0 5

O R, Sep-09

O R, Sep-09

O R, Sep-09 OR, Sep-09 PA , N o v-0 1 TN , Ju l- 02

T X , Mar- 0 9

V A, J un -0 9

V T , May- 0 9 WA, J un - 09 WV, Mar- 0 1100,0005, 00 018 1817 01, 80 016 01940301817 01, 80 017 01, 6 0 036 018 0 1 8 010 0185030 01, 00 018 . 031 .090357538 .21816 03030 05, 00 020 , 0 0 01817 01, 80 017 .738 .11838162014 015 04,2 0 053 02, 50 05, 0 0 018 1 81,5 0 037 010,0001,000

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)100101FIGURE 13 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by State(Cleanup levels are solid bars; screening values are unshaded.)December 2009Page 39N H , M a y -07 AL , Ap r -08 NH, May-07

T X , M a r -0 9 OR, S ep-09 TN, Jul-02

A S , Oc t -08

G M , Oc t-08

N M I, Oct-08

H I , Su m -0 8 WA, Ju n -09 MD, Feb-99 PA , N o v -0 1

WV, M a r -0 1

I A, Jul-09

M A , D e c -0 7

N H , M a y -0 7 IN ( J un-0 9 ) IN, 2 0 0 6 AS , O ct-0 8 GM, Oct-08 HI, Sum-0 8 NMI, Oct - 0 8 AZ, M a y -07 NE, Oct-08 OR , Se p -0 9 OR, S ep-09 KS, Jun-07 M I , J a n -0 6 MN, J u n - 09 MA , De c -0 7

DE, D e c -9 9 MS , Feb-02 NV, Feb-09 OK, Fe b -0 3 MN, J u n - 09 ME, Jul-09 FL , Fe b -05

N H , M a y -0 7 OR, Sep-09

C A , Jan-05

A R , M a y -09 AS, Oct-08 GM, Oct-0 8 KY , A p r -0 9 MD (Jul-09 ) MT , Dec -0 9 NMI, Oct - 0 8 OK, F e b-03

V A , J u n-09

V T, M a y- 09 NV, Fe b -09 OR , M a y-05100,00010,0001,00010010120,0005,000 5,000 5,0004,2002,5001,800 1,800 1,8001,6001,5001,000530370360300 300180 180170 170 170 170160 1601501401009075504038.238.138353130 30201918 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 1817.716

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)FIGURE 14 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by Concentration(Cleanup levels are solid bars; screening values are unshaded.)December 2009Page 40MA , Dec-07 MA , Dec -0 7 ME, Jul- 0 9

N H , M a y - 0 7

N H , May-07

N H , M a y - 0 7

N H , May-07 VT , M a y -09 DE, Dec - 99

M D (J u l -0 9 )

M D, Feb-99 PA, No v -01 VA , Jun - 09

W V, Mar-0 1 AL , Ap r-0 8 FL , Feb-05 KY, Ap r-0 9 MS, F eb-02 TN, J ul-0 2

I N (J u n - 09 ) IN, 2 0 0 6

MI, J a n - 0 6 MN, Jun-09

M N, Jun- 09

A R, M a y - 0 9 OK, Feb-03 OK, F eb-0 3 TX, Mar-09 IA Jul-09 KS , J u n -0 7 NE, Oct-0 8 MT, Dec-09 AS, Oct- 0 8 AS , O ct-0 8 AS, O c t -0 8

A Z, M a y - 0 7 CA, Jan - 05 GM , Oc t-08 GM , Oc t-0 8 GM , Oc t-08

HI , S u m-08 HI, Sum-08 NMI, Oc t -0 8 NM I , Oct-08 NMI, Oc t -0 8 NV, Feb-09 NV , Feb- 0 9 OR, M ay - 05 OR, Sep-09 OR, Se p -09 OR, Sep-09 OR, Se p -09 WA, Jun-0910 0, 000134567891020 ,0 0010 01, 00010 ,0 005030 0313030 05,0 0 01840181, 00053 01837 05, 00 0301838 . 22, 50 018 0 1 8090357518 1 8385, 0 0 036 010 016018 1817 01, 8 0 016 0191817 01, 80017 01, 60 01817 01, 80 017 . 738162014 015 04,2 0 01, 5 0 0101

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)FIGURE 15 Soil Cleanup Levels and Screening Values: Commercial/Industrial (Restricted) Use, by Region(EPA Regions are across the top; cleanup levels are solid bars;a dark border indicates the basis is TEQ; a dashed border indicates a draft or supporting value; screening values are unshaded.)December 2009Page 41A K , J un-03 AR, Sep-96 AR, Sep-96 AZ, Ap r -01 CA , Feb- 95

C A, Feb-01 FL, Aug-06 FL, Aug- 06 FL, F eb -06 FL, Sep-06 FL, Aug-06 FL, S ep - 06 FL, Sum-97 GA, A ug- 04 ID, A u g-0 2

I D, Aug-02 IL, Apr-02 MD, Sep-07 MI, Feb-98 MN, S ep - 99 MS, Sum-97 MS, Sum-97 MT, J un-08 NC, Sep-08 NJ, Sep-07 NY, Nov- 04 SC, M ay-04 SC, Aug-04 TN, Jul-02 TX, Se p-06 TX, Oct-9 8 TX, Se p-06 UT, Jun-00 U T , Dec-97 U T , Dec-97 UT , Sep-92 WA, Sep-0 3

WA, S ep-97 WA, Sep-97 WA, May-93 WA , May-93 WA , May-93 WY , May -04100,0004403,5005,0002403002730 30 30 30 30 3 071,0005,0 0 020,00060259901 , 000510 01031 , 00019403.2162,50017 . 720,0005201,000373,7001,00087 542702002,00050,0004.310,0001,0001001010

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)FIGURE 16 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Restricted Use from Contaminated Site Applications, by State(Reflects site-specific cleanup decisions, so all are shaded.)December 2009Page 42WA , May-93 ID , Au g -02 TX , Oct -98

A R , S e p - 96

I D , Aug-02 U T, D e c-97 AR , Sep-96 T N , J u l - 0 2

W A, Ma y-93 G A , Aug-04 MN, Sep-99 NC, Sep -0 8 UT, J u n- 0 0

U T , Sep - 9 2 M I, F e b-9 8 W A, S ep-03 TX, Sep-06 AK, Ju n-03 C A , F eb - 9 5 WA , S ep -97 A Z, A pr -01 WA, May-93 MT, Jun-0 8 MS , Sum- 9 7 I L , A pr-02 NY, No v -04 UT, Dec-97 FL, Sep-06 FL, A u g-06 F L , A u g - 06 F L , F e b-06 FL , Au g - 0 6 FL, Sep-06 CA, Fe b -01 MD, S e p-07

NJ, Se p - 0 7 TX, Sep-0 6 SC, Au g -04 FL , Sum -9 7

M S, Sum- 9 7 S C, Ma y-04100,00020, 000 20,0005, 000 5, 0003, 7003, 5002, 5 0 02 , 0001, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 1,00099087552044030 027024020010310060403730 30 30 30 30 3027251917. 716753. 250, 00 010,0001,0001001010

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)FIGURE 17 Supporting Context: Cleanup Levels Identified for Restricted Use from Contaminated Site Applications, by Concentration(Reflects site-specific cleanup decisions, so all are shaded.)December 2009Page 43(Page intentionally left blank.)December 2009Page 44TABLE 9 Supporting State Context: Subsurface ValuesStateSoilConc(ppt)DateToxicityValue(mg/kg-d)-1Term and ScenarioContextExposureScientific BasisToxicity RiskPeer Review andAvailabilityAS,GM,NMI1,500Oct-08130,000Tier 1 environmentalscreening level (ESL)for dioxin TEQs, deepsoil (>3 m bgs) forconstruction/trenchworker scenario.General equationbased on directcontact.The slope factor was taken fromthe 2008 EPA RSL table, basedon a CalEPA maximum likelihoodestimate (MLE) and linearized95% upper confidence value(UCL) citing NTP animal data from1980 and 1982 converted toequivalent human exposures perscaling factors. (See Table B.9for more information.)10-6The equations andtoxicity value used toderive Tier 1environmentalscreening levels fordifferent exposurescenarios areavailable online.PA1.9×1011Nov-01150,000Medium-specificconcentration forTCDD, based onnonresidentialsubsurface soil(2-15 ft).General equationuses incidentalingestion asprimarycontributor.Reflects earlier EPA valueindicated in HEAST.10-5PADEP documentsare available online.December 2009Page 45Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)1,000,000,000,000100,000,000,00010,000,000,0001,000,000,000100,000,00010,000,0001,000,000100,00010,0001,00010010101,5001,5001,5001.90E+11AS, Oct-08GM, Oct-08NMI, Oct-08PA, Nov-01FIGURE 18 Supporting State Context: Subsurface Values, by StateDecember 2009Page 46TABLE 10 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup LevelsaCancerToxicity Value(mg/kg-d)-1Numberof StatesSpecificStatesScientific BasisNature of Valueand Peer Review150,00013AK, DE,FL, HI,IA, IN,KS, MS,NE, NH,OH, PA,WAThe source of this value is commonly given as EPA HEAST1997, which listsseveral citations including theHealth Assessment Document forPolychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin. (U.S. EPA, 1985). This slope factor is basedon the female rat bioassay by Kociba et al. from 1978. The two-year dietarystudy of TCDD in female Sprague-Dawley rats indicated the highest dose(0.1 μg/kg-d, or estimated dietary amount 2,200 ppt) produced multipletoxicological effects, with lesser effects reported at 0.01 μg/kg-d (210 ppt).(This was considered to support a previous study indicating chronic ingestionof 5,000 ppt caused many toxicologicaleffects.) No adverse effects werereported at 0.001 μg/kg-d (22 ppt), andno carcinogenic effects reported at0.01 or 0.001 μg (210 or 22 ppt).This older toxicity value reflects earlier methodology for classifying livertumors, which was updated by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in1986. Many states cite the (outdated, indirect) EPA HEAST as the source.(Note this earlier EPA value from HEAST was also listed in the previousRegion 9 PRG table – which precededthe 2008 harmonization of regionalscreening levels, or RSLs.)HEAST identified this as aprovisional value, and qualified itas being under further evaluation.Specific peer review informationwas not found; however, the 1985EPAHealth Assessmentdocument (listed as one of thesources) underwent external peerreview. (It is not clear that theHEAST value was based solelyon this document, however, sincethat lists a cancer slope factor of156,000 per mg/kg-d.) TheHEAST tables are now outdated.(From the HEAST introduction:“The HEAST is a comprehensivelisting consisting almost entirely ofprovisional risk assessmentinformation .... Although theseentries in the HEAST haveundergone review and have theconcurrence of individual AgencyProgram Offices, and each issupported by an Agencyreference, they have not hadenough review to be recognizedas high quality, Agency-wideconsensus information.” TheHEAST document also states thatwhen used, “the provisionalnature of the value should benoted.”)December 2009Page 47TABLE 10 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup LevelsaCancerToxicity Value(mg/kg-d)-1Numberof StatesSpecificStatesScientific BasisNature of Valueand Peer Review75,0001MIThis value is based on a reevalution of the tumor data from the 1978 rat studyby Kociba et al. (see above), using the 1986 NTP update of the liver tumorclassification scheme. This reevaluation indicated lower tumor incidencerates, which resulted in a slope factor of 52,000 (mg/kg-d)-1based on livertumors alone, and a slope factor of 75,000 (mg/kg-d)-1based on totalsignificant tumors – which updated the factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1that hadbeen based on the older methodology.Seven independent pathologistsreassessed the tumor data fromthe Kociba study and subsequentanalyses by Squire, a pathologistconsultant to the EPA CarcinogenAssessment Group.1,400,0001(+4,to derive asupportinglowerbound fora cleanuprange)MN(AS, GM,HI, NMI)MN adopted this draft value, the upper bound slope factor based on animaldata that was included in the EPA (2003) draft reassessment, which wasderived from the Kociba et al. (1978) bioassay described above. (This value is40 percent higher than the draft upper bound slope factor from thereassessment based on epidemiological data.) The MNDOH documentationnotes: driving pathway-oral; endpoints-immune, repro,cancer; cancer targetorgan-liver; class-human carcinogen.Per the MNDOH overview, concernsabout the quality of exposure estimates in human epidemiological studiespreclude quantitative use of these datain developing a slope factor, but resultsfrom modeling the human studies are consistent with the cancer slope derivedby modeling data from animal studies. MNDOH also notes this slope factorwas derived from the same study as the previous value of 156,000 (mg/kg-d)-1,and that its development utilized current methods of analysis, including use ofbody burden as the dose metric for animal-to-human dose equivalencecalculations (i.e., adjustments to accountfor the differences in half-life ofdioxins in the bodies of laboratory animals and humans), and a re-evaluationof liver tumors in the Kociba studyusing the latest pathology criteria.These four entries are shown in parenthetical italics because this value onlyunderlies supporting soil concentrations, not the basic cleanup levels for thisPacific island set. That is, this draft toxicity value was used to generate a lowerbound as a companion to the standard cleanup levels based on150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1for HI, and on 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1for the other threeislands. This toxicity value supports the lower end of the cleanup range, whilethe main cleanup level above which remedial action is to be considered isbased on the two other slope factors applied by nearly all other states:130,000 and 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1.The EPA draft reassessmentunderwent extensive internal andexternal agency peer review, andsubsequent peer review by anindependent NAS committee from2004 to 2006.In noting this draftbasis, MNDOH indicated it willupdate its guidance andrecommendations if appropriate,but at this time continues torecommend using its currentguidance for assessing potentialcarcinogenic health risks (whichincludes not recommending earlylife adjustment for cancerpotency).December 2009Page 48TABLE 10 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup LevelsaCancerToxicity Value(mg/kg-d)-1Numberof StatesSpecificStatesScientific BasisNature of Valueand Peer Review130,0008AS, AZ,GM, MD,ME, NMI,OR, WYThis slope factor is listed in the current EPA Regional screening level table forresidential soil, with the source givenas CalEPA; its derivation is documentedby California EPA (CalEPA). (As a note, the CalEPA soil screening level for2,3,7,8-TCDD is 4.6 ppt.) The asterisk* in the RSL table for the cancer basisindicates that a screening level based on the noncancer endpoint is <1% ofthat based on the cancer endpoint (indicated as "[n SL < 100X c SL]"). Thistoxicity value is based on the NTP rat gavage studies from 1982. Summarizingfrom the CalEPA derivation document: a linearized multistage model was usedwith the NTP male mouse hepatocellular adenoma/carcinoma tumor data forTCDD, providing point estimates of extra risk for both maximum likelihoodestimate (MLE) and linearized 95% upper confidence value (UCL); the UCLwas calculated by maximizing the linear term, or forcing a best fit (methodconsistent both with expected low-dose linearity and linear nonthresholdtheory). The slope of 95% UCL (q1*) was taken as the plausible upper boundcancer potency of TCDD at low doses.Rodent exposure data were convertedto equivalent human exposures with scalingfactors. Assumptions include: oraland inhalation routes are equivalent, air concentration is assumed to be dailyoral dose, route of exposure does not affect absorption, and no differenceexists in metabolism/ pharmacokinetics between animals and humans. Totalweekly dose levels were averaged for a daily dose level; this assumes dailydosing in the NTP studies would give the same results as the actual twiceweekly dosing schedule (as described, the TCDD half-life is relatively long soboth schedules should give similar tissue concentrations). A significantincrease in hepatocellular hyperplastic nodules was observed in female ratsexposed to 0.1 or 0.01μg/kg-d, while the next lower dose (0.001μg/kg-d)showed no effect. (Note CalEPA is currently evaluating more recent toxicitydata, notably the 2004 NTP study. Implications for an updated oral toxicityvalue are anticipated to be available later in 2009 or early 2010, followingcompletion of the external review process.)This value was developed by theCalifornia Department of HealthServices in 1986, as documentedin the derivation report developedfor the California Toxic AirContaminant program. Itunderwent external peer reviewby the California Air ResourcesBoard (CARB) scientific reviewpanel and was endorsed in 2002when it was summarized andincluded in the 2002 CalEPA HotSpots document.External review by the scientificpanel (primarily from academia)was in accordance with a processthat has been in place since1983, per the original state airtoxics legislation from the early1980s. As described in theCalEPA overview of this value,comprehensive reviews of humanstudies available when theevaluation was written for theToxic Air Contaminant (TAC)program are found in 1980sdocuments from the U.S. EPAand Veterans Administration.(+1)(IN)This entry is in parenthetical italics because 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1underlies theinternal draft cleanup level being considered by Indiana (60 ppt), based on fieldinput during the review phase of this data compilation effort. The slope factorof 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1underlies the current provisional level of 45 ppt.December 2009Page 49TABLE 11 Supporting Context from Other AgenciesEndpointToxicityValueUnitAgencyDateScientific BasisNature of Value andPeer ReviewCancerSlope factorIn finalreview(mg/kg-d)-1CalEPA*Finalpublicationanticipated inlate 2009 orearly 2010Based on an NTP (2004) chronic gavage study offemale Harlan Sprague-Dawley rats (chosen per theirhigh incidence of hepatocarcinogenicity), dosed 5 d/wkfor up to 105 wk. The study design, species, and doserange of 1 to 100 ng/kg-d were based on the dosedfeed chronic study by Kociba et al. (1978), whichreflected continuous dietary exposure of SpragueDawley rats. Increased incidences of neoplasms wereobserved in the liver, lung, oral mucosa, uterus, andpancreas."The recent chronic NTP (2004) gavage study in femaleHarlan Sprague-Dawley rats appears to provide asuperior basis for risk assessment, due to its carefuldesign and conduct, as well as improved survival rate,compared to Kociba et al. (1978)." Cal EPA (2007)also offers this historical context: "The non-significantrisk level for TCDD calculated for California’sProposition 65 is 5 pg/day (OEHHA, 2004). Thiscalculation uses a TCDD cancer potency factor of1.3×105(mg/kg-day)-1derived by the Air Toxics group in1986 (DHS, 1986; OEHHA, 2005) ... based on theincidence of liver tumors in a gavage study in malemice (NTP, 1982a). The potency factor derived [in] thisPHG document, ... based on the latest NTP study(NTP, 2004) in female rats ... derived using updatedmethodology, is considered to represent a moreaccurate estimate of potential human cancer risk."Has undergoneindependent peer reviewsince 2007, currently infinal phase.NoncancerChronic1×10-9mg/kg-dATSDRCurrentDevelopmental endpoint from Schantz et al. (1992);ATSDR MRLs areminimal riskDec-08point of departure (POD): 0.12 ng/kg-d, LOAEL forindependently peerlevel (oral)(establishedDec-98)altered social behavior in offspring.UFs: 3 for minimal LOAEL, 3 for animal-humanextrapolation, 10 for human variability.reviewed prior to beingfinalized (see ATSDR,2008b).December 2009Page 50TABLE 11 Supporting Context from Other AgenciesEndpointToxicityValueUnitAgency DateScientific BasisNature of Value andPeer ReviewPolicy(ToxicityATSDRNov-08ATSDR (2008a) explains that this screening levelThe external reviewguidelinevalueunderlyingrecent soilguideline of50 pptis notspecified,see notesbelow)"should be used as the comparison value whenfollowing the PHAGM. The comparison value is not athreshold for toxicity and should not be used to predictadverse health effects."The note accompanying dioxinhealth assessment values: slope factors for congeners(including 130,000 per mg/kg-d for TCDD): "Linearizedmultistage procedure (GLOBAL79), fitted to malemouse hepatic adenoma and carcinoma data (NTP,1982), body weight scaling,cross-route extrapolation(CDHS, 1986)."draft of this guidelinewas posted for publicreview before beingfinalized, as were fourearlier external peerreview drafts (1991,1992, 1994, and 1997).Note the 1998 policywas reviewed by a panelof university andCanadian healthofficials.Notes:The recent ATSDR (2008a) policy modified its 1998 policy guideline for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds in residential soil (the previous 1 ppbaction level was eliminated in the 2008 update). The current policy guideline of 50 ppt for residential soil represents a screening level for dioxins,including 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and dioxin-like compounds. This level is defined to serve as an initial comparison value for site-specific healthassessments evaluating exposure to dioxin directly from residential soils. As presented in ATSDR (1998/2008), this policy update replacesAppendix B of the dioxin toxicological profile and eliminatestwo categories of the 1998 policy guideline – namely the action level (1 ppb) andevaluation level – retaining only the 0.5 ppb screening level, toavoid confusion and maintain consistency with the ATSDR 2005Public HealthAssessment Guidance Manual (PHAGM). This value is based onthe noncancer endpoint for ingestion of soil in residential settings (EPA 2008).Note that EPA (2008) also indicates: "EPAgenerally uses 1 ppb dioxin as a startingpoint for setting cleanup levels for RCRA and CERCLA sites,based on the direct contact exposure pathway for human health (doesnot apply to other exposure pathways, such as migration ofsoilcontaminants to ground water or to agricultural products)."December 2009Page 51FIGURE 19 Dioxin Toxicity Values Underlying the State Cleanup Levels(Italics indicate the toxicity value is used for a draft or supporting cleanup level.)December 2009Page 52

# TABLE 12 Target Risks for the State Cleanup Levels

State per

Risk Level Soil Concentration (ppt) per Land Use Scenario

Unrestricted/Residential Commercial/Industrial Terminology for Dioxin Cleanup Level

(as TCDD or Dioxin TEQ)

10

-6 

# Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk

NE 3.9 (see entry under 10 -5 

# ) Remediation goal for TCDD

DE 4 40 Uniform risk-based re mediation standard

for TCDD

MS 4.26 38.2 Target remediation goal for TCDD

AZ 4.5 (see notes below) Soil remediation level for TCDD

MD 4.5 18 Cleanup level for TCDD

OR 4.5 20 Risk-based concentration for TCDD

WY 4.5

- Cleanup level for TCDD

FL 7 30 Soil cleanup target level for TCDD TEQ

NH 9 300 Risk-based soil standard for TCDD

ME 10 31 Generic soil cleanup level for dioxin TEQ

WA 11 (see entry under 10 -5 

# ) Cleanup level for TCDD

5×10 -6



# Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk

IA 19 (see notes below) Cleanup level for TCDD

10

-5 

# Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk

MN 20 35 Soil reference value for TCDD or TEQ

OH 35.8

- Generic cleanup number for TCDD TEQ

AK 38

- Risk-based concentration for TCDD

IN 45 (60) 180 Soil default closure level for TCDD

KS 60 100 Risk-based standard for TCDD

GA 80

- Notifiable concentration for TCDD

MI 90

- Direct contact criterion; risk-based

screening level for TCDD TEQ

PA 120 530 Medium-specific concentration for TCDD

NE (see entry under 10 -6 

# ) 160 Remediation goal for TCDD

WA (see entry under 10 -6 

# ) 1,500 Cleanup level for TCDD

10

-4 

# Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk

HI 390 1,600 Action level for dioxin TEQ

AS 450 1,800 Action level for dioxin TEQ

GM 450 1,800 Action level for dioxin TEQ

NMI 450 1,800 Action level for dioxin TEQ

Notes: Values are given for states where target risk assu mptions are provided for cancer-based cleanup levels. AL

has adopted residential and commercial soil cleanup levels for dioxin from the 1998 OSWER directive. TX has

adopted similar values but does not explicitly state they are from OSWER. Although the AZ nonresidential soil

remediation level of 160 ppt is not accompanied by an explic it target risk level, general language in the regulation

indicates the cumulative excess lifetime cancer risk should not exceed 10 -4 

# . The IA nonresidential cleanup level for

dioxin is based on the noncancer endpoint. The current IN (2006) value is 45 ppt; 60 ppt is under consideration.



# December 2009 Page 5310-6510-610-510-4

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)500400300200100045045045039012090806045(60)3835.820191110974.54.54.54.54.2643.9NE DE MS OR AZ MD WY FL NH ME WA IA MN OH AK IN KS GA MI PA HI AS GM NMIFIGURE 20 Distribution of States Listing Specific Risk Targets for Dioxin Cleanup Levels: Unrestricted/Residential Use(A dark border indicates the basis is TEQ rather than TCDD;a dashed border and lighter shading indicate a draft value.)December 2009Page 5410-410-610-52,0001,8001,6001,4001,2001,0008006004002000MD OR FL ME MS DE NH MN KS AZ NE IN PA WAHI AS GM NMI1820303138.240300351001,5001,6001,800 1,800 1,800160160180530

Soil Dioxin Concentration (ppt)FIGURE 21 Distribution of States Listing Specific Risk Targets for Dioxin Cleanup Levels: Commercial/Industrial Use(Dark border indicates the basis is TEQ rather than TCDD; dashed border indicates a draft value.)December 2009Page 55

# 3.3 DERIVATION METHODOLOGY

States have applied standard methods to determine soil cleanup levels for dioxin. The

exposure and toxicity components of these methods are highlighted in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2,

respectively. The following discussion addresses the scientific basis of cleanup levels with an

emphasis on the calculations for unrestricted/residential scenarios. However, the tables and

figures also include information for commercial/industrial (restricted) cleanup levels, and the

approach for those scenarios involves the same basic concepts.

3.3.1 Exposure Calculations

The review of soil cleanup levels for dioxin indicates that states follow the standard EPA

approach for deriving such concentrations, commonly tapping the equation from the EPA (1989)

risk assessment guidance for Superfund or EPA (1996) soil screening guidance. The same

basic equation also underlies the recently har monized EPA Regional screening levels (RSLs),

which have been adopted as cleanup levels by some states.

In most cases, dioxin is one of many chem icals for which states have derived soil cleanup

levels, so the agencies have identified generic exposure calculations for broad application.

Although terms vary somewhat and other relatively minor differences exist in the equation

structures, the basic concepts and routes considered in calculating exposures to guide cleanup

levels are essentially the same.

For soil contaminated with dioxin, the exposure basis for unrestricted/residential cleanup levels

is direct contact, and incidental soil ingestion is the key route. Four states base their cleanup

values on this pathway alone (Delaware, Missi ssippi, Pennsylvania, and Washington), and for

most of the remaining states with cleanup levels, incidental ingestion accounts for at least

90 percent of the total. The relative contribution is somewhat lower for six states, ranging from

50 percent (for Michigan and Minnesota) to about 75 to 85 percent (for Arkansas, Indiana,

Kansas, and Ohio).

While some variations exist in the specific terms and acronyms used, the common components

of the incidental ingestion equation applied across the states that provide derivation information

are: intake rate (IR), exposure frequency (EF), exposure duration (ED), body weight (BW), and

averaging time (AT); a units conversion factor (CF) is also often included. Extending to the

health endpoint, the common components are cancer slope factor (CSF or SF) (or oral

reference dose, RfD for the noncancer endpoint) and total target cancer risk (TR) (or total

hazard quotient, THQ, for the noncancer endpoint).

The general equation used to calculate a soil cl eanup concentration for the residential scenario

based on incidental ingestion for the cancer endpoint is:

December 2009 Page 56

# Most states consider different exposure factors for children and adults – including child and

adult ingestion rates (IR

c 

# and IR

a 

# ), exposure durations (ED

c 

# and ED

a 

# ), and body weights (BW

c 

# and BW

a 

# ). For this reason, an age-adjusted soil ingestion factor (IFS adj 

# ) is commonly applied to

account for these age-specific inputs under the residential scenario. Thus, a combined

residential scenario (which covers the same hypothetical individual from childhood to adulthood)

often reflects an IFS adj 

# calculated as follows:

The age-specific ingestion rates, exposure durati ons, and body weights can be lumped into a

single variable, which simplifies this equation to:

The equations and parameter values identified by the states to derive soil cleanup levels for

dioxin are summarized in Table 13; further information (including citations) is given in

Appendix B. Similarities and differences in the values used for the soil ingestion pathway are

highlighted in Table 14. (Shading is used to distinguish different values within related entries.)

Regarding the parameter values applied, most states use traditional EPA default assumptions

so the exposure factors are generally similar. Ho wever, relatively minor differences exist, some

of which reflect state-specific context. For example, the Washington averaging time and the

Minnesota exposure duration are slightly longer than the EPA default values for the typical

residential scenario.

The selected inputs presented in Table 14 illustrate that the combined exposure factors produce

differences within a factor of ten for this key exposure pathway. Although incidental soil

ingestion is the main contributor to dioxin cleanup levels for unrestricted/residential use, most

states also consider inhalation and/or dermal absorption – as shown in Table 13. (These routes

include modeling components unique to volatile compounds that are carried as part of the

overall calculation process.) In some cases, including for certain nonresidential scenarios,

these additional exposure routes can contribute more substantially to the calculated cleanup

level for dioxin.

December 2009 Page 57;;TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology(see Appendix B for further details)StateConc(ppt)EquationParametersExposureRoutesNotesAK38CL =TR×AT×365d/yEF×[(SFo×IFsoil/adj×CF) + (SFS×ABS×SFd×CF)]CL = cleanup level, (mg/kg)TR = target cancer risk, 10-5AT = averaging time, 70 yEF = 330 d/ySFo = oral slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1IFsoil/adj= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,114 (mg-y/kg-d)-1SFS = soil dermal factor, 361 mg-y/kg-dABS = absorption factor, 0.03SFd= dermal slope factor,300,000 (mg/kg-d)-1CF = conversion factor, 10-6kg/mgIngestion,dermalAL1,000Not availableNot available.AllAdopted the residentialcleanup value from theOSWER directive.AS450See EPA RSL equation (last entry of this table).AS uses the EPA RSL equation and toxicityvalues to derive its cleanup level, but applies aTR of 10-4instead of 10-6.AllAdopted the GEPA policyfor soil cleanup.AZ4.5See EPA RSL equation (last entry of this table).As given for the EPA RSL.AllAdopted the EPA RSL asthe AZ SRL for residentialuse.DE4RBCres= TR ×ATcEFr×IFSadj×CSFo×CFRBCres= residential risk-based concentration,(mg/kg)TR = target cancer risk, 10-6ATc = averaging time carcinogens,25,550 dEFr = exposure frequency, 350 d/yIngestionDE presents the equationfor residential soilingestion from the EPARegion 3 RBC tables;other exposure routes arenot identified.IFSadj= soil ingestion factor, 114.3 mg-y/kg-dCSFo = oral cancer slope factor,150,000 (mg/kg-d) ̄1CF = 10-6kg/mgDecember 2009Page 58;TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology(see Appendix B for further details)StateConc(ppt)EquationParametersExposureRoutesNotesFL7SCTL = (TR×BW×AT×RBA)EF×ED×FC(EXPoral+EXPderm+EXPinhal)where:EXPo= oral term = CSFo×IRo×CFEXPd= dermal term = CSFd×SA×AF×DA×CFEXPi= inhalation term = CSFi×IRi×(1/VF+1/PEF)SCTLTRBWATRBAEFEDFCCSFo,iCSFdIRoIRiCFSAAFDAVFPEF==================soil cleanup target level (mg/kg)target cancer risk, 10-6body weight, 51.9 kg residentaveraging time, 25,550 drelative bioavailability factor, 1.0exposure frequency, 350 d/yexposure duration, 30 yfraction from cont. source, 1.0oral and inhalational slope factor,150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1dermal slope factor, 166,667(mg/kg-d)-1oral ingestion rate, 120 mg/dinhalation rate, 12.2 m3/d10-6kg/mgsurface area of skin exposed,4,810 cm2/d residentadherence factor, 0.1 mg/cm2dermal absorption, 0.01volatilization factor, 4.619×106m3/kgparticulate emission factor,1.24×109m3/kgAllDecember 2009Page 59;TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology(see Appendix B for further details)StateConc(ppt)EquationParametersExposureRoutesNotesGA80NC = (TR×BW×AT×365 d/y)EF×ED (EXPoral+EXPinhal)where:NC = notifiable concentration (mg/kg)TR = target cancer risk, 10-5BW = body weight, 70 kgAT = averaging time, 70 yIngestion,inhalationThe GADNR websitereferences EPA RAGSEquation 6 for carcinogenin commercial/industrialsoil, but the specificEXPo= oral term = CSFo×IRsoil×CFEXPi= inhalation term = CSFi×IRi×(1/VF+1/PEF)EF = exposure frequency, 350 d/yresident, 250 d/y nonresidentED = exposure duration, 30 y resident,,25 y nonresidentCSFo, i= cancer slope factor, (mg/kg-d)-1IRsoil = soil ingestion rate, 114 mg/dresident, 50 mg/d nonresidentIRi = inhalation rate, 15 m3/d resident,,,20 m3/d nonresidentCF = conversion factor, 10-6kg/mgVF = equation given but not all chemicalspecific parameters are providedPEF = particulate emission factor,4.63×109m3/kgderivation basis is unclearand some chemicalspecific parameters arenot identified.GM450See EPA RSL equation (last entry of this table).GM uses the EPA RSL equation and toxicityvalues to derive its cleanup level, but applies aTR of 10-4instead of 10-6.AllRepresents value abovewhich residential use isnot recommended in theabsence of remedialactions to reduce potentialexposure.HI390See EPA RSL equation (last entry of this table).HI uses the EPA RSL equation to derive itscleanup level but applies a TR of 10-4insteadof 10-6and an oral slope factor of150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1instead of130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1.AllRepresents value abovewhich residential use isnot recommended in theabsence of remedialactions to reduce potentialexposure.December 2009Page 60..TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology(see Appendix B for further details)StateConc(ppt)EquationParametersExposureRoutesNotesIA19CL =11/Coral+1/Cdermwhere:Coral,derm= RF×ATAbs×CF×(A+B)andA = (ERc×EFc×EDc)BWcB = (ERa×EFa×EDa)BWaCLEDaEDcEFaEFcERaERcBWaBWcCFAbsATRFTRSF===============cleanup level (mg/kg)exposure duration for adult, 24yexposure duration for child, 6yexposure frequency for adult, 350d/yexposure frequency for child, 350d/yexposure rate for adult,100 mg/d oral,400 mg/d dermalexposure rate for child, 200 mg/d oral,560 mg/d dermalbody weight adult, 70 kgbody weight child, 15 kgconversion factor, 10-6kg/mgabsorption factor, 1 oral, 0.03 dermalaveraging time, 25,550 dTR / SFtarget risk, 5×10-6slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1Ingestion,dermalDecember 2009Page 61;TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology(see Appendix B for further details)StateConc(ppt)EquationParametersExposureRoutesNotesIN45DCL = TR×ATc×365 d/yEFr×(A + B)where:A = SFo×(IngFadj+[SFSadj×ABS])DCLTRATcEFrsSFo= default closure level (mg/kg)= target risk, 10-5= averaging time, 70 y= exposure frequency residential,250 d/y= oral slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1AllState review feedbackindicates the 2009 internaldraft value is based on aSFoof 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1and IUR of 38 (μg/m3)-1.For these internalprovisional values,106mg/kgB = InhFadj×SFi(1/VF + 1/PEF)IngFadjSFSadjABSInhFadjSFiVFPEF= ingestion factor soil, age-adjusted,114 mg-y/kg-d= skin factor soil, age-adjusted,1,257 mg-y/kg-d= skin absorbance factor, 0.03= inhalation factor, age-adjusted,10.9 m3-y/kg-d= inhalation slope factor,150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1= volatilization factor, m3/kg= particulate emission factor,1.316×109 m3/kgcalculating an inhalationcancer risk via an IURapproach would replacethe inhalation slope factorand InhFadjin theaccompanying equation.December 2009Page 62TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology(see Appendix B for further details)StateConc(ppt)EquationParametersExposureRoutesNotesKS60RBC (mg/kg) = (TR × BW × AT × 365d/y)EF×ED×[(A)+(B)+(C)]where:A = INGs×CF×SFoB = INH×SFi×{1/VFs+1/PEF}C = SFo×CF×SA×AF×ABSRBC = risk based concentration (mg/kg)TR = target cancer risk, 10-5BW = body weight, 70kgAT = averaging time, 70 yEF = exposure frequency, 350 d/yED = exposure duration, 30 yINGs= soil ingestion rate, 100 mg/dCF = conversion factor, 10-6kg/mgSFo= oral cancer slope factor,150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1INH = soil inhalation rate, 20 m3/dSFi= inhalation cancer slope factor,150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1VFs= soil volatilization factor, m3/kgPEF = particulate emission factor,1.18×109m3/kgSA = surface area of skin, 5000 cm2/dAF = adherence factor, 0.2 mg/cm2ABS = absorption factor, 0.1AllFor carcinogens, KS usesdefault exposureassumptions for an adultreceptor.MD4.5See EPA RSL equation (lastentry of this table)See EPA RSL parameters (last entry).AllPer state review feedback,the EPA RSL is the MDsoil cleanup level.December 2009Page 63....;TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology(see Appendix B for further details)StateConc(ppt)EquationParametersExposureRoutesNotesME10RAG =1(1/EPCing) + (1/EPCinh) + (1/EPCderm)where:EPCing=ILCR × ATSFo×[{EDyc×EFyc×(IRyc×CF/BWyc)}+{EDa× EFa×(IRa×CF/BWa)}]Shortened versions of EPC equations with several exposureparameters lumped were available for inhalation and dermalpathways.EPCinh=0.68 × 10-4[IUR(μg/m3)-1×(1,000μg/mg)×(1/PEF + 1/VF)]RAGEPCILCRATSFEDycEDaEFycEFaIRycIRaBWycBWaCF==============remedial action guideline (mg/kg)exposure point conc. (mg/kg)incremental lifetime cancer risk, 10-6averaging time, 25,550 doral slope factor, 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1exposure duration (child), 6 yexposure duration (adult), 24 y150 d/y150 d/ysoil contact rate (child), 200 mg/dsoil contact rate (adult), 100 mg/dbody weight (child), 14 kgbody weight (adult), 70 kgconversion factor, 10-6kg/mgAllEquations provided inMERAG draft technicaldocument.EPCderm= 0.45 (kg BW × day/kg soil)×1SFoDAFIURPEFDAF===inhalation unit risk, 38 (μg/m3)-11.36 x 109m3/kgdermal absorbance factor, 0.03MI90DCC = (TR×AT×CF)SFo×[(EFi×IF×AEi)+(EFd×DF×AEd)]DCCTRATCFSFo=====direct contact criterion, (μg/kg)target risk, 10-5cancer riskaveraging time, 25,550 dcorrection factor, 109μg/kg75,000 (mg/kg-d)-1Ingestion,dermalParameter values aregiven in MIDEQ (1998);more recentdocumentation from 2006lists a generic DF of353 mg-y/kg-d.EFiIFAEiEFdDFAEd======ingestion exposure frequency, 350 d/yage-adjusted soil ingestion factor,114 mg-y/kg-doral absorption efficiency, 0.5dermal exposure frequency, 245 d/yage-adjusted soil dermal factor,2442 mg-y/kg-ddermal absorption efficiency,chemical-specific, 0.03December 2009Page 64...;TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology(see Appendix B for further details)StateConc(ppt)EquationParametersExposureRoutesNotesMN20SRV =TR×AT(A) + (B) + (C)where:SRV = concentration of contaminant in soil (orCs)), mg/kgSFo,d= 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1TR = 10-5cancer riskECR = estimated cancerrisk, route-specificAllFrom field feedback,20 ppt is a rounded value(appears to correspond toa target risk of1.21 x 10-5.) Toxicityvalues are taken fromA(ing term)= IR× SF×CF×FI×EFo×ED×SF×AEBWB(derm term)= SF×CF×SA×AF×ABS×EFd×EDBWAT = 25,550 dIR = soil intakerate, 68 mg/d (ageadjusted)CF = correction factor, 10-6kg/mgFI = fraction from contaminated area, 1.0EFo,i= exposure frequency oral andinhalational, 350 d/yMPCA spreadsheet thatwas provided during fieldreview, with support fromMPCA 2008 excel files.Initial equations anddefault parameter valuestaken from the 1999MPCA guidanceC(inh term)= IUR×(1,000 μg/mg)×EFi×ED×(1/PEF+ 1/VF)Original equations from 1999 MPCA guidance document:ADDing= ECRing/(SF×AE) = Cs×IR×CF×FI×EFo×EDBW×ATADDderm= ECRderm/SF = Cs× CF×SA×AF×ABS×EFd×EDBW×ATADCinh= ECRinh/IUR = Cs×(103μg/mg)×EFi×ED×(1/PEF+ 1/VF)EFd= exposure frequency dermal, 74 d/y(adult), 97 d/y (age-adjusted)ED = exposure duration, 33 yAE = oral absorption efficiency, 0.55SA = skin surface area, 3,609 cm2(ageadjusted)AF = adherence factor, 0.17 mg/cm2(ageadjusted)ABS= absorption factor, 0.03IUR = inhalation unit risk, 400 (μg/m3)-1VF = volatilization factor, 2.49 ×108(m3/kg)PEF =particulate emission factor,7.7×108(m3/kg)BW = body weight, 51 kg (age-adjusted)document were updatedper field input.MS4.26TRG=TR ×ATEF×IFSadj×CSFo×CFTRG = target remediation goal (mg/kg)TR = target risk,10-6CSFo= 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1BW = body weightAT = averaging time, 25,550 dEF = exposure frequency, 350 d/yED = exposure duration,IFSadj= soil ingestion factor, 114 mg-y/kg-dCF = conversion factor, 10-6kg/mgIngestion(asindicated infieldfeedbackand on theMSDEQwebsite)Equation reflects fieldinput during the reviewphase which indicated thestate uses equations andparameters from the EPA(1996) Soil ScreeningGuidanceDecember 2009Page 65....6.TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology(see Appendix B for further details)StateConc(ppt)EquationParametersExposureRoutesNotesNE3.9CL=1[(1/ Cres soil ingestion)+(1/Cres soil dermal)+(1/Cres soil inhalation)]where:Cres soil ingestion=TRr×ATcEFr×IFSadj×SFo×10-6mg/kgCres soil dermal=TRr×ATcEFr×SFSadj×ABSd×(SFo/ABSGI)×10-6mg/kgCres soil inhalation=TRr×ATcEFr×EDa×[(URF×1000μg/mg)]PEFCL = cleanup level, (mg/kg)TR = target risk, 10-6SFo= oral slope factor,150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1ATc= averaging time, 25,550 dEFr= exposure frequency, 350 d/yEDa= exposure duration, 30 yIFSadj= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,114 (mg-y/kg-d)-1SFSadj= age-adjusted soil dermal factor,361 mg-y/kg-dABSd= dermal absorption fraction, 0.03ABSGI= gastrointestinal absorption eff., 1.0URF = unit risk factor, 3.3×10-3(μg/m3)-1PEF = particulate emission factor,1.2×109m3/kgAllNH9Concsoil= (ELCR×CF){CSF×(∑A+∑B)}where:A = (IRi×EF×EDi×RAFo)(AT×BWi)B = (SAi×EF×ED×AF×RAFd)(AT×BWi)Concsoil= soil concentration (mg/kg)ELCR = excess lifetime cancer risk, 10-6CF = conversion factor, 106mg/kgCSF = slope factor,150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1IRi= soil ingestion rate, 200 mg/d (2-6 y),100 mg/d (7-31 y)EF = exposure frequency (160 d/y)EDi= exposure duration,2-6 (5 y),7-16(10y), 17-31 (15 y)RAFo= relative absorption factor ingestn, 1AT = averaging time, 25,550 dBWi= body weight,17kg (2-6y),40kg (7-16y), 70 kg (17-31 y)SAi= skin surface area, 2632 cm2(2-6 y),3432 cm2(7-16 y),5044 cm2(17-31y)AF = soil-to-skin adherence factor (adult,0.013 mg/cm2, child, 0.014 mg/ cm2,2-6 year old 0.36 mg/cm2)RAFd= relative absorption factor for soildermal contact 0.03Ingestion,dermalDecember 2009Page 66TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology(see Appendix B for further details)StateConc(ppt)EquationParametersExposureRoutesNotesNMI450See EPA RSL equation (last entry of this table)NMI uses the EPA RSL equation and toxicityvalues to derive its cleanup level for dioxin.However, they use a TR of 10-4instead of 10-6.AllNMI has adopted theGEPA policy for soilcleanup.OH35.8GCN = TR × AT .A + B + CWhere:A = SFo×(IFSadj×CF×FI×EF)B = SFo/OABS×(SFSadj×ABS×CF×EF)C = SFi×[InhFadj×EF×(1/PEF)+(1/VF)]GCN = generic cleanup number, mg/kgTR = target risk, 10-5AT = averaging time, carcinogens,25,550 dSFo,i= oral and inhalation slope factor,150,000 mg/kg-dIFSadj= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,114.3 mg-y/kg-dCF = conversion factor, soil 10-6FI = soil fraction ingested, 1.0AllEF = exposure frequency, 350 d/yOABS= oral absorption factor, 0.5SFSadj= age-adjusted soil dermal contactfactor, 360.8 mg-y/kg-dABS = dermal absorption factor, 0.03InhFadj= age-adjusted inhalation factor,10.9 m3-y/kg-dPEF = particulate emission factor,1.36×109m3/kgVF = volatilization factor, none givenDecember 2009Page 67...TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology(see Appendix B for further details)StateConc(ppt)EquationParametersExposureRoutesNotesOR4.5Conc =TR×ATEFr[(IFSadj×SFo×CF)+(SFSadj×ABS×SFo×CF)+(InhFadj×SFi)/PEF]TR = target cancer risk, 10-6ATr= averaging time, 25,550 dEFr= exposure frequency, 350 d/yIFSadj= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,114 (mg-y/kg-d)-1SFo= oral slope factor, 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1AllRecent state updateindicates that OR hasadopted the CalEPA slopefactor of 130,000 permg/kg-d (which alsounderlies the currentRSL), The availableCF = 10-6kg/mgSFSadj= soil dermal contact factor,361 mg-y/kg-dABS = dermal absorption fraction, 0.03InhFadj= 11 (m3-y/kg-d)SFi= inh. slope factor, 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1PEF = particulate emission factor,1.316×109equation and parametervalues (shown at left, withthe updated slope factorinformation) are from 2003documentation, which wasbased on the previousRegion 9 PRG.PA120MSC = TR×ATc×365d/yCSFo× Abs×EF×IFadj×CFTR = target risk, 10-5ATc= averaging time for carcinogens, 70 yCSFo= oral cancer slope factor,150,000 (mg/kg-d) ̄1Abs = absorption, 1.0EF = exposure frequency, 250 d/yIFadj= ingestion factor, 57.1 (mg-y/kg-d)CF = conversionIngestionTX1,000otSoilComb=1[(1/AirSoilInh-VP)+(1/SoilSoilIng)+(1/SoilSoilDerm)]Not foundDerivation basis is notdescribed. TX might haveadopted OSWER values.Toxicity values andchemical-specificparameter values were notfound online.December 2009Page 68.....TABLE 13 Basic Components of the Derivation Methodology(see Appendix B for further details)StateConc(ppt)EquationParametersExposureRoutesNotesWA11SCL = (RISK×ABW×AT×UCF)(CPF×SIR×AB1×ED×EF)SCL = soil cleanup level, mg/kgRISK = acceptable cancer risk level, 10-6ABW = average body weight over theexposure duration, 16 kgAT = averaging time, 75 yUCF = unit conversion factor, 106mg/kgCPF = 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1SIR = soil ingestion rate, 200 mg/dAB1 = gastrointestinal absorption fraction,0.6ED = exposure duration, 6 yEF = exposure frequency, 1.0IngestionWY4.5See EPA RSL equation (lastentry of this table)See EPARSL parameters (last entry)AllState review feedbackindicates the EPA RSL isthe WY soil cleanup level.EPA Regional Screening Level Derivation for Residential ScenarioEPARSL4.5RSLres=1[(1/Cres soil ingestion –ca)+(1/Cres soil dermal – ca)+(1/Cres soil inhalation – ca)]where:Cres soil ingestion= TRr×ATrCSFo×ERr×IFSadj×CFCres soil dermal= TRr×ATrCSFo×ERr×DFSadj×ABSd×CFCres soil inhalation=TRr× ATrIUR(μg/m3)-1×(1,000μg/mg)×ERr×(1/VFs+1/PEF)×EDrTR = target cancer risk, 10-6ATr= averaging time, 25,550 dCSFo= slope factor, 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1ERr= exposure frequency, 350 d/yEDr= exposure duration, 30 yIFSadj= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,114 (mg-y/kg-d)CF = 10-6kg/mgDFSadj= soil dermal contact factor,361 mg-y/kg-dABSd= dermal absorption fraction, 0.03IUR = 38 (μg/m3)-1VF = volatilization factorPEF = particulate emission factor,1.4×109m3/kgAllDecember 2009Page 69TABLE 14 Summary Comparison of State Derivations for Incidental Soil Ingestion(main route for residential cleanup levels)aGeneric equation for residential/unrestricted scenario,(incidental ingestion:Cres_ing= TR×AT / SFo×EF×IFSadj×10-6kg/mgStateConc(ppt)Oral Cancer Slope Factor.SFo(mg/kg-d)-1Target Cancer Risk,TRAveraging Time(d)Exposure Frequency,EF(d/y)Soil Ingestion Factor, IFSadjor (IR×ED)/BW(mg-y/kg-d)NE3.9150,00010-625,550350114DE4150,00010-625,550350114MS4.26150,00010-625,550350114AZ4.5130,00010-625,550350114MD4.5130,00010-625,550350114OR4.5130,00010-625,550350114WY4.5130,00010-625,550350114FL7150,00010-625,55035069NH9150,00010-625,550160105ME10130,00010-625,550150120WA11150,00010-627,37536575IA19150,0005×10-625,550350114MN201,400,00010-525,55035045OH35.8150,00010-525,550350114AK38150,00010-525,550330114IN45150,00010-525,550250114KS60150,00010-525,55035042GA80(not specified)10-525,55035048MI9075,00010-525,550350114PA120150,00010-525,55025057HI390150,00010-425,550350114AS450130,00010-425,550350114GM450130,00010-425,550350114NMI450130,00010-425,550350114aShading highlights variations within related entries. Note the internal draft provisional value of 60 ppt for Indiana uses aSF value of 130,000.AL and TX identify a cleanup level of 1,000 ppt, which is the concentration recommended in the OSWER directive for a residential scenario.December 2009Page 70

# 3.3.2 Toxicity Values

Most states that list soil cleanup levels for dioxin also indicate the health basis (24 of 26). Only

one cleanup level is based on the noncancer endpoint: the Iowa nonresidential level, which

applies only when dioxin is the only chemical of concern. This soil concentration (360 ppt)

reflects a reference dose of 10 -9 

# mg/kg-d, which is the same as the ATSDR (1998/2008) chronic

oral MRL. (An MRL represents the estimate of daily human exposure to a hazardous substance

likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects for exposure extending

over a year to a lifetime.)

For the rest of the cleanup levels across both land use categories, cancer is the driver. (This

includes the Iowa residential level of 19 ppt, although the state also identifies a residential level

of 72 ppt based on the noncancer endpoint, when dioxin is the only contaminant.) Incidental

ingestion is the key exposure route, and the oral slope factor is the toxicity value of interest. (As

a note, although online information for Texas indicates that both the residential and commercial/

industrial cleanup levels are based on the noncancer endpoint [“n”], no information is given for

the toxicity value, and field followup confirmed that the basis is cancer; see Table B.6.)

Four different cancer slope factors have been applied across the 24 states that identify a toxicity

value: 75,000; 130,000; 150,000; and 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# . These slope factors are based on

one of two rodent bioassays published more than 25 years ago, combined with modeling

derivations by CalEPA, U.S. EPA, and other scientif ic groups to estimate the incremental risk to

humans of getting cancer over a lifetime. The dat a sources cited by the various states range

from old HEAST tables to CalEPA, the EPA (2003a) draft dioxin rea ssessment, and former and

current EPA Regional screening level tables.

All but two states use a slope factor of either 130,000 or 150,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# for their soil

cleanup levels. These very similar values are based on two different bioassays. The first is

derived from the chronic rodent bioassay from NTP (1982). The second is based on the twoyear dietary study of Sprague-Dawley rats by Kociba et al. (1978), as are the lowest and highest

of the four values listed above (75,000 and 1,400,000) . These two original toxicity studies were

independently peer reviewed as part of the scientific publication process, as were the

subsequent derivations of the slope factors.

In the Kociba et al. (1978) bioassay, female rats that were exposed to the highest study dose

(0.1 μg/kg-d, or a dietary level of 2,200 ppt) exhibited a higher incidence of hepatocellular

carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of lungs, hard palate, nasal turbinates, and tongue, yet

a decreased incidence of other tumors. Lesser effects were reported at 0.01 μg/kg-d (210 ppt),

while no adverse effects were reported at 0.001 μg/kg-d (22 ppt), and no carcinogenic effects

were reported at either 0.01 or 0.001 μg (210 or 22 ppt). These findings were considered to

support a previous study that had indicated ch ronic intake of 5,000 ppt TCDD could lead to

many toxicological effects. The initial evaluation of these data to derive a slope factor produced

a value of 150,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# , which is used by more than half the states (13 of 24). As a note,

this value has also been used to determine supporting concentrations for other states, such as

the Nevada basic comparison (screening) level.

Updated evaluations of the same data were used by Michigan and Minnesota, the two states

with different slope factors than the rest. In 1986, the NTP revised its tumor classification

scheme, and scientists (including Kociba and his colleague Squire, as well as EPA work groups)

used that methodology to reevaluate the incidence of female rat liver tumors and other tumors

from the 1978 data. This reevaluation identified a lower tumor incidence, which produced a

December 2009 Page 71

# lower toxicity value. A slope factor of 52,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# was determined based on liver tumors

alone, and a slope factor of 75,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# was determined based on total significant

tumors. Michigan used the latter (half the older slope factor) to determine its soil cleanup level.

In 2003, the Minnesota Department of Health (MNDOH) selected the draft slope factor of

1,400,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# from the range of values presented in the EPA 2003 draft dioxin

reassessment. This value, derived from the Kociba study, was identified as the upper bound for

animal bioassays. At roughly 10 times the two most commonly applied toxicity values (and

nearly 20 times the Michigan value), this slope factor was also used in a supporting role by the

Pacific island group. That is, it was used to estimate a concentration that could be used as the

lower bound of an operational cleanup range, as a companion to the standard cleanup levels

above which remedial action should be considered. Those main cleanup levels (which are the

representative concentrations shown in key figures and tables of this report) were derived using

a toxicity value of either 150,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# (for Hawaii) or 130,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# (American

Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands).

The slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# is used by a third of the states and is being considered

by an additional state for a provisional level. This value is derived from a chronic study of

Osborne-Mendel rats dosed by gavage 3 time s/week, and B6C3F1 mice gavaged 2 days/week

(NTP, 1982). Summarizing the toxicity basis from the ATSDR toxicological profile for

chlorinated dibenzo -p- dioxins (ATSDR, 1998/2008): a dose of about 0.007 μ g/kg-d significantly

increased the incidence of thyroid follicular cell adenoma; a dose ten times higher increased the

incidence of neoplastic nodules in the liver and hepatocellular carcinoma in females. At 0.1 and

0.01 μ g/kg-d, females exhibited a significant increase in hepatocellular hyperplastic nodules,

while those at the next lower dose (0.001 μ g/kg-d) did not. Total weekly doses were averaged

to estimate a daily dose level, which assumes daily dosing would give the same results. (As

described in the ATSDR summary, because the T CDD half-life is relatively long, both schedules

were expected to give similar tissue concentrations.) The rat data were converted to equivalent

human exposures with basic scaling factors; assumptions included: oral and inhalation routes

are equivalent, air concentration is assumed to be the daily oral dose, the exposure route does

not affect absorption, and TCDD metabolism/pharmacokinetics do not differ between animals

and humans.

CalEPA (2002/2003) documents the application of a linearized multistage model to these NTP

rodent hepatocellular adenoma/carcinoma tumor data to derive the slope factor. Early

development of this slope factor is documented in the 1986 California Department of Health

Services derivation report prepared for the CalEPA Toxic Air Contaminant program. This value

underwent external peer review by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) scientific review

panel and was endorsed in 2002 when it was summarized and included in the CalEPA (2002)

Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Technical Suppor t Document for Describing Available Cancer

Slope Factors. External review by the scientific panel (primarily members of academia) was in

accordance with a process that has been in place since 1983, per the original state air toxics

legislation from the early 1980s as documented by CalEPA (1999).

This slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# underlies the basic soil cleanup levels identified for

Arizona and Oregon, as well as the three Pacific island territories (American Samoa, Guam, and

the Northern Mariana Islands), as indicated above. This oral toxicity value is also reflected in the

current EPA Regional screening level (RSL), which has been adopted by Maryland and

Wyoming. In addition, it underlies the draft cleanup level recently developed by Maine and the

internal draft being developed by Indiana – bringing the total number considering this slope

factor to nine.

December 2009 Page 72

# 3.3.3 Target Risk Levels

The target risks used by states to back-calculate a soil cleanup concentration by combining

exposure inputs with the toxicity value range from 10 -4 

# to 10 -6 

# , consistent with the EPA target

incremental risk range for contaminated sites. As shown in Tables 12 and 14 and the

accompanying figures, almost half the states that identify a target risk for their residential or

unrestricted cleanup levels (11 of 24) apply the lower-end value of 10 -6 

# . Eight use 10 -5 

# , and one

(Iowa) applies a value between these two (5 x 10 -6 

# ). The last four (Hawaii, American Samoa,

Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) use the upper value of 10 -4 

# . Most apply the same

values for the companion commercial/industrial cleanup levels, but 2 of the 11 states that use

10 -6 

# for residential cleanup (Nebraska and Washington) use 10 -5 

# instead for the restricted

scenarios. Spanning two orders of magnitude, this component of the derivation calculation is

the key reason for differences among state cleanup levels.

3.3.4 Differences among State Cleanup Levels

The biggest reason for the fairly wide range of state-derived cleanup levels is the target risk

applied, which accounts for 100-fold differences. A second reason is the slope factor, which

accounts for differences of about 20-fold, with the Minnesota value about 10 times higher than

the two values used by most states, and the Michigan value about half those values.

A third reason is the variation in the exposure assumptions applied, generally accounting for

differences of less than 10-fold. This is illustrated by the comparison of input values used by

different states for incidental soil ingestion, the primary route contributing to

unrestricted/residential cleanup levels. Highlighti ng the values for this exposure alone offers a

quick indication of similarities and differences across states, as was shown in Table 14.

Beyond that single-route comparison, it is also helpful to compare the contributions from

additional routes. For this evaluation, the calculation used to derive the U.S. EPA Regional

screening level (RSL) for unrestricted use was selected as the starting point. This equation and

parameter values provide a useful anchor not only because the state calculations follow this

same general form, but also because several stat es have actually adopted the RSLs as cleanup

levels for residential and industrial scenarios, respectively.

The state cleanup values were normalized to their target risks to control the impact of that

factor. The route-specific soil concentrations were also normalized to target risk. Table 15

presents these route-specific comparisons to the parallel RSL values. This table also identifies

the contribution of each exposure route to the ultimate soil cleanup level (as a percent), to

highlight the main contributors.

An additional consideration is the chemical basis, i.e., whether the value is for TCDD or TEQ.

This can account for differences of at least several-fold; the factor can be higher depending on

the environmental mixture. Seven states and three Pacific island territories define their cleanup

levels as TEQs: Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, American Samoa,

Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. (Wyoming adopts the EPA Regional screening level

for TCDD and indicates TEFs may be considered for others.) While values reported as TEQs

would generally be expected to be higher than those for TCDD alone, and indeed five of the six

highest residential levels are TEQ, these values are also found at the other end of the

concentration range. For example, half of the ten TEQ-based cleanup levels are less than

120 ppt, and 30 percent of the state cleanup levels below 36 ppt are as TEQ.

December 2009 Page 73RSLres1 _4.5×10-6mg/kg[(1/Cres soil ingestion)+(1/Cres soil dermal)+(1/Cres soil inhalation)]Where:Cres soil ingestionTR×AT4.9 ×10-6mg/kgCSFo×EF×IFSadj×CFCres soil dermalTR×AT _5.2 ×10-5mg/kgCSFo×EF×DFSadj×ABSd×CFCres soil inhalationTR× AT= 8.7×10-2mg/kgIUR(μg/m3)-1×(1,000μg/mg)×EF×(1/VFs+1/PEF)×EDTable 15 Main Factors Leading to Differences in Cleanup Levels for the Unrestricted/Residential ScenarioaComparison basis,==TR= target cancer risk, 10-6EPA RSL equation forAT= averaging time, 25,550 dcancer endpoint,unrestricted/residentialCSFo= slope factor, 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1scenario:EF= exposure frequency, 350 d/yED= exposure duration, 30 y==IFSadj= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor, 114 (mg-y/kg-d)_CF= 10-6kg/mgDFSadj= soil dermal contact factor, 361 mg-y/kg-d==ABSd= dermal absorption fraction, 0.03IUR= 38 (μg/m3)-1VF= volatilization factor=PEF= particulate emission factor, 1.4×109m3/kg(Table 15)StateConc(ppt)Component and Comparison to EPA RSL ValuesTargetRisk(TR)Ratioto RSLTRIngestnSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoIngestnRSLIngestionContributionto CleanupLevel(%)DermalSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoDermalRSLDermalContributionto CleanupLevel(%)InhalnSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoInhalnRSLInhalationContributionto CleanupLevel(%)Explanation of Differences betweenState Valueand EPA RSLEPARSL4.510-614.91915.2 ×101198.7×1041<1-NE3.910-614.3 0.9914.5 ×1010.9 98.9×108>104<1The CSFoof 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1accountsfor the difference. Although it has anegligible impact on the final cleanupvalue, NE cites an IUR that is 10,000 timeslower than that used to calculate the RSL.DE410-614.3 0.9100Ingestion route only. CSFoof150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1.MS4.2610-614.3 0.9100Ingestion route only. CSFoof150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1.AZ4.510-614.9 1915.2 ×1011 98.7×1041<1AZ has adopted the RSL for theunrestricted/residential scenario.December 2009Page 74(Table 15)StateConc(ppt)Component and Comparison to EPA RSL ValuesTargetRisk(TR)Ratioto RSLTRIngestnSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoIngestnRSLIngestionContributionto CleanupLevel(%)DermalSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoDermalRSLDermalContributionto CleanupLevel(%)InhalnSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoInhalnRSLInhalationContributionto CleanupLevel(%)Explanation of Differences betweenState Valueand EPA RSLMD4.510-614.9 1915.2 ×1011 98.7×1041<1MD has adopted the RSL for theunrestricted/residential scenario.OR4.510-614.9 0.9915.2 ×1010.9 96.7×1040.7<1OR 2003 document indicates use of theprevious Region 9 PRG equation; 2009update indicates adoption of the currentCalEPA CSF of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1, whichalso underlies the current RSL.WY4.510-614.9 1915.2 ×1011 98.7×1041<1WY has adopted the RSL for theunrestricted/residential scenario.FL710-617.0 1.4941.6 ×1023.1 43.2×102.0042Difference can largely be explained byFL-specific calculations for aggregateresident attributes and their impact on theingestion calculation: BW = 51.9 kg,IRo= 120 mg/d, SA = 4,810 cm2/d. Usingthese values, the FL equivalent IFSadjisonly 60 percent of that used in the RSLcalculations. This along with a CSFoof150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1accounts for most ofthe difference. The ABSdof 0.01 makesthe dermal route contribution three timeshigher than the RSL value. The FL use ofVF accounts for the significantly lowerinhalation route contribution.NH910-611.0 ×1012.1921.2 ×1022.2 8Difference can largely be explained by theEF (160 d/y), which is less than half thatused in the RSL calculation. This alongwith a CSFoof 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1accounts for a value twice as high as theRSL. Although less significant, NH doesuse different values for BW, exposed skinarea (SA), and adherence factor (AF).December 2009Page 75(Table 15)StateConc(ppt)Component and Comparison to EPA RSL ValuesTargetRisk(TR)Ratioto RSLTRIngestnSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoIngestnRSLIngestionContributionto CleanupLevel(%)DermalSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoDermalRSLDermalContributionto CleanupLevel(%)InhalnSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoInhalnRSLInhalationContributionto CleanupLevel(%)Explanation of Differences betweenState Valueand EPA RSLME1010-611.1 ×1012.2911.2 ×1022.2 92.4 ×10627.6 <1Similar to NH, the difference in the MElevel can largely be explained by anEF (150 d/y) that is less than half that usedin the RSL calculation. Although it has anegligible impact, ME uses a children’sBW of 14 kg instead of 15 kg.WA1110-611.1 ×1012.2100WA uses a number of exposureassumptions that differ from those of mostother states. The level appears to bederived based on several parameter valuesfor a child: ED = 6 y; BW = 16 kg;IR = 200 mg/d. Also, the WA AT is 75 y.IA195×10-654.3 0.9914.5 ×1010.9 9The difference can be explained by a TRthat is five times higher than that used forthe RSL, along with a CSFoof150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1.MN2010-5102.1 0.4771.5 ×1010.3 111.3 ×1010.0001 12MN uses a TR of 10-5and a CSFoof1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1. However, these twoinputs essentially cancel each other withrespect to a net difference compared withthe RSL (because they are both about10 times higher than parallel RSL valuesand the TR is divided by the CSFo). Otherdifferences in exposure assumptions,particularly the IR (68 mg/d, age-adjusted),help explain the difference between theMN value and RSL. Other differencesinclude: ED = 33 y; age-adj BW = 51 kg;age-adj dermal EF = 97 d/y. Differences inthe inhalational route can be explained bya given VF value and an IUR that is 10times higher than the parallel RSL value.December 2009Page 76(Table 15)StateConc(ppt)Component and Comparison to EPA RSL ValuesTargetRisk(TR)Ratioto RSLTRIngestnSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoIngestnRSLIngestionContributionto CleanupLevel(%)DermalSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoDermalRSLDermalContributionto CleanupLevel(%)InhalnSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoInhalnRSLInhalationContributionto CleanupLevel(%)Explanation of Differences betweenState Valueand EPA RSLOH35.810-5104.3 0.9842.3 ×1010.4 166.1 ×1040.7 <1Difference can largely be accounted for bythe OH TR of 10-5and CSFoof 150,000(mg/kg-d)-1. Also, when calculating thedermal term, OH divides the CSFoby anoral abs factor of 0.5, so the dermal term ishalf the value used for the RSL.Consequently, this term has a greatereffect in terms of reducing the final cleanuplevel. The contribution from the inhalationroute is negligible.AK3810-5104.5 0.9842.4 ×1010.5 16The AK difference can largely be explainedby a TR of 10-5and CSFoof 150,000(mg/kg-d)-1. Like OH, AK uses a dermalCSF of 300,000 (mg/kg-d)-1. Although itsimpact is negligible, AK uses an EF of330 d instead of 350 d.IN4510-5106.0 1.2751.8 ×1010.34 258.2 ×1040.9 <1For the ingestion route, IN uses a CSFoof150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1and an EF of 250 d/yinstead of 350 d/y. For the dermal route,IN uses a DFSadj(1,257 mg-y/kg-d) that is3.5 higher than the value used in the RSLcalculation. This value and the EF accountfor dermal route differences.December 2009Page 77(Table 15)StateConc(ppt)Component and Comparison to EPA RSL ValuesTargetRisk(TR)Ratioto RSLTRIngestnSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoIngestnRSLIngestionContributionto CleanupLevel(%)DermalSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoDermalRSLDermalContributionto CleanupLevel(%)InhalnSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoInhalnRSLInhalationContributionto CleanupLevel(%)Explanation of Differences betweenState Valueand EPA RSLKS6010-5101.1 ×1012.3501.1 ×1010.2 506.8 ×1040.78 <1In addition to a TR of 10-5and CSFoof150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1, differences in the KSexposure assumptions for the oral anddermal routes contribute to the differencebetween the RSL and KS value. Inparticular, KS does not use an age-adj IFSbut rather assumes an IR of 100 mg/d, aBW of 70 kg, and an ED of 30 y.Consequently, the KS equivalent IFS of42 (mg-y/kg-d)-1is nearly three timessmaller than the age-adj IFS used for theRSL. This factor of three is reflected in theingestion-based concentration. Similarassumptions are made for the dermalroute. The KS ABSdof 0.1 instead of 0.03makes the dermal-based concentrationsmaller, which gives it a greater impact onthe overall cleanup level.GA8010-510NotfoundCannotbedeterminedCannot bedeterminedNotfoundCannotbedeterminedCannot bedeterminedNotfoundCannotbedeterminedCannot bedeterminedOnline information indicates that GA usesa TR of 10-5, and it appears that GA doesnot apply a grouped age-adj IFS but ratheran EF = 30 y, soil IR = 114 mg/d, andBW= 70 kg resulting in an IFS-equivalentvalue of 49 mg-y/kg-d. This value, which isless than half the RSL IFSadj, would helpexplain the difference in the GA value afterit has been normalized per the TR.December 2009Page 78(Table 15)StateConc(ppt)Component and Comparison to EPA RSL ValuesTargetRisk(TR)Ratioto RSLTRIngestnSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoIngestnRSLIngestionContributionto CleanupLevel(%)DermalSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoDermalRSLDermalContributionto CleanupLevel(%)InhalnSubtotal(ppt)RatiotoInhalnRSLInhalationContributionto CleanupLevel(%)Explanation of Differences betweenState Valueand EPA RSLMI9010-5101.7 ×1013.5531.9 ×1010.4 47In addition to a TR of 10-5, MI uses a CSFoof 75,000 (mg/kg-d)-1and an oralabsorption efficiency of 0.5 for the soilingestion calculation. These differencesaccount for a Cingthat is 3.5 times higherthan the RSL value after both have beennormalized per TR. In addition, the MIDFSadj(2442 mg-y/kg-d) is significantlyhigher than the value used to calculate theRSL. This in turn makes the dermal-basedconcentration smaller which gives it agreater impact on the overall cleanup level.PA12010-5101.2 ×1012.4100In addition to a TR of 10-5and CSFoof150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1, PA uses an IFSadj(57.1 mg-y/kg-d) – which is half the valueused to derive the RSL. In addition, PAuses an EF of 250 d/y instead of 350 d/y.These differences make the ingestioncontribution 2.4 times higher than theequivalent RSL after both have beennormalized per the TR.HI39010-41004.3 0.9914.5 ×1010.9 98.7×1041 <1HI uses the same equations and parametervalues as the EPA RSL except for applyinga TR of 10-4and a CSFoof150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1.AS45010-41004.9 1915.2 ×1011 98.7×1041 <1AS adopted the EPA RSL equations andparameter values except for using a TR of10-4.GM45010-41004.9 1915.2 ×1011 98.7×1041 <1GM adopted the EPA RSL equations andparameter values except for using a TR of10-4.NMI45010-41004.9 1915.2 ×1011 98.7×1041 <1NMI adopted the EPA RSL equations andparameter values except for using a TR of10-4.December 2009Page 79

# a 

# Table 15 notes:

Ingestn = incidental soil ingestion; inhaln = inhalation.

To facilitate comparisons, cleanup conc entrations were calculated for each ro ute (i.e. ingestion, dermal, inhalation)

contributing to an individual state cleanup level and normali zed by the total target risk applied for the state. This

allowed for a more direct comparison of component va lues across states. The EPA RSL was used as the standard

reference point. Individual route-based concentrations for each state were compared to the parallel concentrations

for the RSL as a ratio. The contributions to total tar get risk and overall cleanup levels were also compared as

ratios. Entries shaded gray indicate those routes ar e not included in the state cleanup level calculation.

AL and TX identify a cleanup level of 1,000 ppt, which is the concentration recommended in the OSWER directive

for a residential scenario.



# These normalized comparisons show that incidental ingestion accounts for nearly 75 to

85 percent of the cleanup levels for Arkansas, Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio (which range from

20 to 45 ppt). For Kansas and Michigan, incidental ingestion accounts for half the cleanup

concentrations (which are 60 and 90 ppt, respectively), while the other half comes from the

dermal route. The dermal route also accounts for the rest of the Arkansas, Indiana, and Ohio

values, while for Minnesota this route roughly splits the remaining portion with inhalation (jointly

accounting for 23 percent of the 20 ppt cleanup level). For the rest of the states, incidental

ingestion accounts for at least 90 percent of the cleanup concentration. Contributions of these

other routes are also higher for selected nonresidential scenarios, such as the trench worker.

3.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The four criteria considered in evaluating information compiled for the state soil dioxin cleanup

levels are:

 Nature of peer review.

 Transparency-public availability.

 Scientific basis.

 Incorporation of most recent science.

In many cases, only limited information was found to address these criteria during the online

search. For this reason, a checklist that emphasized the type of documentation needed to

effectively consider these criteria was provided to the field (Appendix A), together with sitespecific clarification questions, to guide review and feedback. The feedback did little to address

gaps in this area – particularly with regard to the nature of the peer review and transparency.

Context for the evaluation criteria is included in the data tables of Appendix B and highlighted in

overview tables of Chapter 3. Key information for the criteria is summarized in Section 4.3.

4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

This chapter summarizes the range of soil concentrations identified in the search for state dioxin

cleanup levels (Section 4.1), indicates key contributors to similarities and differences

(Section 4.2), and considers the context provided by the evaluation criteria (Section 4.3).

4.1 STATE SOIL CLEANUP LEVELS FOR DIOXIN

Information on dioxin cleanup levels was pursued for all 50 states plus DC, Puerto Rico, the

Virgin Islands, and four Pacific Rim islands. Online checks extended from state and other

December 2009 Page 80

# government agency websites to the EPA database of site cleanup decisions, and peer-reviewed

scientific literature.

About 280 cleanup values were identified for dioxin in soil. Nearly half the states and territories

(26), including three Pacific island territories, have established cleanup levels for unrestricted/

residential use, and 21 of these have also established levels for commercial/industrial use.

These cleanup levels address scenarios ranging from intensive residential use to occupational

activities such as outdoor maintenance and excavation work. Within each of these sets

(unrestricted/residential and commercial/industrial), the cleanup concentrations span three

orders of magnitude. A key reason for this spread is that different states have adopted different

existing values as their cleanup levels. At the upper end are states that tap the recommended

concentration from the OSWER directive. At the lower end are those that adopt a screening

value as their cleanup level.

For those states that have derived cleanup levels, the following factors contribute to differences:

 Target risk.

 Cancer slope factor.

 Exposure assumptions.

 Reporting basis (as TCDD or dioxin TEQ).

Frequency distributions of the representative state soil cleanup values for dioxin addressing

both unrestricted and restricted scenarios are presented in Figure 22.

(Although online information for the Trust Territories appears to suggest the same values as for

Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands, those values have not been

included in the tables and figures of this report per limited field feedback, which indicated that

the Trust Territories determine cleanup levels on a site-specific basis.)

Because many states identify multiple cleanup levels for dioxin in soil, to facilitate comparisons,

the figures and tables focus on a representative cleanup level for each state and land use

category (where available) – i.e., unrestricted/residential and commercial/industrial (restricted).

Although some states indicate cleanup levels should be determined on a site-specific basis, the

representative state values do not include any c oncentrations from site-specific decisions.

For unrestricted/residential land use:

 Cleanup levels range from about 4 to 1,000 ppt. Two states use the value of 1,000 ppt

recommended in the OSWER directive as TEQ. Texas reports this value as TEQ, and

Alabama reports it as TCDD. (As a note, North Carolina identified this value as a

preliminary soil remediation goal in December 2009.)

 More than 75 percent of the values (20) are at or below 120 ppt, and most of these (15)

are less than 40 ppt.

The seven lowest concentrations are consistent with values commonly used for preliminary

screening evaluations at contaminated sites, 3.9 to 4.5 ppt. This indicates that nearly a third of

the states with cleanup levels have essentially adopted a value intended for screening

purposes. The screening levels are based on a target risk of 10 -6 

# and relatively conservative

residential exposure assumptions.

December 2009 Page 813.9 to 11 >11 to 120 >120 to <1,00 0 16 t o 40 >40 to 160 >160 t o <1 , 0 0 0

Frequency of Value1211109876543210Unrestricted (Residential)Restricted (Commercial/Industrial)11WA10ME9NH120PA7FL90MI80GA40DE5,000TX4.560KS(IN)38.2MS5,000ALAZ, MD,OR, WY45IN35MN38AK31ME530PA1,800AS, GM,NMI4.26MS35.8OH450AS, GM,NMI30FL160360IA4DE20MN1,000TX20ORAZ, NE300NH1,600HI3.9NE19IA390HI1,000AL18MD100KS180IN1,500WASoil Dioxin Concentration(ppt)FIGURE 22 Distribution of Soil Cleanup Levels by Concentration: Unrestricted and Restricted Uses(A dark border indicates the basis is TEQ rather than TCDD; italics in parenthesis indicate a draft value)December 2009Page 82

#  The concentration group above 120 ppt contains four values that are 100 times higher

than these "screening" parallels – at 390 to 450 ppt – for Hawaii and three Pacific Rim

islands (documented in 2006 and 2008, respectively). These concentrations reflect the

higher target risk of 10 -4 

# and are as dioxin TEQ. Several other states also report cleanup

levels as TEQs, notably Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio.

 Five of the six highest concentrations are reported as TEQ, as are 30 percent of the

lowest 14 values.

For restricted commercial/industrial land use:

 21 states and territories have established restricted cleanup levels. The five states for

which values were identified for residential but not restricted use are Alaska, Georgia,

Ohio, Michigan, and Wyoming.

 These cleanup levels are higher than those for unrestricted use by roughly a factor of 5,

as expected based on less extensive exposures and in some cases less restrictive

target risks. These concentrations are also more broadly distributed – spanning a factor

of 270 (compared to 250 for the residential cleanup levels).

 The lowest third of restricted use levels falls between 16 and 40 ppt, the middle third

ranges from 100 to just above 500 ppt, and the top third (which includes Hawaii and

three Pacific island territories) ranges from 1,500 to 5,000 ppt. Alabama and Texas

identify the top soil concentration, which is the lowest end of the range identified in the

OSWER directive for commercial/industrial use (5,000 to 20,000 ppt).

The plots of cleanup values organized by EPA Region indicate:

 No clear regional patterns exist for either land use category, beyond the similarities in

concentrations identified for the Pacific island set in Region 9 (for which development of

the guidance included the same experts).

 States in U.S. EPA Regions 2, 3, 6, and 8 have established the fewest cleanup levels for

dioxin in soil, although screening levels have been established by most.

Factors affecting these totals by region include: (1) some states do not have the same issue

(extent) of dioxin-contaminated sites as others, and (2) a number of states have eschewed

establishing a general cleanup level, calling instead for these to be determined on a site-specific

basis to incorporate consideration of loca l conditions. For this reason, concentrations

established for cleanup decisions were also reviewed as supporting context, with an emphasis

on states that had not established a cleanup level or screening value; these data are tabulated

Appendix B. This review of site applications indicates:

 More cleanup levels were found for states and territories within Regions 9 and 10 (nearly

100 combined) than for the other regions.

 About half the site-specific cleanup levels reflect the concentration of 1,000 ppt,

particularly in states that had not established cleanup values for dioxin in soil at the time

of those decisions.

December 2009 Page 83

# 4.2 FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

Key contributors to similarities among the state cleanup levels include: the common underlying

approach, the use of generally similar exposure factors, and in several cases, adoption of the

same values as cleanup levels. Key contributors to differences include: the target risk levels,

toxicity values, and selected exposure assumptions.

It is also noteworthy that a number of states are similar in having deferred establishing generic

cleanup levels, invoking instead a risk-based determination of these levels that account for sitespecific conditions. Thus, no generic cleanup levels for dioxin were identified for 15 states and

one territory.

In fact, this approach is also taken by the same number of states that identify screening values

but no cleanup levels. For example, while Arkansas lists concentrations of 4.5 and 18 ppt as

screening levels for residential and industrial scenarios, respectively, and Massachusetts lists

values of 20, 50, and 300 ppt (as TEQ) for specific residential to restricted scenario categories

from essentially a screening approach, both refer to the need for site-specific determinations of

actual cleanup levels.

4.2.1 Exposure Calculations

States that have identified soil cleanup levels generally follow the standard EPA approach to

determine such values, including common default assumptions. Variations in cleanup levels

reflect the scenarios and exposure routes considered and the parameter values applied, which

in some cases account for regional context. For example, a trench worker scenario is included

for the development of cleanup levels for several Pacific islands.

The summary of inputs for incidental ingestion in Table 14 illustrate that a key difference

underlying the state cleanup levels is the target risk – by a factor of 100, while the slope factors

differ by a factor of about 20. For this ingestion calculation, which is the key exposure route for

direct contact (unrestricted use), the values for exposure frequency differ by a factor of 2.4, and

those for the age-adjusted soil ingestion factor differ by less than a factor of 3. Inhalation and

dermal exposures also contribute measurably to some cleanup levels, especially for certain

nonresidential (restricted) scenarios. The exposure equations presented in Table 13 underlie

the summary of key differences captured in Table 15, including relative route contributions. A

further consideration is whether the cleanup level is for TCDD or dioxin TEQ.

4.2.2 Toxicity Values

Cancer is the driving endpoint, and the toxicity value of interest is the oral slope factor. The four

values identified across the 24 states that provide this information are within a factor of 20.

The slope factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# underlies the cleanup level for more than half the states:

Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New

Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington. This is an older value based on the data

from Kociba et al. (1978) using outdated methodology.

These Kociba et al. (1978) data were reevaluated with the updated (1986) NTP tumor

classification scheme, which is based on all signi ficant tumors rather than liver tumors alone.

This updated evaluation halved the slope factor to 75,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# . One state, Michigan,

uses this number.

December 2009 Page 84

# The slope factor of 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# is a draft value that was among those discussed in the

EPA draft dioxin reassessment (EPA, 2003a). This was presented as the upper bound value

from animal bioassay data, and it too was based on analyses of the Kociba et al. (1978) data.

This draft value (40 percent higher than the upper bound based on human epidemiological data)

was used by Minnesota to calculate its soil cleanup level. At roughly ten times the values

commonly used by most other states (and about 20 times higher than the Michigan value), this

value was also used in a supporting role by the Pacific island set: American Samoa, Guam,

Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands. That is, it was used to estimate a lower-bound soil

concentration to create an operational cleanup range, as a companion to the standard cleanup

levels established for these islands using the more commonly applied slope factors.

The slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# is based on a slightly more recent study (NTP, 1982),

and it is used by a third of the states. This toxicity value was derived by CalEPA using the

updated tumor classification method and the linearized multistage model, and its derivation was

extensively documented and peer reviewed. This slope factor serves as the basis of the

cleanup levels identified for Arizona, Maryland, Maine, Oregon, and Wyoming, as well as the

three Pacific island territories: American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. It is

also being considered by Indiana in internal updates of provisional default closure levels.

In addition to its cancer-based value for the residential scenario, Iowa has identified a cleanup

level for nonresidential use based on a reference dose that is the same as the ATSDR chronic

oral MRL (ATSDR, 1998/2008). The MRL underwent extensive peer review prior to being

finalized in 1998, under the standard process documented by ATSDR (2008b).

4.2.3 Target Risk Levels

Nearly half the states that identify a target risk for their unrestricted-use cleanup level apply the

low-end value of 10 -6 

# , eight use the middle value of 10 -5 

# , one lists a risk between these two, and

four use the upper-end value of 10 -4 

# . Most states use the same risk target for the companion

commercial/industrial cleanup levels, except two that use 10 -6 

# to derive the unrestricted/

residential cleanup level use a target risk 10 times higher for the restricted scenarios. Thus,

target risk is a major reason for differences among cleanup levels, by a combined factor of 100.

4.3 EVALUATION CONTEXT

The four evaluation criteria can be grouped into two sets: (1) scientific basis, including the

recency of the studies and methodology on which the value is based; and (2) nature of the value

in terms of draft or final published value, and its peer review. Even though information and field

input in these areas was relatively limited, some context is available as summarized in individual

tables within the body of the report and as part of the data compilations in Appendix B. This

information can be used to guide interpretation of the final values presented, in terms of

scientific strength and transparency of the process, including public availability and the pedigree

of the scientific peer review, with an emphasis on independent review by external experts.

Toxicity values from CalEPA are considered to address the evaluation components relatively

well. Values from this agency are extensively peer reviewed in accordance with a long-standing

external review process. The current CalEPA slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# for dioxin,

which is used by one-third of those states that identify an underlying toxicity value, is well

documented in terms of scientific basis, methodology, and peer review. This value was derived

from a slightly more recent bioassay (1982 NTP study) than the other toxicity values (which are

December 2009 Page 85

# based on 1978 bioassay data from Kociba and colleagues) using the linearized multi-stage

model, and its derivation and review process are publicly available online.

In contrast, documentation for the slope factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# used by more than half

the states is limited. It is based on an outdated methodology, and the general citation is an

outdated EPA HEAST source. That HEAST cancer slope factor was indicated as being a

provisional value, and it was qualified as being under further evaluation. HEAST tables were

described in the 1997 document as containing “provisional risk assessment information” that

“have not had enough review to be recognized as high quality, Agency-wide consensus

information.” Specific peer review information has not been found; however, the 1985 EPA

Health Assessment Document (which is listed as one of the sources for the HEAST value)

underwent external peer review. Note it is not clear that the HEAST value was based solely on

this document, since EPA (1985) lists a cancer slope factor of 156,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# , while the

HEAST value is 150,000 (mg/kg-d) -1



# . Thus, this value is considered not as strong overall in

terms of the combined evaluation criteria.

The third slope factor, the value of 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# used by Minnesota, is a draft taken

from the draft EPA dioxin reassessment (which is still under review). The lack of a final peerreviewed publication basis for this value limits its broader strength.

The fourth slope factor, the value of 75,000 (mg/kg-d) -1 

# used by Michigan, is a final published

value based on an updated and peer-reviewed eval uation of the Kociba data using the updated

NTP tumor classification. Documentation of this derivation, independent peer review, and public

availability of supporting information were not found to be as extensive as for the CalEPA value.

More recent scientific data (such as the 2004 NTP study) are currently being evaluated by

U.S. EPA, CalEPA, and other organizations. As indicated by certain states (including California

and Minnesota), information from these ongoing evaluations may offer useful insights for

consideration in developing updated context for soil cleanups.

With regard to the range of cleanup levels, concentrations at the lower end (about 4 ppt) were

identified by a number of states that essentially adopted values developed for screening

purposes (not cleanup decisions), as reflected in the recently harmonized U.S. EPA Regional

screening level table and related data sources. The scientific basis, external peer review, and

transparency of these values for this application do not appear to be well documented, i.e., for

purposes other than the preliminary screening for which they were designed.

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express their appreciation to colleagues who contributed to the compilation

of detailed data tables in Appendix B and integrated plots, notably Aisha Ahmad, Jessica

Chung, John Jacobi, Prakriti Joshi, James Shannon, Rebecca Williamson, and David Wyker of

the Argonne team. We also wish to extend our deep appreciation to the many dioxin experts in

the EPA Regions and states who provided input to this summary. Their combined inputs and

insights have been invaluable.

(Argonne National Laboratory's work was supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency under an interagency agreement, through U.S. Department of Energy contract

DE-AC02-06CH11357.)

December 2009 Page 86

# 6 REFERENCES

Below are selected references cited in the body of this report; others are listed in Appendix B.

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 1998/2008, Toxicological Profile

for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins , U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS),

Atlanta, GA (Dec.) http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp104.pdf ; Appendix B (policy

guideline) updated Sept. 2008.

ATSDR, 2008a, Update to the ATSDR Policy Guideline for Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds

in Residential Soil , DHHS, Atlanta, GA (Oct. 15, 73 Federal Register [FR] 61:133; with minor

editorial update Nov. 28, 73 FR 72:484);

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/dioxi n/policy/Dioxin_Policy_Guidelines.pdf

. ATSDR, 2008b, Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) , DHHS, Atlanta, GA (Dec.);

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls (identifies 1998 as date of final (extant) dioxin MRL)

CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency), 1986, Technical Support Document,

Report on Chlorinated Dioxins and Dibenzofurans, Part B - Health Effects of Chlorinated

Dioxins and Dibenzofurans , Department of Health Services (Feb.);

http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/summary/dioxptB.pdf

. CalEPA, 1999, 1999-08-12 California Air Toxics Program Background , Air Resources Board;

http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/background.htm (page last reviewed June 23; accessed Sept.).

CalEPA, 2002/2003, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part II,

Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors , Office of

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Sacramento, CA;

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/pdf/TSDNov2002.pdf

. CalEPA, 2005, Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors

, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Gu idelines, Office of Environmental Health

Hazard Assessment, Sacramento and Oakland, CA (May);

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot _spots/pdf/May2005Hotspots.pdf

. CalEPA, 2007, Public Health Goal for TCDD in Drinking Water (June) (review draft for second

public comment period); http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/PHGDioxin062907.pdf

. CalEPA, 2009a, Air Toxics Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines Part II: Technical Support

Document for Cancer Potency Factors (May);

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2009/TSDCancerPotency.pdf

. CalEPA, 2009b, Proposition 65 Status Report, Safe Harbor Levels: No Significant Risk Levels

for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive

Toxicity , OEHHA, CA (Feb.); http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/2009FebruaryStat.pdf

. CalEPA, 2009d, Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Values, Appendix H (July);

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2009/AppendixHexposure.pdf

. Cal EPA, 2009c, 

# Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) , Note 2, Interim, Remedial

Goals for Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compound s for Consideration at California

Hazardous Waste Sites , (May);

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/AssessingRisk/upload/HHRA_Note2_dioxin-2.pdf

. CalEPA, 2009d, Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Values, Appendix H (July);

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2009/AppendixHexposure.pdf

. ECOS (Environmental Council of the States), 2007, Identification and Selection of Toxicity

Values/Criteria for CERCLA and Hazardous Waste Site Risk Assessments in the Absence

of IRIS Values , ECOS-DoD Sustainability Work Group, Emerging Contaminants Task

Group, Risk Assessment Provisional Values Subgroup Issue Paper, Washington, DC

(April 23); http://www.ecos.org/files/2733_f ile_FINAL_ECOS_PV_Paper_4_23_07.doc

.

December 2009 Page 87

# Kimbrough R.D., Falk H., Stehr Pl, Fries G., 1984, Health Implications of

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) Contamination of Residential Soil

, Journal of

Toxicology and Environmental Health , 14(1):47-93.

Kociba R.J., Keyes D.G., Beyer J.E., Cerreon R.M., Wade C.E., Dittenber D.A., Kalnins R.P.,

Frauson L.E., Park C.N., Barnard S.D., Hummel R.A., Humiston C.G., 1978, Results of a

Two-Year Chronic Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin

in Rats

, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology , 46(2):279-303.

MIDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality), 1998, More Details on Dioxin 90 ppt

value, Excerpt from Part 201, Generic Soil Direct Contact Criteria

, Technical Support

Document (Aug. 31); http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-whm-hwp-dow

excerpt_of_dcc_tsd_251913_7.pdf NAS (National Academy of Sciences), 2006, Health Risks

from Dioxin and Related Compounds: Evaluation of the EPA Reassessment , National

Academies Press, Washington, DC (July);

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11688

. MNDOH (Minnesota Department of Health), 2003, Cancer Risk Assessment for Dioxins

, prepared by MDOH at the request of the Risk Evaluation/Air Modeling Unit, Environmental

Standards and Analysis Section, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (March 17);

www.canceractionny.org/cancerriskassessment.htm

. NTP (National Toxicology Program), 1982, Carcinogenesis Bioassay of 2,3,7,8­

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (CAS no. 1746-01-6) in Osborne-Mendel Rats and B6C3F1

Mice (Gavage Study), : DHHS Publication No. (NIH) 82-1765, Carcinogenesis Testing

Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; National

Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC.

NTP, 2004, Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin

(TCDD) in Female Harlan Sprague-Dawley Rats (Gavage Study), NIH publication No. 04­

4455, NTP TR 521, DHHS, PHS, NIH, Research Triangle Park, NC;

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/LT_rpts/tr201.pdf

. ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), 2005/6, The Risk Assessment Information System

, online RAIS database (cited as the source of toxicity values used by states, from Feb. 2005

and 2006); http://rais.ornl.gov /

. Sauer M., 1990, Pathology Working Group: 2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin in SpragueDawley Rats , PATHCO Inc., submitted to Maine Scientific Advisory Panel (per TSG 1990).

TSG (Toxic Steering Group), 1990, Carcinogenicity Slope Factor for 2,3,7.8-TCDD: Overview

and Recent Developments , Toxic Steering Group Meeting (July 10);

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-whm-hwp-dow-slope_factor_251918_7.pdf

. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1985, Health Assessment Document for

Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins , Final Report, EPA/600/884/014F, Office of Health and

Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC (Sept.) ;

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=38484

. U.S. EPA, 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document

, EPA/540/R-95/128, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (May);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/soil/index.htm#user

U.S. EPA, 1997a, Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST): Annual Update, FY

1997 , National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and

Development and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA, 1989, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation

Manual, Interim Final , Washington D. C., Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.

EPA/540/1-89/002 (Dec.); http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsa/pdf/rags-vol1

­ pta_complete.pdf

.

December 2009 Page 88

# U.S. EPA, 1998, Approach for Addressing Dioxin in Soil at CERCLA and RCRA Sites . OSWER

Directive 9200.4-26, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC

(Apr. 13); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedy/pdf/92-00426-s.pdf

. U.S. EPA, 2003a, Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pDioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds , NAS Review Draft, Volumes 1-3

(EPA/600/P-00/001Cb, Volume 1), National Center for Environmental Assessment,

Washington, DC (Dec.); http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/pdfs/dioxin/nas-review /

. U.S. EPA, 2003b, Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments , OSWER

Directive 9285.7-53, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC

(Dec. 5); http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/hhmemo.pdf

. U.S. EPA, 2008, Frequently Asked Questions on the Update to the ATSDR Policy Guideline for

Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds in Residential Soil , OSWER 9285.7-84FS (Dec.);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/additions.htm ;

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/92-857-84fs.pdf

. U.S. EPA, 2009a, EPA’s Science Plan for Activities Related to Dioxins in the Environment

, Washington, DC (May 26); http://www.epa.gov/dioxin/scienceplan ;

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=209690

. U.S. EPA (Region 3), 2009b, Regional Screening Level (RSL) Table Residential Soil (April);

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb

concentration_table/Generic_Tables/index.htm ;

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb

concentration_table/Generic_Tables/pdf/ressoil_sl_table_run_APRIL2009.pdf

(page last updated June 8, 2009; accessed December 2009).

December 2009 Page 89

# December 2009 Page 90

# APPENDIX A: SUPPORTING DETAILS FOR THE APPROACH

December 2009 Page A-1

# December 2009 Page A-2

# APPENDIX A:

SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR THE APPROACH

This appendix presents additional context for Phase II.

The Phase I searches produced varying levels of information. Gaps across the key entries were

addressed via review and input from knowl edgeable experts from the U.S. EPA Regions and

individual states – which is essential to ensuring that OSWER has the best understanding of

existing state cleanup levels to frame the development of an updated interim soil cleanup level.

To support field feedback on the preliminary data tables, a checklist was provided that

emphasized two main themes (see Table A.2): (1) assure the data table reflects current soil

cleanup levels for dioxin, and (2) provide supporting information not found online, particularly for

the scientific basis and other evaluation criteria. State-specific questions were also offered to

help guide field clarifications and additions.

TABLE A.1 Checklist to Support Field Review of Data Tables

Table Element Field Input Needed Notes

Current Entries

Soil concentration Please specify if the basis is wet or dry

weight.

Please confirm or revise as indicated. Note

some units are converted for consistency

across all entries Reminder: Our scope is TCDD or

dioxin TEQs (not other DLCs).

If you add or revise here, please

also update corresponding entries

(including the information source).

Endpoint basis If missing, please identify “ca” (cancer) or

“nc” (noncancer) where known. If another agency value is

adopted, please indicate which

one so we can characterize this.

Toxicity reference value Please confirm/revise as above, also noting

same conversion for overall unit consistency. Please see the evaluation criterion

for scientific basis (below).

Information source Confirm or revise as indicated; also add

sources to account for any change Please include any supporting

weblinks in this table field.

Context basis Definition-application: Please confirm or

define (if missing) the nature of the

concentration term and its application specific

to soil cleanup. In particular: if a screening

level , please indicate if (a) the value is

defined to not be used as a cleanup objective

or goal, and (b) the value has in fact been

used as a soil cleanup level (in some case).

Further: If a value is identified as ecologicalbased, please indicate if it has also been

used as a health-based cleanup level. Many state values appear to be

screening levels, so this

clarification is crucial – to know

whether they have essentially

been used as cleanup levels. If

so, please provide that

documentation (including weblink

if available).

Context basis (cont’d.) Scenario and risk target: Please confirm or

identify (if missing) the land use/scenario for

which the value applies – as well as the

primary receptor, exposure route(s), and

target risk, where specified (e.g., 10 -6 

# or 10 -5 

# ),

or the hazard index (for “nc”-based levels).

Coverage: Please confirm or identify (if

missing) whether the value is for TCDD only,

or TCDD equivalents or total dioxins. Regarding the scenario: The

primary focus is levels considered

acceptable for unrestricted use.

(with equations and parameter

values to be given in the “scientific

basis” column, see below.)

Reminder: We do not need any

information for DLCs (e.g., PCBs).

December 2009 Page A-3

# Table Element Field Input Needed Notes

Evaluation Criteria

Nature of peer review Please characterize the peer review of both

the soil concentration value and its derivation

methodology, including assumptions.

For example, types of review may include:

a. Internal: by same agency, same division or

department responsible for the level.

b. Internal-independent: by same agency but

another division or department.

c. External: please indicate general type/

number of peers (e.g., “international panel

including 6 state university toxicologists and

epidemiologists” or “remote individual

review by 3 state university toxicologists”).

Please provide further context as feasible

(e.g., “2-year process wi th external review,

internal revision, and reconsideration by the

external reviewers”). Please at least indicate if any

external peer review was

conducted.

Transparency-public

availability Transparency/clarity and public availability:

Please identify whether the dioxin level and

derivation approach are publicly available

and clearly described – including specific

calculations and scientific study(ies) on which

the soil and toxicity values are based.

Public comment: Please indicate if the public

had an opportunity to review and comment

on the dioxin cleanup and/or toxicity value.

Public comment: Please indicate if the public

had an opportunity to review and comment,

specific to the soil cleanup level for dioxin. If this information is publicly

available but the source is not yet

identified in the table, please

provide it in the “information

source” column.

Provide any further information for

public input to the dioxin cleanup

level or derivation methodology.

Feel free to give any further useful

information on public input directly

relevant to the soil dioxin level.

Scientific basis Please confirm//revise or provide if missing –

including: specific equation(s) used, specific

input values (per scenario), the toxicity value

basis, and supporting documentation –

including original literature or evaluation

reports underlying the toxicity value or soil

concentration, particularly if these have not

yet been found online (and please provide if

possible, e.g., as weblink, pdf, or hard copy). Review input is especially key,

because this is a data gap for

many values and the information

is essential for a solid evaluation.

Note some entries may have

general placeholder notes for the

moment, which will need to be

replaced by the specific scientific

basis.

Incorporation of most

recent science Please check to confirm or update, e.g., if

ongoing state initiatives reflect more recent

scientific studies or methodology. Note also pursuing original

documentation cited as the basis



# The main intent of this phase was to obtain primary documentation underlying soil cleanup

values (not found online), ranging from state derivation methodology or guidance documents to

the original scientific literature studies and ca lculation approaches that underlie the toxicity

values applied. (Similarly, many basic eval uation documents with derivation details underlying

the supporting context from RODs were not found online.)

December 2009 Page A-4

# APPENDIX B: DETAILED DATA TABLES

December 2009 Page B-1

# December 2009 Page B-2

# APPENDIX B:

DETAILED DATA TABLES

B.1 DATA ORGANIZED BY U.S. EPA REGION

To facilitate field review and input, data from the Phase I online searches were compiled in

tables organized alphabetically by state within U.S. EPA Regions 1 through 10. The Regional

distribution of states is illustrated in Figure B.1.

FIGURE B.1 States in U.S. EPA Regions (Source: EPA, 2008x, Regional Map , Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response, http://www.epa.gov/oswer/regionalmap.htm ;

last updated Dec. 26, 2008; accessed Aug. 2009.)

These Regional tables presented on the following pages include:

 State: using the standard abbreviations.

 Soil concentration: as ppt to facilitate compar isons (several were converted to this unit).

 Date: as month-year where available (t o help indicate timing per the extant OSWER

directive, as well as recent scientific studies and harmonization efforts).

 Endpoint basis: cancer (c) or noncancer (n).

 Type of toxicity reference value: such as SF (slope factor) or RfD (reference dose);

December 2009 Page B-3

#  Toxicity value units: as consistent unit: (mg/kg/d) -1 

# (or mg/kg-d for noncancer endpoint),

to facilitate comparisons.

 Information source: streamlined reference (for quick indication of the nature of this

source, e.g., state agency or other), with weblink to facilitate direct checks.

 Context notes: to indicate, where available:

 contaminant addressed – TCDD or toxic equivalents (TEQ);

 land use scenario – e.g., unrestricted or commercial/industrial;

 name of the value – e.g., cleanup level, or screening or comparison level; and

 application context.

 Evaluation criteria: To highlight information relevant to the four criteria, as available.

Formatting to facilitate quick-glance checks Includes:

1. Concentration column

- No state cleanup level: this entry is blank if the state has not developed a soil cleanup

level for dioxin. (Note in some cases states have developed cleanup levels for other

chemicals and conditions but those documents did not include dioxin).

- Same concentration as OSWER directive values: the shading is more intense for

values that are the same as those identified in the 1998 directive – i.e., 1,000 ppt for

the residential scenario, and 5,000 to 20,000 ppt for commercial/industrial scenarios.

2. Sources other than state agencies

- Lighter font and italics are used to distinguish entries that summarize site-specific

applications or articles from journals or others sources beyond the primary focus,

which is direct state agency information. (Site-specific levels are included in

supporting context figures within the report, but those entries that provide no context of

basis for corroboration are not.)

As a further note, in a few cases, dioxin values were found for joint human-ecological protection

or in conjunction with concentrations for ecological protection as part of the search for healthbased levels; these limited entries have been retained (in green font) simply for related insights

they may offer.

December 2009 Page B-4TABLE B.1State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 1StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValue150,000(CSF)(mg/kg-d) ̄1Information SourceEPA (2005d), ROD Summary, SolventsRecovery Service of New England, Inc(SRSNE) Site, Southington(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0105008.pdf).Context NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityROD is availableonline (via RODSdatabase).Evaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceThe Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation ofKociba et al. (1978) underlies the OSWERvalue. The site-specific risk assessment usedreasonable maximum exposure and the cancerslope factor (CSF) of 150,000 per mg/kg-d fromthe 1999 Health Effects Assessment SummaryTable (HEAST).CT1,000Sep-05cFor TCDD toxicity equivalents (TEQ), based onEPA 1998 OSWER directive; as the lower valueof that 1 ppb level or background 2,3,7,8-TCDDTEQ. (ROD indicates there are no residentialdirect exposure criteria or pollutant mobilitycriteria for dioxin in the CT RemediationStandard Regulations.)300ecoEcological toxicity benchmark of 0.3μg/kgTCDDTEQ identified as the concentration “not to beexceeded in soil according to MDNR (1988)(primary citationnot provided).MA20Dec-07c150,000(CSF)(mg/kg-d) ̄1MADEP (2007), The MassachusettsContingency Plan, 310, CMR 40(http://www.mass.gov/dep/service/regulations/310cmr40.pdf);Standard from MADEP [undated A],Documentation for S1 Standards(http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/prop_s1.htm).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, dry weight basisresidential scenario, unrestricted use, accessiblesoil (<3 ft below surface, not completely paved),direct contact (ingestion, dermal contact) alsoconsidering leaching; high frequency or intensityfor child use, or high frequency and intensity foradult use , or high frequency and intensity forchild use but soil potentially accessible (3 to15 ftbelow surface) (categoryS-1); e.g., residentialareas, school yards, playgrounds, gardens.MADEP (2007 &undated A, B, C, D)documents areavailable online.Example equation used to derive soil categoryS-1 standards MADEP (undated A), forresidential exposure for an adult (15-31y):(Note: This equation is based on the summationof three age groups, however, due to space, onlythe factors for the 15-31 age group appear. SeeMADEP (undated A) for all relevant data)OHMca-dc=(ELCR);(LADSIR×RAFinh)×(A×RAFdermal)×CSForal50MADEP (undated B), Documentation for S2Standards(http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/prop_s2.htm).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, dry weight basis,considering moderate direct exposure(ingestion, dermal contact) also consideringleaching; accessible soil with no child use, orLADSIR = IRsoil×EF1×EF2×EPBW×AP×C1×C2A = LADSDCR = SSA×SAF× EF1×EF2×EPBW×AP×C1×C2high frequency or intensity of adult use, orpotentially accessible soil with high frequency orintensity of child use or high frequency andintensity of adult use (category S-2), e.g., retailspace, landscaping.whereOHMca-dc= target risk-based soil concentrationdirect contact (ingestion), mg/kgELCR = target lifetime excess cancer risk,10-6300MADEP (undated C), Documentation for S3Standards(http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/prop_s3.htm).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, dry weight basis,direct contact (ingestion, dermal contact), andinhalation of airborne particulates; potentiallyaccessible soil with low child use, or low adultfrequency or intensity ofuse, or isolated soil(deeper than 15 ft, or 3 ft beneath the floor of astructure) (category S-3); addresses short butintense construction/ excavation exposurescenarios.LADSIR = lifetime average daily soil ingestionrate, (d) ̄1RAFca-ing= relative absorption factor forcancer,oral exposure (1, per RAGS Part E)CSForal= oral cancer slope factor,150,000 (mg/kg-d) ̄1IRsoil= soil ingestion rate, 50 mg/dEF1= exposure frequency, 5 d/wkEF2= exposure frequency, 30 wk/yEP = exposure period, 30 yBW = body weight, 54.2 kgAP = averaging period, 70 yC1= conversion factor, 365 d/yC2= conversion factor, 106mg/kgLADSDCR = lifetime average daily soil dermalcontact rate, (d) ̄1SSA = average daily skin surface areaexposed, 5,653 cm2SAF = soil adherence factor, 0.13 mg/cm23,000MADEP (undated D), Upper ConcentrationLimits(http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/ucls.htm).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, upperconcentration limit in soil applicable as publicwelfare and environmental resource standards."The UCLs [upper concentration limits] aresimply 10-fold multiples of the highest Method 1exposure-related (S-1, S-2 or S-3 in soil)standard, capped at a maximum concentration.For soil, the UCL is capped at 1%" (MADEP, D).December 2009Page B-5TABLE B.1State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 1StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesEvaluation CriteriaNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceMA(cont’d.)41,0002006(2004)Sep-04cEasthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilstandard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groups(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000ppt.pdf); Lists same values identified in:EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels inOther States, cited in table available viaTittabawassee River Watch (TRW) News(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).EPA (2004f), EPA Region 1, Shpack LandfillSuperfund Site Record of Decision Summary,Norton/Attleboro(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0104694.pdf).Basis not provided.For dioxin TEQ, based on 1998 OSWERdirective: "one ppb is to be generally used as astarting point for setting cleanup levels forsetting cleanup levels for CERCLA removal sitesand as a cleanup level for remedial sites fordioxin in surface soil involving a residentialexposure. The "adjacent resident, w/ogroundwater exposure" scenario on which theremedy is based assumes approximately 150days of exposure to site soils, which isessentially equivalent to an on-site exposure.Therefore, the cleanup goalfor dioxin protectiveof human health is being set at 1 ppb TEQ.”Limited information isavailable via theweblinks at left, withneither the derivationmethodology or basisof underlying toxicityvalues.Basis not provided.ROD is availableonline (via RODSdatabase).The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation ofKociba et al. (1978) underlies the OSWERvalue.ME10Jul-09c130,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d) ̄1MEDEP (2009a), Maine Remedial ActionGuidelines for all ScenariosFor dioxin TEQ, residential scenario, based onsites with more than one contaminant of concernMEDEP (2009a,b)are available online,An ILCR of10-6was “Applicable at sites withmore than one contaminant of concern.” TEQ17http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/publications/guidance/rags/MERAGS%20APPENDIX%201_2For dioxin TEQ, park user scenario, based onsites with more than one contaminant of concernthe values are draftand are currentlytoxicity is based on WHO 2005 guidelines. MEis in the final stages of revising generic draft soil31_3%20Numbers_Public_Rev_Draft_7-17­09.xls); based on calculations in MEDEP(2009b), Technical Basis and Background forthe Maine Remedial Action GuidelinesFor dioxin TEQ, commercial worker scenario,based on sites with more than one contaminantof concernopen for publiccomment.cleanup levels for dioxin TEQ. These guidelinesare based on MEDEP (2009b). Equation isprovided in MERAG technical document,highlighted in Table 15 of the report.310(http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/publications/guidance/rags/MERAG_Basis_Draft_For_Public_Comment_2009_july_14_V2-rhd.DOC)’from Wright (2009) (personal communication).For dioxin TEQ, excavation/construction workerscenario, based on sites with more than onecontaminant of concernNH9May-07c150,000(CSF)(mg/kg-d) ̄1NHDES (2007), Risk Characterization andManagement Policy, Groundwater QualityTable 2, Appendix A-E with soil values(http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/waste/hwrb/documents/rcmp.pdf); the higher valuesare estimated using EPA (1998a), Approachfor Addressing Dioxin in Soil at CERCLA andRCRA Sites, OSWER Directive 9200.4-26For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, risk-based S-1 soil category,for sensitive uses of property and accessiblesoils, either currently or in the foreseeablefuture. For these soil concentration entries,TCDD is marked as “negative contaminantmigration” so groundwater was considered foreach of the NH soil concentrations listed hereand determined to not be a contributing factor.The May 2007NHDESdocument isreferred to asbeing underreview; intraagency.Both the NH riskcharacterizationdocument and EPAOSWER directive areavailable online.Assumes the upper-bound lifetime excesscancer risk from residential exposure to aconcentration of 1 ppb dioxin is 0.00025. Theestimate for commercial/industrial exposure to5 ppb is 0.00013. Slope factor of 150,000 permg/kg-d (citing indirect resource RAIS 2/2006)used to develop the direct contact risk-basedconcentrations.30(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedy/pdf/92-00426-s.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, risk-based S-2 category, formoderate exposure to accessible soil, currentlyor foreseeable future (e.g., maintenance worker)300For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, risk-based S-3 soil category,for restricted access property with limitedpotential for exposure, currently or foreseeablefuture (e.g., excavation worker).1,000For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, based on OSWERdirective approach using TEQs, S-1 category.5,000For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, based on OSWERdirective approach using TEQs, S-2 category.20,000For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, based on OSWERdirective approach using TEQs, S-3 category.December 2009Page B-6TABLE B.1State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 1StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceRIDEM (2004), Rules and Regulations for theInvestigation and Remediation of HazardousMaterial Releases(http://www.dem.ri.gov/pubs/regs/regs/waste/remreg04.pdf).DoN (1997), Final Record of Decision: Site 09– Allen Harbor Landfill, Naval ConstructionBattalion, OU 01, Davisville(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0197157.pdf).Context NotesNature of PeerReviewEvaluation CriteriaTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceRI40Feb-04Sep-97These RIDEM Remediation Regulations(updated February 2004) contain tables listingdirect exposure criteria for residential andcommercial/industrial soils for a number ofcontaminants. They were checked for dioxinentries but none were found (nor was other inputprovided during the field review phase).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, determined usingtoxic equivalency factors from EPA (1994),specific citation not provided; represents riskbased concentration for soils up to a depth of10 ft. (As a note, the entry for TCDD soilscreening level is ND, no data.) This risk-basedconcentration was developed for a recreationalscenario.The RIDEM (2004)document is availableonline.Basis not pursued because dioxin is notincluded in this suite of state values.ROD is availableonline (via RODSdatabase).Publiccomments includedsupport for no action,limited action, two ofthe proposed plans(one of which wasimplemented), andlandfill excavation.VT4.518May-09c130,000(SFO)(mg/kg-d) ̄1VTDEC, Brownfields Reuse Initiative(http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/SMS/RCPP/Cleanup-Stand-Guid.htm); for soil andair, links to EPA (2009), Regional ScreeningLevels (RSL) for Chemical Contaminants atSuperfund Sites, RSL Table Update(http://www.epa.gov/region09/superfund/prg/).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD in residential soils, total risk.The VT website introduces the link to theRegional EPA screening values (and VT links forother environmental media) with: “The followinglinks are provided to standards and guidanceutilized by the Departmentin the management ofbrownfield projects.”For 2,3,7,8-TCDD in industrial soils, total risk;with further note as above.The VT context andthe EPA RSL tableand User's Guide(EPA 2009e,f),including equations,are available online.See Table 13 of the report for the derivationmethodology and values underlying the EPAregional screening levels.Note the supporting documentation includes anRfD0of 1.0×10-9mg/kg-d; however, cancer wasthe limiting endpoint for the residential andindustrial screening levels. (Note this RfD is thesame as the ATSDR chronic MRL finalized in1998.)December 2009Page B-7TABLE B.2State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 2StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewEvaluation CriteriaTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceNJ50Mar-01cNJDHSS (2001), Public Health Assessment:Franklin Burn Site(http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/assess/fb_pc.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, adopted from theATSDR screening value used as a “comparisonvalue” for public health assessment at that time.(See related informationin the ATSDR entry inTable 11 of the report.)See informationfor the ATSDRentry inTable 11.See ATSDR entry inTable 11; toxicityvalue not found inthe NJdocumentation.See ATSDR entry in Table 11.19Sep-07cDoA (2007b),ROD, Site 180 (PICA 093)Waste Burial Area, Final, Picatinny(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2007020002538.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalencyconcentration (TEC) for surface and subsurfacesoil, based on the EPA Region 3 risk-basedconcentration for the industrial scenario; IRBCswere used when NJ had not established anonresidential direct contact soil cleanupcriterion.ROD available online(RODS database)Toxicity value notfound.Based on a target risk level of 10-6; see Table 13of the report for othervalues and the derivationmethodology (first entry); note the Region 3RBCs have since been harmonized with thescreening values from Regions 6 and 9.1,000May-04cEPA (2004d), ROD, Franklin Burn, OU 01,Franklin Township(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2004020001417.pdf).For dioxin, the surface soil risk-basedpreliminary remedial goal is described in the textas a policy-driven value, the 1 ppb cleanup levelfor dioxins/furans is consistent with OSWERDirective 9200.4-26.”ROD available online(RODS database)Toxicity value notfound.The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation of Kocibaet al. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.NYSep-06NYDEC (2006), New York State BrownfieldCleanup Program, Development of SoilCleanup Objectives, Technical SupportDocument(http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/techsuppdoc.pdf); link provided infeedback during field review, from Olsen(2009) (personal communication).This document statesthat 2,3,7,8-TCDD wasdeleted from the list of priority contaminantsrequiring a soil cleanup objective because dioxinis rarely found at sites. If dioxins are listed as acontaminant of concern at Brownfield sites bythe EPA, then NYSDEC would consider dioxin inits remedial programs.NYSDEC (2006)document availableonline.600Jan-94NYDEC (2009), TAGM 4046, Table 3(http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/30582.html); the document that established these levelsis dated 1994, but the specific tables from thisdocument are shown by themselves on awebpage that was updated in 2009.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, identified as the“allowable soil concentration” protective ofgroundwater, which assumes the contaminatedsoil is in direct contact with the water table. Thatis, the value assumes leachate fromcontaminated soil does not violategroundwater/drinking water standards.Alternative andrecommendedcleanup objectivesare available online,as is part of thederivationmethodology andcontext (notably forthe soil waterconcentration).Specific toxicityvalues and basesunderlying thecleanup objectiveshave not been foundonline.Allowable soil concentration calculated using thewater-soil equilibrium partition theory:Cs= f×Cw×Kocwhere:Cs= soil concentrationf = fraction of organic carbon of the naturalsoil medium, 1% or 0.01Cw= appropriate water quality value from NYDivision of Water Technical andOperational Guidance Series(TOGS) 1.1.1, given as 0.000035 μg/L forTCDD in TAGM 4046, Table 3Koc= partition coefficient between water and soilmedia, 1,709,800December 2009Page B-8TABLE B.2State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 2StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceNY60,000Jan-94NYDEC (2009), TAGM 4046, Table 3 (asFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, “Soil cleanupSoil cleanup objective protective of groundwater(cont’d)above).objective” that is protective of groundwaterquality. This value assumes that contaminatedsoil in the unsaturated zone above the watertable is subject to attenuating processes duringtransport to groundwater.(NY DEC TAGM 4046 statesthat alternativecleanup objectives are derived considering anumber of criteria including HEAST and RfDvalues, concentrations protective ofgroundwater, detection limits, and backgroundis derived by applying a correction factor to theallowable soil concentration. This factor assumesthat various properties and processes includingvolatility, transformation, and degradationprevent transfer of the full contaminant from soilto groundwater.Soil Cleanup Objective = Cs×CFwhere:Cs= soil concentrationconcentrations. “Recommended” cleanupobjectives are based on the criterion thatproduces the most stringent value. No such“recommended” cleanup objective value isprovided for TCDD.)CF = 100 (consistent with the EPA dilutionattenuation factor [DAF] approach)40Nov-04U.S. AF (2004a), Final ROD for theElectrical Power Substation, Area of Concern(SS-44) at the Former Griffiss Air Force Base,For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, soil guidance value. Thisvalue is reported within the comments section ofthe ROD, which cites a report that has not beenfound online (Law Engineering andROD available online(via RODSdatabase), but notthe report referencedRome(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0205015.pdf).Environmental Services,Inc., December 1996,Draft-Final Primary Report, Volume 7, RemedialInvestigation, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York,Contract No. DACA41-92-D-8001, Kennesaw,GA). Residential, recreational, andcommercial/industrial future land use scenarioswere evaluated.for the indicatedguidance value.Toxicity context notfound.1,000Mar-03cU.S. AF (2003a), SiteSS-026 ExplosiveOrdinance Disposal Range: ROD, PlattsburghAir Force Base, Installation RestorationProgram, Plattsburgh(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0203022.pdf).As dioxin toxicity equivalence. The ROD statesthat the regulatory criteria used in theassessment for soil include the NY TAGM 4046Soil Cleanup Guidelines (1994, see earlier entryin this table) andEPA dioxin toxic equivalencyguidelines (EPA, 1989), and refers to the EPArecommended action level of 1μg/kg TEQ.ROD available online(via RODSdatabase) Toxicityvalue not found.The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation of Kocibaet al. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.PR1,000Apr-04cEPA (2004c), ROD, Vega Baja Solid WasteDisposal, OU 01, Rio Abajo Ward(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2004020001421.pdf).For dioxin; the ROD mentions the EPArecommended action level of 1 ppb (whichsuggests the basis was the OSWER directive).Dioxin was not considered a chemical ofconcern at the site because soil concentrationsdid not exceed 1 ppb.ROD available online(via RODSdatabase); toxicityvalue not found.The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation of Kocibaet al. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.December 2009Page B-9;TABLE B.3State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 3StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceDE4Dec-99c150,000(CSFo)(mg/kg-d) ̄1DEDNREC (1999), Remediation StandardsGuidance under the Delaware HazardousSubstance Cleanup Act(http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/divisiFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD, dry weight basis, unrestricteduse scenario. ["Where current or future use willnot be restricted in any way to ensure theprotection of human health" (DEDNREC 1999)].Intra-agencyCalculations andrisk-based tablescan be found in boththe DEDNRECCancer slope factor values obtained from EPAHealth Effects Assessment Summary Table(HEAST) document (1997). The PA documentalso provides calculations.The document uses equations and valuesfrom the EPA (1995b)Regional RBCs; notethese regional screening levels wererecently harmonized (in 2008, with 200940ons/awm/sirb/docs/pdfs/misc/remstnd.pdf).Based on both critical and non-critical waterresource area in both surface and subsurfacesoil, from DE Uniform Risk-Based RemediationStandards (URS) for protection of human health.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, basedon restricted use,RemediationStandards,Attachment 4, andthe PA Bulletin(1997), both ofwhich are availableSome of the risk-assessment equations arebased on EPA (1989) suggestions and theInhalation Numeric Values are based on EPA(1995b) Risk-Based Concentration Tables(RBC).update).["Where current or future use will be restricted insome way (either throughdeed restriction, riskmanagement or engineering control measures)to ensure the protection of human health"(DEDNREC 1999)].Based on both critical and non-critical waterresource area in both surface and subsurfacesoil, from DE URS for protection of humanhealth.online.DEDNREC (1999) document provides RBCequations for soil ingestion.RBCres= TR×ATcEFr×IFSadj×CSFo×CFwhere:RBCres= residential risk-based concentrationTR = target cancer risk, 10-6ATc= averaging time carcinogens, 25,550 dEFr= residential exposure frequency, 350 d/yIFSadj= soil ingestion factor, 114.29 mg-y/kg-dCSFo= oral carcinogenic slope factor,150,000 (mg/kg-d) ̄1CF = 10-6kg/mg3ecoURS for protection of the environment forsurface soil from ORNL May 1998 screeningbenchmark levels for ecological risk assessmentOriginal ORNLdocument not found.42006Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilBasis not provided.Limited informationBasis not provided.(2004)standard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groups(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000ppt.pdf); lists same values identified in:EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels inOther States, cited in table available viaTittabawassee River Watch News(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).is available via theweblinks at left, withneither thederivationmethodology orbasis of underlyingtoxicity values.December 2009Page B-10TABLE B.3State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 3StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceDCJul-09Rios Jafolla (2009) (personal communication).Feedback during the field review phaseindicated DC has not identified a soil dioxin levelfor site cleanups because it does not have theauthority. The DC Voluntary Cleanup Programrelies on the EPA RBC Table for screeninglevels, but DC may be developing its owncleanup standards. Those standards may alsobe used by other environmental programs in DC.42006Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilBasis not provided.Limited informationBasis not provided.4.3(2004)Sep-07cstandard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groups(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000ppt.pdf); lists same values identified in:EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels inOther States, cited in table available viaTittabawassee River Watch News(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).NAVFAC (2007b), FFA Final ROD for Sites 1,2, 3, 7, 9, 11, and 13,Washington Navy Yard(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008030002103.pdf).For total dioxin TEQ, screening toxicity valuereflects toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs) fordioxins/furans from EPA (2000); the full citationwas not found in the ROD.is available via theweblinks at left, withneither thederivationmethodology orbasis of underlyingtoxicity values.Available online (viaRODS database).Supplemental exposure pointconcentrations calculated with older TEFsfrom Van den Berg (1997), to compare withthe screening toxicity value. (Full sourcecitation was not found in the ROD.)MD4.5Jul-09c130,000(mg/kg-d) ̄1Rios Jafolla (2009) (personal communication).Feedback during the field review phase18identified the EPA residential RSL as the MDcleanup level . Feedback indicated MDgenerally uses screening levels as cleanuplevels, however site-specific factors areconsidered, including what other contaminantsmay be present.42006Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilBasis not provided.Limited informationBasis not provided.251,000(2004)Sep-07Feb-99cc150,000(CSF)(mg/kg-d) ̄1standard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groups(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000ppt.pdf); lists same values identified in:EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels inOther States, cited in table available viaTittabawassee River Watch News(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).DoA (2007a), Canal Creek Study Area, RODfor Remedial Action – G-Street Salvage Yard,Final, Aberdeen Proving Ground(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2007030001944.pdf).EPA (Region 3) (1999a), Documentation ofEnvironmental Indicator Determination(http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/md/hhpdf/hh_mdd981041601.pdf).Based on total dioxinTEQ; this final cleanuplevel is the risk-based goal for a site workerbased on a 10-6risk target. From the 2005feasibility study by Shaw Group (that documenthas not been found online).Indicates the MD Department of Transportation(DOT) discovered soil contaminated with dioxinand pursued remediation at the site to a level of1,000 ppt, based on the EPA OSWER directive.is available via theweblinks at left, withneither thederivationmethodology orbasis of underlyingtoxicity values.Available online (viaRODS database).Cancer slope factor from 1997 HEAST.Derivation of risk-based remedial goals indicatedas being in the 2005 feasibility study, which hasnot been found online.The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation ofKociba et al. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.December 2009Page B-11TABLE B.3State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 3StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent SciencePA1205301.9×1011120404.3Nov-012006(2004)Sep-07Apr-06ccc150,000(CSF)150,000(CSF)(mg/kg-d) ̄1(mg/kg-d) ̄1PADEP (2001), Medium-SpecificConcentrations (MSCs) for Organic RegulatedSubstances in Soil(http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/landrecwaste/lib/landrecwaste/land_recycling/table_3a.pdf);developed as part of the PADEP (2002) LandRecycling Program Technical GuidanceManual(http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/ocrlgs/cwp/view.asp?a=1459&q=518850); equations basedon PA (1997), Pennsylvania Bulletin,Environmental Quality Board Administration ofthe Land Recycling Program (Act 2), IngestionNumeric Values(http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter250/s250.306.html).Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilstandard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groups(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000ppt.pdf); lists same values identified in:EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels inOther States, cited in table available viaTittabawassee River Watch News(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic (2007a), ROD, Site 5Soil, OU 4, Naval Air Station, Joint ReserveBase, Willow Grove(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2007030001999.pdf).U.S. ACE (2006),ROD for the Phase IVBRAC Parcels, Groundwater Southeastern(SE) Area Operable Unit 3B and Part of SoilOperable Unit SE OU 8, AEDBR Sites LEAD016, -114, -115, Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006030001362.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential scenario, soil(0-15 ft), direct contact, based on ingestion.Based on cancer risk; noncancer toxicity valuealso identified.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, nonresidential scenario,surface soil (0-2 ft), direct contact, based oningestion. Based on cancer risk; noncancertoxicity value also identified.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, direct contact, cap(maximum) concentration for nonresidentialsubsurface soil (2-15 ft), 190,000 mg/kg. Basedon cancer risk; noncancer toxicity value alsoidentified.Basis not provided.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, preliminaryremediation goal (PRG) for resident, based on10-5cancer risk; described as agreed upon byEPA, PADEP, and Navy, "developed by EPARegion III and the Navy using EPA Region IIIRBCs and based on site-specific risk for lifetimeresident exposure scenarios."For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Soil concentrationcalculated from the RBC equation. The RODidentifies the calculations and parameter valuesfor developing age-adjusted RBCs.The PADEPdocumentation isavailable online.Limited informationis available via theweblinks at left, withneither thederivationmethodology orbasis of underlyingtoxicity values.Available online (viaRODS database).Available online (viaRODS database).Criteria address state legislation (PA 1997).Equation used for ingestion of dioxin inresidential soil:MSC =TR×ATc×365d/y.CSFo× Abs×EF×IFadj×CFwhere:TR=target risk, 10-5ATc=verage time for carcinogens, 70 yCSFo=oral cancer slope factor,150,000 (mg/kg-d) ̄1Abs= absorption, 1EF= exposure frequency, 250 dIFadj= ingestion factor, 57.1 (mg-y/kg-d)CF =conversion factor, 10-6kg/mgBasis not provided.Slope factor taken from 2002 HEAST; equationfor calculating age-adjusted residential RBCs forsoil ingestion based on cancer risk:RBC =TR×AT;EF×CSFo×IFSadj×CFwhere:RBC= risk-based concentration, mg/kgTR= target cancer risk, 10-6AT= averaging time, 25,550 dEF= exposure frequency, 350d/yCSFo= oral slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1IFSadj= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,114 (mg-y/kg-d)-1CF= conversion factor, 10-6kg/mgDecember 2009Page B-12TABLE B.3State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 3StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent SciencePA4.1Aug-03c150,000(mg/kg-d) ̄1U.S. ACE (2003),ROD for Phase III Parcels,2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ soil risk-based healthAvailable online (viaSlope factor taken from 2002 HEAST. Equation(cont’d.)(CSF)Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0303065.pdf).screening concentration (RBSC) for future childor adult resident.RODS database).for calculating age-adjusted residential RBSC forsoil ingestion based on cancer risk:48For 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, subsurface soil,represents the soil screening level forgroundwater protection, basis indicated ascarcinogen; considered a total hazard quotient of0.1; dilution attenuationfactor of 20. The RODrefers to the remedial investigation/riskassessment for the methodology explanation.RBSCo=TR×AT;EF×CSFo×IFSadj×CFwher:eRBSCo= risk-based screening concentration,mg/kgTR = target cancer risk, 10-610,000eco2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ ecological benchmark, EPARegion III BTAG screening level for fauna; fromEPA (Region 3) (1995a).AT = averaging time, 25,550 dEF = exposure frequency, 350d/y0.32(eco)For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, identified as NOAELbased benchmark for humans/mammals,fromORNL (1997); ROD indicates PRGs wereadjusted to NOAEL-based criteria using a factorof 10.CSFo= oral slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1IFSadj= age-adjusted ingestion factor,114 (mg-y/kg-d)-1CF = conversion factor, 10-6kg/mg1.6ecoFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, NOAEL-basedbenchmark for birds,from ORNL (1997); RODindicates PRGs were adjusted to NOAEL-basedcriteria using a factor of 10.VA4.518Jul-09Jun-09c130,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d) ̄1VADEQ (2009b), Contaminants of ConcernSoil: Unrestricted(http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/vrprisk/files/screen/vrp25.xls); SFofromVADEQ (2009c) Table 4.2,(http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/vrprisk/files/toxicity/vrp42.xls);VADEQ (2009a), Contaminants of ConcernSoil: Restricted(http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/vrprisk/files/screen/vrp29.xls).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential scenario, EPAregional screening level and VA VoluntaryRemediation Program (VRP) Tier II screeninglevel.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, commercial/industrialscenario, EPA regional screening level and VRPTier III screening level.Intra-agencyVADEQ (2008c)provides toxicitytables, riskcalculations androute-specific(dermal, ingestion,inhalation)equations forremediation levels;this document isavailable online.The VADEQ VRP adopts the lower value of theEPA Region III RBCs for the residential scenarioor EPA Soil Screening guidance for transfer fromsoil to groundwater or air as its Tier II,unrestricted (residential) screening levels. SeeTable 13 of the report regarding the RegionalEPA RBCs.Same as above, except RBCs for industrialscenario and Tier III, restricted(commercial/industrial) screening levels.VADEQ cites the most recent EPA (2005)guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment.42006Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilBasis not provided.Limited informationBasis not provided.(2004)standard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groups(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000ppt.pdf); lists same values identified in:EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels inOther States, cited in table available viaTittabawassee River Watch News(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).is available via theweblinks at left, withneither thederivationmethodology orbasis of underlyingtoxicity values.May-05cDoA (2005), Decision Document, EBS-13Parcel, OU 6, Blackstone,(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0305061.pdf).For dioxin toxicity equivalents; the documentindicates the TEQ risk falls within the targetrange (10-4to 10-6) and indicates PRGs weredeveloped based on the EPA Region III RBCs,but does not provide the concentrations used;cites the site evaluation document by Tetra Tech(2004), which has not yet been found online.Decision documentis available online(via RODSdatabase).December 2009Page B-13TABLE B.3State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 3StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceWV4.1Mar-01c156,000(mg/kg-d) ̄1WVDEP (2001), Voluntary Remediation andFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential scenario, basedExpert peerThe equations areUniform risk-based equation for residential soilCited documents range from 1951-1998;(CPSo)Redevelopment Act: Guidance Manual,Version 2.1(http://www.wvdep.org/Docs/3200_RemediationGuidanceVersion2-1.pdf).on soil ingestion; slope factor from HEAST(specific citation not provided); value reflectsEPA Region III risk-based concentrations fromJuly 1996.reviewcoordinated bythe NationalInstitute forgiven in WVDEP(2001) which isavailable online.The WVDEPingestion:C =TR×ATc.[(EFr×(IFSadj×CSFo)] ×10-6kg/mgmost are from the late 1980s and early1990s.370For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, industrial scenario, based onsoil ingestion; slope factor from HEAST (citationnot provided); concentration reflects EPAChemical Studiesdocument citesEPA (1989, 1996a,1996b).where:C = soil concentration, (mg/kg)TR = target cancer risk, 10-6Region III risk-based concentration from July1996, multiplied by 10 to yield a value based on10-5risk.ATc= averaging time, carcinogens, 25,550 dEFr= exposure frequency, 350 d/yIFSadj= ingestion factor, 114 (mg y/kg-d)-1CSFo= cancer slope factor oral,156,000 (mg/kg-d) ̄1(Equation for industrial soil ingestion is alsoavailable in the WVDEP [2001] document.)42006Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilBasis not provided.Limited informationBasis not provided.(2004)standard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groups(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000ppt.pdf); lists same values identified in:EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels inOther States, cited in table available viaTittabawassee River Watch News(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).is available via theweblinks at left, withneither thederivationmethodology norbasis of underlyingtoxicity values.December 2009Page B-14TABLE B.4State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 4StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceAL1,000Apr-08cADEM (2008), AL Risk Based CorrectiveAction Guidance Manual(http://www.adem.state.al.us/LandDivision/Guidance/ARBCAApril2008final.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential scenario.Preliminary screening level adopted as acleanup level for "Direct Contact ExposurePathway” from 1998 OSWER directive.The ADEMscreening valueand basis (OSWERdirective) areThe Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation of Kociba etal. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.General equations for deriving (other) cleanup areValues for equations are from EPA(1989, 2000).5,000For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, commercial scenario.Preliminary screening level adopted as acleanup level for "Direct Contact ExposurePathway” from 1998 OSWER directive.available online.available in ADEM (2008).212c150,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, large soil source (4047.5m2),soil screening level protective of groundwaterresource protectionRM-1 levels per ADEM ALRisk Based Corrective Action Guidance Manual(ARBCA).385For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, small soil source (225m2),soil screening level protective of groundwaterresource protection, Risk Management-1 (RM-1)Levels per ADEM ARBCA.FL730Feb-05c150,000(CSFo)(mg/kg-d)-1FDEP (2005), Technical Report: Developmentof Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs) for Chapter62-77, F.A.C., Table 2(http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/rules/documents/62-777/TableIISoilCTLs4-17­05.pdf,fromhttp://toxicology.ufl.edu/documents/TechnicalFeb05.pdf.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, residential direct contactsoil cleanup target level (SCTL). Derivationprovided in FDEP (2005).The value reported in the CTL table (7 mg/kg-d),is also cited by Paustenbach et al. (2006) as thecleanup target level for FL(as 7 ng TEQ/kg,riskbased calculation).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, commercial/industrialdirect contact SCTL.Paustenbach etal. (2006) waspeer reviewed aspart of thejournalpublicationprocess.Derivation basisand equationsvalues clear forresidential andcommercial/industrial SCTLs.Default andchemical-specificvalues for equationvariables providedSlope factors and other toxicological information citeEPA 1997 HEAST. Model equation for developingacceptable risk based concentrations in soils forcarcinogens:SCTL = (TR×BW×AT×RBA);EF×ED×FC(EXPoral+EXPderm+EXPinhal)where:EXPo= oral term = CSFo×IRo×CFEXPd= dermal term = CSFd×SA×AF×DA×CFFDEP report was prepared in 2005.Toxicity value and context was takenfrom the outdated EPA HEAST (1997)source.in FDEP (2005),Technical Report.EPA (1997a)Health EffectsAssessmentSummary Tables(HEAST) values fornonradionuclideshave not beenfound via openaccess online.EXPi= inhalation term = CSFi×IRi×(1/VF+1/PEF)TR = target cancer risk, 10-6BW = body weight, 51.9 kg, residentAT = averaging time, 25,550 dRBA = relative bioavailability factor, 1.0EF = exposure frequency, 350 d/y residentED = exposure duration, 30 y, residentFC = fraction from contaminated source, 1.0CSF = cancer slope factor, (mg/kg-d)-1IRo= oral ingestion rate, 120 mg/d, residentIRi= inhalation rate, 12.2 m3/d, residentCF = conversion factor, 10-6kg/mgSA = surface area skin exposed, 4810 cm2/d,residentAF = adherence factor, 0.1 mg/cm2, residentDA = dermal absorption, 0.01VF = volatilization factor, 4.619×106m3/kg,residentPEF = particulate emission factor, 1.24×109m3/kgDecember 2009Page B-15TABLE B.4State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 4StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewEvaluation CriteriaTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceFL72006Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilBasis not provided.Limited informationBasis not provided.(cont’d.)(2004)standard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groups(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000ppt.pdf); lists same values identified in:EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels inOther States, cited in table available viaTittabawassee River Watch News(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).is available via theweblinks at left,with neither thederivationmethodology norbasis of underlyingtoxicity values.21997cHirschhorn (1997a), Cleanup Levels for DioxinContaminated Soils;Hirschhorn (1997b), Two SuperfundEnvironmental Justice Case StudiesIndicated as TCDD TEQ in soil. EscambiaTreating Company Superfund site, Pensacola,FL, for residential scenario (reflecting ingestion,inhalation, and dermal exposure), 10-6risk.Article peerreviewed as partof journalpublication7(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/Cleanup/two_superfund_environmental_just.htm)Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Superfundsite cleanup level; 10-6risk.process.200Escambia Treating Company Superfund Site,Pensacola (1996) cleanup level for off-siteresidential areas(from EPA Region 4);corresponds to 10-4cancer risk level (ignoringnoncancer health effects).501997nHirschhorn (1997a), Cleanup Levels for DioxinContaminated Soils;Hirschhorn (1997b), Two SuperfundEnvironmental Justice Case Studies(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/Cleanup/tIndicated as TCDD TEQ in soil; 1995 “ATSDRPublic Health Assessment for EscambiaSuperfund site cited 50 ppt level for noncancereffects.” (Note: not found in the ROD for thissite, from the RODS database.)Article peerreviewed as partof journalpublicationprocess.See information for the ATSDR entry in Table 11 ofthe main report.wo_superfund_environmental_just.htm).7Sep-06EPA (2006g), ROD Summary of RemedialBased on FL Department of EnvironmentalAvailable online3030Aug-06Alternative Selection: Coleman-Evans WoodPreserving Company: Superfund Site, OU 02(Residual Dioxin in Soil), Whitehouse(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001242.pdf).EPA (2006d), ROD Summary of RemedialAlternative Selection:Jacksonville Ash Site,Jacksonville(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001162.pdf).Protection Dioxin (FDEP) Toxic Equivalent(TEQ) Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs) forresidential and commercial/industrial scenario;7 ppt for attributable off-facility property, 30 pptfor on facility property.Based on FDEP Dioxin TEQ SCTLs forcommercial/industrial scenario.(via RODSdatabase).Available online(via RODSdatabase).7Aug-06EPA (2006c), ROD Summary of RemedialRemediation goals as TEQ were adopted fromAvailable onlineSee information for FDEP (2005) above.See information regarding FDEP (2005)30Alternative Selection: Brown’s Dump Site,Jacksonville(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001161.pdf); equations given in(http://toxicology.ufl.edu/documents/TechnicalFeb05.pdf).FDEP SCTLs: 7 ppt for residential scenario,30 ppt for commercial/industrial scenario;calculated for 10-6risk level.(via RODSdatabase).See information forFDEP (2005)above.above.30Feb-06EPA (2006a), ROD Summary of RemedialAlternative Selection: Escambia WoodTreating Company: Superfund Site, OperableUnit 01 (Soil), Pensacola(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001445.pdf).For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ, based on FDEP SCTLfor commercial scenario, lifetime cancer risk of10-6. (ROD notes the Department shall notrequire site rehabilitation to achieve a cleanuptarget level for an individual contaminant that ismore stringent than thesite-specific, naturallyoccurring background concentration for thatcontaminant. Florida Statute 376.30701.)Available online(via RODSdatabase).December 2009Page B-16;TABLE B.4State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 4StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewEvaluation CriteriaTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceGA801992cGADNR (1992), Chapter 391-3-19 -Appendix 1: Regulated Substances and SoilConcentrations that Trigger Notification(http://rules.sos.state.ga.us/docs/391/3/19/AP.pdf) Part of GA Hazardous Site Response Act(HSRA).Lund (2009) (personal communication).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, notifiable concentration forthe unrestricted use scenario.“These rules are promulgated to protect andenhance the quality of Georgia’s environmentand to protect the public health, safety, and wellbeing of its citizens.”From feedback during field review, when thislevel is found in soil, it is a requirement to notifythe state. Not an official soil cleanup level, thisconcentration is a default starting point for theSoil values arereadily available onGADNR website,but derivation basisis ambiguous.Some chem.specific values(e.g. diffusivity)used in thederivation of VFare not provided.Basis of equation is from EPA (2000) Chapter 3.Although not stated explicitly in HSRA Appendix,Equation 6 of the EPA document was likely used tocalculate GA soil value. However, HSRA Appendixprovided different defaultparameter values than theEPA document.C = (TR×BW×AT×365 d/y)EF×ED (EXPoral+EXPinhal)where:EXPo= oral term = CSFo×IRsoil×CFGA HSRA is from 1992. The basis (anddate) of the slope factor was notspecified.cleanup level that is determined on a sitespecific basis, which in some cases may be thissame concentration.Slope factors usedin derivation arenot provided in theAppendix, callinginstead for usingcurrent values fromEXPi= inhalation term = CSFi×IRi×(1/VF+1/PEF)TR = target cancer risk, 10-5BW = body weight, 70 kgAT = averaging time, 70 yEF = exposure frequency, 350 d/y residentthe EPA IntegratedRisk InformationSystem (IRIS) or ifnot listed in IRIS,from HEAST.ED = exposure duration, 30 y residentCSF = cancer slope factor, (mg/kg-d)-1IRsoil= soil ingestion rate, 114 mg/d residentIRi= inhalation rate, 15 m3/d residentCF = conversion factor, 10-6kg/mgVF = equation given but not all chemical-specificparameter valuesPEF = particulate emission factor, 4.63×109m3/kg52006Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilBasis not provided.Limited informationBasis not provided.(2004)standard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groups(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000ppt.pdf); lists same values identified in:EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels inOther States, cited in table available viaTittabawassee River Watch News(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).is available via theweblinks at left,with neither thederivationmethodology norbasis of underlyingtoxicity values.4.81997Hirschhorn (1997a), Cleanup Levels for DioxinContaminated Soils.“The state of Georgia publishes a cleanup valuecorresponding to 4.8 ppt and North Carolinauses 4.1ppt, both presumably following EPA riskmethods, but probably with some minor changein one or more exposure parameters.” No basisprovided, no further information given.Article peerreviewed as partof journalpublicationprocess.2001997Hirschhorn (1997b), Two SuperfundEnvironmental Justice Case Studies(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/Cleanup/two_superfund_environmental_just.htm).Marzone Inc./Chevron Chemical CompanySuperfund Site, Tifton (1996), indicated ascleanup level for residential scenarios (from EPARegion 4); corresponds to 10-4cancer risk level,even though risk-based cleanup levels forpesticides at the site were based on 10-6cancerrisk for residential exposure.1,000Aug-04EPA (2004e), Woolfolk Chemical Works Site,OU #3: Amended Record of Decision(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0404664.pdf).For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ, commercial/industrialscenario. Value is given as SCTL.Available online(RODS database).December 2009Page B-17TABLE B.4State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 4StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesEvaluation CriteriaNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceKYAug-09Martin (2009) (personal communication).Feedback from field review phase indicates thatalthough KY is required by statue to screenagainst 2002 PRGs, they also recommendconsidering updated 2009 RSLs. They doaccept site-specific parameters that may allow asoil concentration higher than that in the PRGsor RSLs, however this generally requires anEnvironmental Covenant to ensure that theparameters remain valid.4.5Apr-09c130,000(SFO)(mg/kg-d)-1KY Legislature (2009), KentuckyAdministrative Regulations(http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/401/100/030.htm); based on EPA (2009a) PreliminaryRemediation GoalsFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential scenario. KYregulation dictatesthat the state use EPARegion 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)(see Table13 of the report for recentlyharmonized regional levels).The PRGdocumentation isavailable online.See Tables 11 and 13 for the basis of EPA regionallevels, including the toxicity value.CalEPA report from late 2002 reflects the1982 NTP study (slightly more recentthan the Kociba study, using updatedtumor classification methodology). SeeTables 11 and 13 of the report for18(http://www.epa.gov/region09/superfund/prg/pdf/ressoil_sl_table_run_APRIL2009.pdf) &(http://www.epa.gov/region09/superfund/prg/pdf/indsoil_sl_table_run_APRIL2009.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, industrial scenario. KYregulation dictatesthat the state use EPARegion 9 PRGs (see Table 13 of the report forrecently harmonized regional levels).information underlying the recentlyharmonized regional screening levels(last updated in fall 2009, with intent toassess for update every 6 months).MS38.2Feb-02c150,000(CSFo)(mg/kg-d)-1MSDEQ (2002), Final Regulations GoverningBrownfield Voluntary Cleanup andRedevelopment in MSFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD, restricted scenario, based oningestion. Calculated using equations in EPARAGS (2000). Slope factors (hierarchy) fromTarget remediationgoals are availableonline.Residential TRGs are calculated using Equation 2from USEPA (1996) SoilScreening GuidanceTRG = TR ×AT;The Region 4 guide is from 2000. Thebasis of the outdated HEAST values wasnot reported.4.26(http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/pdf/Main_HW-2/$File/HW-2.pdf?OpenElement);based on EPA (2000) Supplemental Guidanceto RAGS(http://www.epa.gov/Region4/waste/ots/healtbul.htm). Hess (2009) (personalcommunication), verified that EPA (1996), SoilScreening Guidance: User’s Guide(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmediEPA IRIS, HEAST, ATSDR or peer-reviewedliterature.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, unrestricted land-usescenario, based on ingestion. Calculated usingequations in EPA RAGS (2000). Slope factorsare to be taken from EPA IRIS, HEAST, ATSDRor peer-reviewed literature.Toxicological basisfrom HEAST(outdated) is notpublicly available.EF×IFSadj×CSFo×CFwhere :TRG = target remediation goal, (mg/kg)TR = target risk,10-6CSFo= 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1AT = averaging time, 25,550 dEF = exposure frequency, 350 da/soil/pdfs/ssg496.pdf) was used to derive MStarget remediation goal (TRGs).IFSadj= soil ingestion factor, 114 mg-y/kg-dCF = conversion factor, 1052006Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilBasis not provided.Limited informationBasis not provided.(2004)standard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groups(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000ppt.pdf); lists same values identified in:EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels inOther States, cited in table available viaTittabawassee River Watch News(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).is available via theweblinks at left,with neither thederivationmethodology norbasis of underlyingtoxicity values.51997cHirschhorn (1997a), Cleanup Levels for DioxinContaminated Soils.Indicated for Naval Seabees Center, Gulfpoint,MS; to remove contaminated soil with about100 ppt dioxins.Article peerreviewed as partof journal1001,000Sep-07EPA (2007), ROD Summary of RemedialAlternative Selection: Picayune Wood TreatingSite, Picayune(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2007040001948.pdf).Commercial scenario in Gulfport, MS in 1987;“first commercial dioxin cleanup in the UnitedStates ... goal of the Air Force project is toreduce dioxin levels in the soil to less than0.1 ppb and then to delist the soil as safe.“Based on EPA 1998 OSWER directive.publicationprocess.Available online(via RODSdatabase).The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation of Kociba etal. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.December 2009Page B-18TABLE B.4State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 4StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewEvaluation CriteriaTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceNC1,000Oct-09cNCDENR (2009), Inactive Hazardous SitesBranch Soil Remediation Goals(http://www.wastenotnc.org/soiltable.pdf) (linkupdated in October 2009);Inactive Hazardous Sites Program Guidelinesfor Assessment and Cleanup(http://www.wastenotnc.org/sfhome/stateleadguidance.pdf)For TCDD TEQ, preliminary health-basedpreliminary soil remediation goal (PSRG) forunrestricted land use; NCDENR indicates atarget risk of 10-6is used preliminary healthbased PSRGs based on cancer. (1,000 ppt isthe OSWER value for residential soil, which isnot based on that risk level.) NCDENR alsoindicates the PSRGs areadapted from the April2009 EPA RSL tables.(Note the currentNot clear; NCDENR indicates adoption of the EPARSL, and also indicates a target risk of 10-6is appliedfor , but the RSL value for dioxin is not reflected here(the 1,000 ppt appears to reflect the OSWERdirective). The toxicity value was not found.NCDENR provides the current WHO TEFvalues for determining TEQ although thesource of these values is not cited, e.g.,Van den Berg et al. (2006) or WHO(2005).The PSRGs areavailable online.1,000 ppt replaces the October 2008 residentialvalue of 4.5 ppt, which is the EPA RSL forTCDD; an industrial level no longer appears inthe 2009 documentation (18 ppt in 2008).0.64For TCDD TEQ, protection of groundwater SRG.(For comparison, the EPA RSL risk-based soilscreening level for protection of groundwater is0.15 ppt.)Refers to EPA 1996 soil screening guidance, and soilleachate model with default values “appropriate forNC. ” Specific input values for dioxin were not found,nor was the toxicity value.42006Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilBasis not provided.Limited informationBasis not provided.(2004)standard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groups(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000ppt.pdf);lists same values identified in:EC (2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels inOther States, cited in table available viaTittabawassee River Watch News(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).is available via theweblinks at left,with neither thederivationmethodology norbasis of underlyingtoxicity values.4.11997Hirschhorn (1997a), Cleanup Levels for DioxinContaminated Soils.“The state of Georgia publishes a cleanup valuecorresponding to 4.8 ppt and North Carolinauses 4.1ppt, both presumably following EPA riskmethods, but probably with some minor changein one or more exposure parameters.” No basisprovided, no further information given.Article peerreviewed as partof journalpublicationprocess.1,000Sep-08EPA (2008e),Lower Roanoke River,Weyerhaeuser Operable Unit 2, MartinCounty, NC, Part 2: The Decision Summary(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008040002458.pdf).Mentions EPA cleanup level of 1 ppb from 1998OSWER directive and states soil levels arebelow this level. The ROD calls for "monitorednatural recovery" given that soil dioxin is <1 ppb.Available online(via RODSdatabase).4Sep-06EPA (2006e), Record of Decision Summary ofRemedial Alternative Selection, Sigmon'sSeptic Tank Site, Statesville(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001281.pdf).Indicated as NC soil remediation goal for dioxins.Available online(via RODSdatabase).14.5Sep-06DoD (2006), Final ROD, Operable Unite 6,Site 12, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point,Havelock(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001306.pdf);Calculation given in Appendix 2, NCDENR (2005)(http://wastenot.enr.state.nc.us/hwhome/guidance/pdf/HWScleanup5-05draft.pdf).Indicates the NC soil screening level for TCDDof 14.5 ppt is back-calculated from theconcentration protective of groundwater. NCHazardous Waste Section (HWS) soil screeningprocess sets the unrestricted use level as thelowest of the background concentration, a SSLprotective of GW, or the EPA Region 9residential PRG. In thiscase, the regional PRGof 3.9 was used as a final remediation goal.Available online(via RODSdatabase).120Jul-05150,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1EPA (2005b), Amendment to the ROD,Carolina TransformerSite, Fayetteville(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0405038.pdf).For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ, based on cancer risk.Derivation of the remediation goal was not foundin this document. Actionselected to “protect thelocal community and the environment”.Available online(via RODSdatabase).December 2009Page B-19TABLE B.4State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 4StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewEvaluation CriteriaTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceSCAug-09Byrd (2009) (personal communication).Feedback from field review indicates no statecleanup value exists for dioxin. SC uses EPAscreening values, toxicity values, and guidancefor risk-based cleanup levels.3.9Aug-04SCDHEC (2004), Evaluation of the KoppersInc. Site under the RCRIS Corrective ActionPRG for residentialscenario. Memo withattachment does not provide derivation basis.Memo withattachment inScientific basis not found.Memo is from 2004,with the attachmentdated February 1999.16Environmental Indicator Event Code CA723(Human Exposures), with attachment (1999),Documentation of Environmental IndicatorPRG for industrial scenario. Memo does notprovide derivation basis.which values arecited is availableonline.3.2May-04c150,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1Determination(http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/pubs/eipdfs/Koppers%20CA725,%20dated%20August%2019,%202004.pdf).DOE (2004), ROD, Remedial AlternativeSelection for the R-Area Burning/Rubble Pits(131-R and 131-1R) and Rubble Pile (631­25G) Operable Unit (U), Aiken(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0404088.pdf).Remedial goal (RG) for TCDD isomers identified,selected as the lower ofthe most restrictivehuman health RG objectives (RGOs) forexpected future land use and lowest LOAELbased RGO. (RGOs calculated in WSRC 2003,RFI/RI/WPA with Baseline Risk Assessment forthe R -Area Burning Rubble Pits (131-R and131-1R) and Rubble Pile (631-25G) OperableUnit (U), WSRC-RP-2002-4183, Rev.1, June.)Available online(via RODSdatabase).References the 2002 EPA Integrated RiskInformation System (IRIS)assource of toxicity data(with B2 as the carcinogen descriptor).TN502,5001,000Sep-03Jul-02Jul-03cccDHHS (2003), Residential DioxinContamination(http://health.state.tn.us/Environmental/PDFs/hc-e-easygoer.pdf);based on ATSDR (1998), Toxicological Profilefor Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins(http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp104.pdf).Bates et al. (2002), American Creosote SiteCase Study: Solidification/Stabilization ofDioxins, PCP and Creosote for $64 per CubicYard.EPA (2003e), ROD, Summary of RemedialAlternative Selection for the Soil andGroundwater at the Wrigley Charcoal Site,Wrigley(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0403576.pdf).For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ.Soil screening level fordioxins based on 10-6lifetime cancer risk over a70-year life span. Reflects recent ATSDRguideline.For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Soil action level basedon 10-4lifetime cancer risk for future adultworker.For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. The ROD indicates thatsoil was tested for dioxin on two separateoccasions and found to be below the EPAcleanup level of 1 ppb.ATSDR followsan externalreview process(e.g., the 1998policy with thescreening valuewas reviewed bya panel ofuniversity andCanadian healthofficials).Article peerreviewed as partof journalpublicationprocess.Available online. See ASTDR entry in Table 11 of the report.Available online. Scientific basis not found.Available online(RODS database)The updated ATSDR dioxin policy wasnot based on new scientific data or areanalysis of the existing data. "Theupdate does not change the assessmentof health hazards associated with dioxinexposure, as summarized in the 1998ATSDR Toxicological Profile and in thederivation of the Minimal Risk Level(MRL). The policy update impacts sitespecific health assessments evaluatingexposure to dioxin directly fromresidential soils."This contaminated site was remediated in1996.December 2009Page B-20TABLE B.5State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 5StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceIL14Jun-05n(eco)1.4×10-5(NOAEL)mg/kg-dCWLP (2005), Springfield, IL, City Water,Light & Power, Supplement to Part 7 of PSDPermit Application, Additional Impact Analysisfor Metals(http://yosemite.epa.gov/r5/r5ard.nsf/c408a2009710018f8625716f004d9038/df97027430f55b6d862571a3005a188e/$FILE/CWLP%20Metals%20Analysis_3_14_06.pdf); based on wildlifebenchmark in Sample et al. (1996)(http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm86r3.pdf).Screening level of 1.4×10-5(or 14×10-6) mg/kg soil isbased on the no observed adverse effect level(NOAEL) for a ring-necked pheasant – which was"used to represent closest available species andwas the worst-case screening level for dioxins" –taken from ORNL technical report for DOE,"Toxicology Benchmarks for Wildlife:1996 Revision."(1996 ORNLreportunderwenttechnical review;nature of peerreview for thescreening levelderivation notfound.)Full derivationapproach not found.Summaryinformation from thetoxicological studyis available online inORNL (1996). (Theoriginal Nosek et al.[1992] article is notpublicly availableonline.)Methodology is not provided; soilconcentrationappears to be the same value as thedaily dosesummarized in ORNL(1996) from Nosek et al.(1992): intraperitoneal, 10-wk study during criticallife stage for the reproductive endpoint; chronicNOAEL of 14 ng/kg-d; chronic of lowest observedadverse effect level (LOAEL) 140 ng/kg-d.ORNL (1996) also summarized similar doseinformation from a second study, Murray et al.(1979): rat dietary 3-generation study; chronicNOAEL of 1 ng/kg-d; chronic LOAEL of10 ng/kg-d.The ecological benchmark from Nosek et al.(1992) is cited in the ORNL (1996) technicalreport on toxicological benchmarks forwildlife.1,000Apr-02cROD; OU 04, Sangamo Electric Dump/ CrabOrchard National Wildlife Refuge, Carterville(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0502044.pdf).For Site 36, 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ levels exceededRegion 9 PRGs (screening values); no cleanupaction was taken because concentrationswere below the 1,000 ppt cleanup level from EPA1998 OSWER directive; that level TEQ translates isindicated to translate to 2.5×10-4risk for residentialuse. Site use is not residential so applying this valueis conservative; all concentrations were less than1 ppb. A baseline human health potentialremediation goal (BHRG) of 1,000 ppt was identifiedfor recreational use.Methodology andassumptions forderiving BHRGs areprovided in the1996 human healthbaseline riskassessment andecological riskassessment, for thesite, not yet foundvia open accessThe Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation of Kocibaet al. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.60For Site 22A, For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ, a BHRG of 60ppt was established for site workers.online.45n(eco)For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ, ecological risk-basedconcentration (RBC) identified as interim cleanuplevel, based on the LOAEL per assumptions given inthe feasibility study (FS)ecological risk model.The FS thatprovides basisinformation has notbeen found online.The ROD indicates the RBC basis is the LOAELfor each receptor group (cites the FS, which wasnot found online).IN451802006c150,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1IDEM (2006), Risk Integrated System ofClosure (RISC),Provisional 2006 DefaultClosure Levels (data sheet); personalcommunication from Anderson (2009);algorithms and data, including hierarchies, arestated as being from IDEM (2001), RISCTechnical Guide(http://www.in.gov/idem/files/risctechguidance.pdf);also note IDEM (2009), RISC TechnicalGuide, Appendix 1, Default Closure Tables(http://www.in.gov/idem/files/risctech_appendix1_2006_r1.pdf), this technical guide reflectsrevisions since IDEM (2001) and IDEM (2006)(note the internal 2009 tables are not yetavailable online).Current provisional defaultclosure level for TCDD inresidential soil, is 4.5 ×10-5mg/kg (direct contact); itis based on the cancer endpoint, with HEAST(undated) identified as the source of the SF,150,000 per mg/kg-d. (From field feedback duringthe review phase, the draft internal proposed valuefor the residential scenario is 60 ppt, based on theslope factor of 130,000 per mg/kg-d from CalEPA.)Current provisional closure level for TCDD for thecommercial/industrial scenarios is 1.8 × 0-4mg/kg,the basis is the same as for the residential level.This concentration is also the default level forresidential soil based on migration to ground water.(It is also the draft internal proposed value from JulyNot identified.The RISC technicalguide (2006/2009,which does not yetcontain any dioxinvalues) is availableonline. Theprovisional andproposed valuesand their completederivation includingparameter valuesand citations/context for thetoxicity values arenot yet foundonline.Basic calculation from IDEM (2006):DCL = TR×ATc×365 d/y;EFr×(A+[InhFadj×SFi×B])A = SFo×(IngFadj+[SFSadj×ABS])106mg/kgB = 1+1;VFPEFwhere:TR = target risk, 10-5ATc= averaging time, 70 yEFrs= exposure frequency residential soil,250 d/ySFo= oral slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1(130,000 for 2009 internal draft level)The internal 2009 update of the IDEMTechnical Guide refined selected valuesused in the calculations, but themethodology and citations for the toxicityvalues were not provided; thus, it is notknown how recently the scientific basisunderlying those values was considered.2009, based on feedback during the field reviewphase.)Note the supporting documentation includes an RfD0of 1.0×10-9mg/kg-d; however, cancer was thelimiting endpoint for the residential and industrialscreening levels. (Note this RfD is the same as theATSDR chronic MRL finalized in 1998.)IngFadj= ingestion factor soil age adjusted,114 mg-y/kg-dSFSadj= skin factor soil age adjusted,1,257 mg-y/kg-dABS = skin absorbance factor, 0.03InhFadj= inhalation factor age adjusted,10.9 m3-y/kg-dSFi= inhalation SF, same as for SFoaboveVF = volatilization factor, m3/kgPEF = particulate emission factor,1.316×109m3/kgDecember 2009Page B-21TABLE B.5State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 5StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewEvaluation CriteriaTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceIN(cont’d)601801,000Jun-09Jun-89cc130,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1IDEM (2009), Risk Integrated System ofClosure (RISC), Proposed 2009 DefaultClosure Levels (data sheet); personalcommunication from Anderson (2009);updated levels reflect proposed changes indefault algorithms and hierarchies in IDEM(2009) (same information source identifiedabove); per feedback during field review,proposed levels may be released in late 2009or 2010.EPA (1989c), ROD; OU 01, WedzebEnterprises, Inc., Lebanon(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0589097.pdf).From feedback during field review, represents theInternal draft proposed residential soil defaultclosure level for TCDD, given as 6.0 ×10-5mg/kg(this is also the default closure level for residentialsoil, direct contact); itis based on the cancerendpoint; CALEPA (undated) is given as the basis ofthe oral slope factor of 130,000 per mg/kg-d (andinhalation unit risk of 38 per μg/m3).The proposed commercial/industrial default level forsoil direct contact, and the proposed residential andcommercial/ industrial level for migration togroundwater, are the same as the 2006 provisionallevel (180 ppt).Proposed commercial/industrial soil default closurelevel for TCDD, given as 1.8 ×10-4mg/kg; with thesame basis as the preceding entry. (This value isalso the default closure level for industrial soil, aswell as the default level for residential soil based onmigration to ground water.)The supporting documentation also considers thenoncancer endpoint, noting the chronic ATSDR MRLof 1×10-9mg/kg-d, (and intermediate MRL of2×10-8mg/kg-d), as well as the CalEPA referenceconcentration of 4×10-7mg/m3. However, cancer isthe driving endpoint for the closure levels.For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Dioxin found at very lowlevels; no cleanup action taken because theconcentration was less than the cleanup level of1,000 ppt.Not identified.As above.Basic equation is as above. However, theinternal draft proposed values incorporate theCalEPA oral cancer slope factor and IUR (ratherthan using the oral SF for the inhalation SF).As above.ROD indicatescommunityinvolvement wasnot significant;concerns expressedby citizens and localofficials on remedyimplementationwere addressed atthe 6/1/89 publicmeeting so noformal commentswere received byWedzeb on theremedy.December 2009Page B-22;TABLE B.5State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 5StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewEvaluation CriteriaTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceMI90Jan-06c75,000(SF)(mg/kg-d) ̄1MIDEQ (2006), Attachment 1, Table 2, Soil:Residential and Commercial,(http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deqrrd-OpMemo_1­Attachment1Table2SoilResidential_283553_7.pdf); from Technical Support Document, Part201 Generic Cleanup Criteria and ScreeningLevels, Part 213 Tier 1 Risk-Based ScreeningLevels (http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7­135-3311_4109_9846_30022-101581-­,00.html); basis and equations from MIDEQ(2005), Attachment 6 (from same maindocument as above)(http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deqrrd-OpMemo_1-Attachment6_285488_7.pdf).For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ.Direct contact criteria(DCC) and risk-based screening level (RBSL),protective against adverse health effects from longterm ingestion and dermal contact with soil.MIDEQnotes “of all polychlorinated and polybrominateddibenzodioxin and dibenzofuran isomers present ata facility, expressed as an equivalent concentrationof 2,3,7,-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin based upontheir relative potency, shall be added together andcompared to the criteria for 2,3,7,8­tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. The generic cleanupcriteria for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin arenot calculated according to the algorithms presentedin R 299.5714 to R 299.5726. The generic cleanupcriteria are being held atthe values that the DEQhas used since August 1998, in recognition of theThe DCC derivationmethodology isavailable online.Generic residential and commercial algorithm:DCC = (TR×AT×CF)SF×[(EFi×IF×AEi)+(EFd×DF×AEd)]where:DCC = direct contact criterion,μg/kg (ppb)TR = target risk, 10-5cancer riskAT = averaging time, 25,550 dCF = correction factor, 109μg/kgEFi= ingestion exposure frequency, 350d/yIF = age-adj soil ingestion factor, 114 mg-y/kgdAEi= oral absorption efficiency, 0.5The value for age-adjusted soil dermalfactor was obtained from MIDEQ (1998).This parameter appears to have beenupdated in MIDEQ (2005) document to avalue of 353 mg-y/kg-d. However, the DCCfor dioxin has remained unchanged.90Aug-98c75,000(SF)(mg/kg-d) ̄1MIDEQ (1998), More Details on Dioxin 90 pptvalue, Excerpt from Part 201, Generic SoilDirect Contact Criteria, Technical SupportDocument; developed under MIDEQ1994 Natural Resources and EnvironmentalProtection Act 451, Part 201(http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deqwhm-hwp-dowexcerpt_of_dcc_tsd_251913_7.pdf);SF context given in TSG (1990),Carcinogenicity Slope Factor for 2,3,7.8­TCDD: Overview and Recent Developments,Toxic Steering Group Meeting(http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deqwhm-hwp-dow-slope_factor_251918_7.pdf).(Also see CalEPA [2007] for further contextand citations, in Table 11 of the report.)fact that national efforts to reassess risks posed bydioxin are not yet complete. Until these studies arecomplete, it is premature to select a revised slopefactor and/or reference dose for calculation ofgeneric cleanup criteria.”Concentration is based on a risk target of 10-5(notethe hazard quotient of 1 for noncancer endpoint wasnot used for the 90 ppt level). The slope factor (SF)is for total significant tumors per the 1986 NTPclassification scheme, context is given in TSG(1990); the earlier SF from the initial Kociba et al.(1978) analysis was higher. (Note that study servedas a key basis for the earlier 1 ppb value fromATSDR, and the EPA 1998 OSWER value.) TSG(1990) includes historical context from the 1980s,including the EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group(CAG) SF of 156,000 (mg/kg-d)-1based onsignificant female tumors (liver, lung, nasalturbinates/hard palate),as the geometric mean ofthe Kociba analysis (151,000) and Squire analysis(161,000), adjusted for early mortality (deaths inyear 1). Reanalysis per the NTP 1986 liverclassification scheme produced an SF of(Underlyingstudies are frompeer-reviewedliterature.)EFd= dermal exposure frequency, 245 d/yDF = age-adjusted soil dermal factor,2,442 mg-y/kg-dAEd= dermal absorption efficiency, 0.3The DCC derivationmethodology isavailable online, asis summary contextfor the slope factor.Tumors from 2-y dietary rat study, Kociba et al.(1978), with subsequent reanalysis per 1986 NTPmethodology producing a SF of75,000 (mg/kg-d)-1based on total significanttumors.Equation is same as identified above for MIDEQ(2006).MIDEQ methodology (1998) cites EPAguidance from 1992 or earlier; some defaultvalues have changed since then, e.g., fordermal and other exposure factors (e.g., the"IF" would have been lower per the EPA2008 child-specific EFH and the EPA 1997EFH; note that documentwas itself recentlyupdated and released in October 2009 asan external review draft. The toxicity valueis based on analyses of the 1978 Kociba etal. (1978) data using updated tumorclassification methodology.1,00090Jul-082006ccHeltman (2008), EPA Requires Limited DioxinCleanup at Dow Site Absent Final Risk Levels(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/EPA/epa072908.htm).Paustenbach (2006), Identifying Soil CleanupCriteria for Dioxins In Urban Residential Soils:How Have 20 Years of Research and RiskAssessment Experience Affected theAnalysis?(http://ndep.nv.gov/bmi/docs/060406_dioxin%20paper.pdf).52,000 (mg/kg-d)-1per liver tumors only. TSG (1990)cites EPA regarding FDA, CDC, and CA using SFsof 151,000 or 161,000 per mg/kg-d based on livertumors only, from the Kociba or Squire analysis,respectively.Indicates MI waived its standard in consenting to 1ppb for cleanup of the Riverside Blvd. site near DowChemical Co., and notes State regulations allow fora different cleanup level based on site-specific andother information; the amount of contaminated soilwas considered too large for interim remediation;article indicates (per state officials) that this levelwas selected as matter of practicality.For 2,3,7,8 TCDD-TEQ; risk-based calculationreported for soil ingestion pathway, which indicatesthis is the driving pathway.Article peerreviewed as partof journalpublicationprocess.Concentration appears to reflect OSWERdirective. (The Kimbrough et al. (1984)evaluation of Kociba et al. (1978) underlies theOSWER value.)December 2009Page B-23TABLE B.5State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 5StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesEvaluation CriteriaNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceMI990Feb-98cEPA (1998c), AMD, OU 03, Ott/Story/CordovaFor 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ concentrations do notTarget method detection limit, TMDL, is lowest(cont’d.)Chemical Co., Dalton Township(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fullteexceed any State or Federal requirement forindustrial land use, and the MI direct contact valuevalue accepted by MI that laboratory equipmentcan measure; if 20 x DWis <what the laboratoryxt/a0598101.pdf).(DCV) of 0.99 ppb applies(rather than the defaultcan detect, the TMDL becomes the cleanupstandard of 1 ppt for residential use). “If anyonestandard, where 20 x DW = 20x the MI Part 201were to perform any futureexcavation, soils 1 to 3industrial drinking water standard, whichfeet below grade may present a 1 in 100,000 chancerepresent the soil concentration above whichof an individual developing cancer if that individualleaching to groundwater may exceed acceptableperforms industrial work on the site for 70 years.”drinking water standards.) Area F&G exceeded(Note this ROD precededthe OSWER directive andthe TMDL of 1 ppt but that standard wasrefers to the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictiondetermined not to apply because the contaminantUniversal Treatment Standard, with excavated soilwas not shown to leach at unacceptable levels sogreater than 1 ppb requiring off-site incineration.)the DCV of 0.99 ppb applies.)Target method detection limit (TMDL) is the lowestvalue accepted by MI that lab can measure.MN20Jun-09c1,400,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d) ̄1MPCA (2009), Risk-Based Guidance for theSoil - Human Health Pathway, Tier 1 and Tier2 SRV Spreadsheets(http://www.pca.state.mn.us/cleanup/riskbasedoc.html#pathway);These soil reference values (SRVs) update theJan 1999 working draft values that were basedon an SFoof 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1, fromMPCA (1999), Draft Guidelines: Risk-BasedGuidance for the Soil - Human HealthPathway, Volume 2, Technical SupportDocument(http://www.pca.state.mn.us/cleanup/pubs/srv3_99.pdf).Hansen (2009) (personal communication).For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. The Tier 1 and 2 soilreference values (SRVs) are as dry weight, for directexposure via incidental ingestion, dermal contact,and inhalation (e.g., soil, dust), with excess lifetimecancer risk (ELCR) not to exceed 10-5. The ELCRfor chronic scenarios is 10-5; that for subchronicscenarios (e.g., short-term worker) is 10-6.Tier 1 (screening) is for residential scenarios,typically using maximum concentrations with defaultexposure factors (to determine if furtherinvestigation and/or remediation may be indicated).Tier 2 (simple site-specific) uses representativeconcentrations and site-specific conditions; standardresidential, recreational and industrial use scenariosreflect reasonable maximum exposures. The SRVfor Tier 1 and Tier 2 residential scenario (ELCR 10-5)is 20 per mg/kg-d. (Note the 1999 value was200 per mg/kg-d and applied to chronic residentialand recreational scenarios and subchronic childscenarios based on an ELCR of 10-5– except for theTier 2 child subchronic scenario, which was basedon 10-6risk; that scenario is no longer included in(The preceding1999 workingdraft wasprovided forpublic review,with thecomment periodending July 31;the 1999working drafthas remainedavailable online.)The derivationmethodology isdescribed in MPCA(1999), and updatesof specificparameter valuesare given in theindividualspreadsheets.MNDOH (2003) thatis cited as the basisfor the SFois notprovided.(Note the 1999working draftdocument isavailable online.)Driving pathway-oral; endpoints-immune, repro,cancer; cancer target organ-liver; class-humancarcinogen; SFo1.4×10-6per mg/kg-d; basis-ratdietary study (not provided); source-MNDOH(2003) (not provided). [Note previous SFo150,000 from MPCA (1999) also indicated ratdietary study (not provided); target organ-liver;cancer classification-B2 (probable humancarcinogen-inadequate evidence in humans);source HEAST (1995).]ADDing= ECR/(SF×AE) = Cs×IR×CF×FI×EFo×EDBW×ATADDderm=ECR/SF=Cs×CF×SA×AF×ABS×EFd×EDBW×ATADCinh=ECR/IUR= Cs×(103μg/mg)×EFi×ED(PEF + VF)CS= soil concentration (SRV), mg/kgSFo,d= 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1TR = 10-5cancer riskECR = estimated cancerrisk, route-specificReflects MPCA (1999) draft guidelines;working draft guidance remains in place forthe derivation methodology; updatesreflected in 2008 documentation include thefollowing.New SRVs were calculated in 2005;the 1998 WHO TEF values were replacedwith 2005 values in 2006; andthe subchronic child scenario was removedin 2007.Note the EPA 2005 cancer classificationcategories are reflectedin the footnotes butvarious 2008 table entriesstill contain oldercategories (e.g., B2); TCDD is listed as"human carcinogen."the 2008 update.)The feedback from field review (Hansen, 2009)indicates that the Tier 1 SRV is based on anassumption of age-adjusted soil ingestion, roundedto 20 ppt.AT =25,550 dIR =soil intake rate, 68 mg/d (age-adj)CF =correction factor, 10-6kg/mgFI =fraction from contaminated area, 1.0EFo,i=oral and inh exp frequency, 350 d/yEFd=derm exp frequency, 97 d/y (age- adj)ED =exposure duration, 33 yAE = oral absorption efficiency, 0.55SA = skin surface area, 3,609 cm2(age-adj)AF =adherence factor, 0.17 mg/cm2(age-adj)ABS =absorption factor, 0.03IUR =inhalation unit risk, 400 (μg/m3)-1VF =volatilization factor, 2.49×106(m3/kg)PEF =part. emission factor, 7.7×108(m3/kg)BW =body weight, 51 kg (age-adj)December 2009Page B-24TABLE B.5State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 5StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceMN25Jun-09c1,400,000(mg/kg-d) ̄1MPCA (2009), Risk-Based Guidance for theFor 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ.Tier 2 recreationalSame as above.(cont’d.)(SFo)Soil - Human Health Pathway, Tier 1 and Tier2 SRV Spreadsheets(http://www.pca.state.mn.us/cleanup/riskbasedoc.html#pathway);scenario; ELCR of 10-5(updated from the 1999value of 200 per mg/kg-d).For recreational, chronic incidental soil ingestion,age-adjusted: IR = 155 mg/d, EF = 92 d/y,ED = 33 y, BW = 51 kg.35These soil reference values (SRVs) update theJan 1999 working draft values that were basedon an SFoof 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1, fromMPCA (1999), Risk-Based Guidance for theFor 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Tier 2 industrial worker;ELCR of 10-5(updated from the 1999 value of 350per mg/kg-d for the chronic industrial scenario).Same as above.For industrial, chronic incidental soil ingestion:IR = 80 mg/d, EF = 250 d/y, ED = 25 y,BW = 70 kg.75Soil - Human Health Pathway, Volume 2(http://www.pca.state.mn.us/cleanup/pubs/srv3_99.pdf).Hansen (2009) (personal communication).For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Tier 2 short-term workerscenario; ELCR of 10-6(updated from the 1999value of 800 per mg/kg-d).Same as above.For short-term worker: IR = 330 mg/d, EF = 45 d(5 d/wk, 9-wk construction period within 1 y),BW = 70 kg; ELCR = 10-6(IR changed from1999 value of 480 per EPA [2002]).1,000Sep-08nMPCA (2008), Second Five-Year ReviewReport for Ritari Post and Pole Superfund Site,Sebeka, Wadena County, September 2008(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f2008050002503.pdf).For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Action level identified in1994 ROD, sustained through 1999 and 2008explanation of significant difference (ESD)documents, and five-year review reports in 2003 and2008. "Based on calculations by the Agency forToxic Substance and Disease Registry (ASTDR)and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), aresidential cleanup criterion of 1 ppb ormicrogram/kilogram ( 

# g/kg) was established forTCDDeq." (See context for value in Tables 11 and13 of the report.) As of the September 2008 5-yearreview, the site is zoned "Mixed (Agricultural/Residential/Forestry District)" and is assessed as"Agricultural - Non-homestead."Adopted theATSDRresidential soilvalue availablein 1994.Basis for using thisATSDR value asthe soil cleanuplevel for the sitewas available to thepublic. (Seesubsequentinformation in theATSDR entry inTable 11 of thereport.)See information for the ATSDR entry in Table 11of the report.The 2008 5-year review considered therecent WHO 2005 TEFs and determined itwould not change the protectiveness of thesite remedy. This September 2008 reviewpreceded the ATSDR update of Oct.-Nov.2008 (which retained 0.04 ppb as ascreening level and eliminated 1 ppb as anaction level); see information for the ATSDRentry in Table 11 of the report. Also notethe historical content provided in the earlierdocuments regarding ATSDR value of 1ppbfor residential cleanup that preceded its1998 documentation of the policy guideline,excerpted under "context notes" at left.1,000Sep-99cEPA (1999d), ROD AMD; OU 01, 03, MacGillis& Gibbs Co./ Bell Lumber& Pole Co., NewBrighton(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0599147.pdf).Amendment did not alter cleanup level from the1994 ROD, with total risk meeting the 10-4limit forcommercial and industrial use; the surrounding areais commercial and residential. From the 1994 ROD:MN generally establishes its cleanup goals atthe 10-5level ... for PCDDs/PCDFs, the cleanuplevel is 1 

# g/kg. This cleanup level was developedby ATSDR and has been established as EPA policy.This concentration was also the practical detectionlimit for laboratory analysis of PCDDs/PCDFs in soil.The 1 

# g/kg cleanup level does exceed the 10-5risklevel that MPCA uses as a goal. However, theremaining cleanup levels for other site contaminantshave been calculated so that total risk from allcontaminants at the site will not exceed 10-4which iswithin U.S. EPA's acceptable risk range.”December 2009Page B-25.TABLE B.5State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 5StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceOH35.8Oct-09c150,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1OHEPA (2009), Closure Plan ReviewGuidance for RCRA Facilities(http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/32/pdf/2008CPRG.pdf);For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Values are for singlechemicals, direct contact with soil. Considersingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation, withingestion as the primary pathway.OHEPA documentand tables availableonline. Cites EPA(1996) SoilScreeningGuidance and EPA(2002)supplementalSlope factor from HEAST database. Calculationof direct contact cancer GCN for a constituentthat has an SFoand a SFi.GCN = TR × AT .A + B + CWhere:A = SFo×(IFSadj×CF×FI×EF)guidance (availableonline).B = SFo/OABS×(SFSadj×ABS×CF×EF)C = SFi×[InhFadj×EF×(1/PEF)+(1/VF)]GCN = generic cleanup number, mg/kgTR = target risk, 10-5AT = averaging time, carcinogens, 25550 dSFo,i= oral and inhalational cancer slopefactor,150,000 mg/kg-dIFSadj= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,114.3 mg-y/kg-dCF = conversion factor, soil 10-6FI = soil fraction ingested, 1.0EF = exposure frequency residential, 350 d/yOABS= oral absorption factor, 0.5SFSadj= age-adjusted soil dermal contact factor,360.8 mg-y/kg-dABS = dermal absorption factor, 0.03InhFadj= age-adjusted inhalation factor,10.9 m3-y/kg-dPEF = particulate emission factor,1.36×109m3/kgVF = volatilization factor, no value provided1,000Jun-89c156,000 (mg/kg-d)-1EPA (1989b), ROD; OU 01, Laskin/Poplar OilCo., Jefferson Township(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0589091.pdf).No cleanup action was taken because soilconcentrations were below the 1,000 ppt TCDDequivalent cleanup level from the EPA 1998OSWER directive.ROD displayscancer slope factorfrom SuperfundPublic HealthEvaluation Manual(SPHEM) (US EPA,1986), but SF is notused to derive anysite-specific dioxincleanup level.The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation of Kocibaet al. (1978) underlies the OSWER value.(Although the ROD also identifies a cancer slopefactor of 156,000 per mg/kg-d from the 1986 EPASPHEM, that value was not used to derive a sitespecific dioxin cleanup level because the siteadopted the extant EPA1,000 ppt level.)WI0.51.2May-00n(eco)0.0001(NOAEL)mg/kg-dWheat (2000), [USCC] Dioxins and Furans(http://mailman.cloudnet.com/pipermail/compost/2000-May/006755.html);WDNR, cites WI Dept. of Health memo (May 4,1994, from Goldring, Bureau of Public Health,subject: "Revision of DOH Guidelines forDioxin in Landspread Sludge").Toxicity value is from Thiel et al. (1995).Identified as risk-based standards for human andwildlife protection, as total dioxin equivalent (TDE);indicates wildlife emphasis [hence "(eco)" inendpoint column]: Using this methodology, WI DNR“has derived ... wildlife dioxin criterion for surfacespreading (i.e., no incorporation) ...” these aremeant to be applied "in situations wherecontaminated material is spread in a thin layer onthe surface and not incorporated" (Thiel et al. 1995).Standard for agricultural land with grazing.TDE, standard for agricultural land without grazing.Underlying studyis from peerreviewedliterature.Memo from WIDept. of Health notfound online; Thielet al. (1995)available viaJournal ofEnvironmentalToxicology andChemistry.From Thiel et al. (1995): NOAEL of 0.1μg/kg-dfor embryo hatchability. Methodology notidentified in thisinformation source. Thiel et al.publication is not publicly available.Thiel et al. (1995) reflects researchfrom 1977 through 1994.December 2009Page B-26;TABLE B.6State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 6StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceAR4.5May-09c130,000(SFo)(mg/k-d)-1ARDEQ (2009a,b) AR Corrective ActionStrategy(http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/hazwaste/branch_tech/risk_assessment.htm),(http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/hazwaste/branch_tech/cas.htm#CAS);ARDEQ website links to the EPA (Region 6)Corrective Action Strategy(http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/rcra_c/pdo/riskman.htm).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the RSL for residential soil;AR Dept. of Environmental Quality (ARDEQ)uses EPA Region 6 medium-specific screeninglevels (MSSLs) as a point of departure (theseare now harmonized with Regions 3 and 9 asregional screening levels, see Table 13 of thereport). These generic screening levels areused early in the process, before thedevelopment of actual cleanup levels based onsite-specific risk evaluations. "Arkansas has notimplemented a single set of soil clean-up levelsRegional screeninglevels are availableonline from EPARegion 6 (andRegions 3 and 9).For cleanup levels (which are distinct from screening levels):“Site-specific clean-up standardsestablished through sitespecific, risk-based minimized threat variances should be withinthe range of values that ARDEQ and EPA generally findacceptable for risk-based cleanup levels ... total excess risk toan individual exposed over a lifetime generally falling within arange from 10-4to 10-6, using 10-6as a point of departure ... Fornon-carcinogenic effects, ensureconstituent concentrations thatan individual could be exposed to on a daily basis withoutappreciable risk of deleteriouseffect during a lifetime; ingeneral, the hazard index should not exceed one (1).for general usage. Instead, the State usesstandards set in Regulation No. 23 ..., usuallyarriving at a site-specific standard for eachclean-up.”Constituent concentrations that achieve these levels should becalculated based on a reasonable maximum exposure scenario-- that is, based on an analysis of both the current andreasonable expected future land uses, with exposureparameters chosen based on a reasonable assessment of themaximum exposure that might occur.”18For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, RSL for industrial scenario.(1,000)Apr-08APEC (2008), Regulation No. 23, HazardousWaste Management(http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/regs/files/reg23_final_080526.pdf);Regulation No. 23 identifies a treatmentstandard of 1,000 ppt for TCDD TEQ innonwastewater hazardous waste.1,000Sep-96cEPA (1996e), ROD, OU 02, Vertac, Inc.,Jacksonville(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0696102.pdf);EPA (1998b), ESD, OU 02, Vertac, Inc.,Jacksonville(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e0698160.pdf);For TCDD, the remedial objective for offsiteareas OU, residential and agricultural soil, 1 ppb(also identified as the residential action level);prevent direct public contact to soil above thislevel, and assure risks meet 10-4to 10-6range.The ESD sustains this cleanup level andindicates further excavation was warranted (to12 inches) where new samples exceeded 1 ppb.The five-year review stated no reassessmentThe ROD includes supporting equations and parameter values.CH2MHILL (2003), Second Five-YearReview for the Vertac Incorporatedwas needed as 1 ppb was still accepted;2,3,7,8-TCDD was still present.3,500Superfund Site, Jacksonville (prepared forEPA Region 6)(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f04-06002.pdf).For TCDD, the cleanup goal for onsite soils,based on a site-specific determination thatTCDD accounted for 70% of the TCDD TEQ(thus scaled from 5 ppb remedial objective forindustrial use).5,000For TCDD TEQs, remedial objective for OU 2(soils, foundations, curbs, and undergroundutilities, onsite), 5 ppb based on industrial use.LALDEQ (2003a), Recap Table 1 ScreeningOption: Screening Standards for Soil andGroundwater(http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=bIPYm4ICf9g%3d&tabid=2930).The list was checked for TCDD and dioxin, andno standards were found.December 2009Page B-27TABLE B.6State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 6StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceLA(cont’d.)1,0001,000Mar-03Jun-02c150,000(SF)(mg/kg-d)-1LDEQ (2003b), Title 33 Part V. HazardousWaste and Hazardous Materials, Subpart 1.Table 2 Treatment Standards for HazardousWastes (Final Rule)(http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/portals/0/planning/regs/pdf/HW083fin.pdf).EPA (2002), ROD, OU 01, Marion PressureTreating(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0602009.pdf);ATSDR (2006), Health Consultation: AFor all TCDDs (as TEQ.) thetreatment standard(acceptable level) for "non-waste waters" is0.001 mg/kg.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD totalTEQ (note 2,3,7,8-TCDDhad not been detected). Dioxin screening valueis “based on the OSWER residential preliminaryremediation goal of 0.001 mg/kg, and thereforeis not directly based on a 10-6cancer risk.”Health consultation indicates risk from ingestion is calculatedby:IDs= (C×IR×EF×CF)×SFBW1,000Nov-97c150,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1Review of Soil Data, Marion PressureTreating Co., Marion, Union Parish, LA(http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/Marion%20Pressure%20Treating%20Company/MarionPressureTreatingCoHC013106.pdf).EPA (1997c), ROD, OU 01, LincolnCreosote, Bossier City(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0698047.pdf).From the health consultation, the health-basedassessment comparison value (environmentalmedium evaluation guide) is 5×10-5mg/kg(50 ppt), also indicated as the ATSDR screeningvalue.For recreational and industrial scenario; thedioxin screening value reflects the EPA PRG forthe residential scenario, 1 ppb.For TCDD TEQ, residential scenario; ingestionof soil with dioxins/ furans meets the target riskrange (10-4to 10-6.) for the adult resident (RME)and child 5-13 (CTE) for current and assumedfuture conditions. “All detections of dioxins/furans in soil and sediment were less than the1μg/kg (ppb) cleanup level used by EPA insome Records of Decisionfor residential sites.”where:IDs= soil ingestion cancer risk, mg/kg-dC = contaminate concentration, mg/kgIR = soil ingestion rate, 100 mg/dEF = exposure factor, unitless(EF = exposure frequency×exposure duration)time(ED = exposure duration, 15 y)(EF = 2 d/wk, 26 wk/y; time: 365 d/y for 15 y)BW = body weight, 43kg and 70kgCF = conversion factor, 10-6kg/mgSF = cancer slope factor, 1.5×105 (mg/kg-d)-1(risk = 10-4)Little information is given in the ROD; source of oral cancerslope factor is identified as EPA (1994) but the citation was notprovided. The dermal cancer slope factor is identified as thesame (150,000 per mg/kg-d), obtained by dividing the oral SFby the GI absorption factor of 1.0 (as the default for organics).1,000Jul-95cEPA (1995e), ROD, OU 01, SouthernShipbuilding, Slidell(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0695093.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ residential scenario;remedial goal for treatment alternatives, per EPAand ATSDR. (No 2,3,7,8-TCDD was found atthe site; neither TCDD nor dioxin was mentionedin either the first or second five-year review.)Specific scientific basis of cleanup level or toxicity value was notfound in these documents. Thedocument states: it has beendetermined by EPA and ATSDR that2,3,7,8 TCDD between 1to 10μg/kg does not represent a significant residential riskprovided they are covered with at least 12 inches of clean soil.10,000For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, extending to subsurfacesoil: up to 10 ppb of 2,3,7,8-TCDD allowed if thecontaminated soil is covered with at leastFurthermore, the document indicates that ATSDR and EPAhave established that a level of 1μg/kg or less of 2,3,7,8 TCDDis an acceptable level in surface soils)12 inches of clean soil, per EPA and ATSDR.December 2009Page B-28TABLE B.6State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 6StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceLA1,000Apr-93cEPA (1993a), ROD, OU 01, AmericanFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, residentialAs indicated for the previous entry (EPA, 1995e).(cont’d.)Creosote Works, Inc., Winnfield(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0693086.pdf);CH2M HILL (2005a), Second Five-Yearscenario, remedial goal for alternatives withdioxin treatment. The five-year review did notindicate any change (2005 is most recent). No2,3,7,8-TCDD had actually been found.10,000Review for American Creosote Works, Inc.,Winnfield(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f05-06003.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, extending to subsurfacesoil: up to 10 ppb of 2,3,7,8-TCDD allowed if thecontaminated soil is covered with at least12 inches of clean soil, per EPA and ATSDR.(“It has been determined by EPA and theAgency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR) as presented in the RI/FS thatlevels of 2,3,7,8 TCDDbetween 1 to 10 μg/kg donot represent a significant residential riskprovided they are covered with at least12 inches of clean soil.”)NMJun-06NMED (2006), Technical BackgroundDocument For Development of SoilScreening Levels, Revision 4.0 Vol. 1 Tier 1:Soil Screening Guidance TechnicalBackground Document, Table A-1(ftp://ftp.nmenv.state.nm.us/hwbdocs/HWB/guidance_docs/NMED_June_2006_SSG.pdf).This table was checked for 2,3,7,8-TCDD anddioxin, and no entries were found (nor was otherinput provided during the field review phase).OK3.9Feb-03c150,000(SFо)(mg/kg-d)-1OKDEQ (2004), Site Cleanup Using RiskBased Decision Making(http://www.deq.state.ok.us/lpdnew/FactSheets/RiskbasedDecisionGuidanceFinal.pdf);For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, screening level, residentialscenario; this OK website links to the earliertable of Region 6 medium-specific screeninglevels (now represented by joint regionalIntk = CS×IR×CF×FI×EF×EDBW × ATwhere:Source of slope factor fromthe earlier Region 6 table isindicated as HEAST (whichis not a current resource).18EPA (Region 6) (2003), Medium-SpecificScreening Levels(http://www.deq.state.ok.us/LPDnew/HW/02screentable.pdf);screening levels, see Table 13 of the report).OKDEQ represents the target risk level of 10-5as a policy; calculationsalso follow EPA (1989).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, screening level, industrialscenario, outdoor worker.Intk = Intake, mg/kg-d (multiplied by slope factor,150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1)CS = chemical concentration in soil, mg/kgIR = ingestion rate, 200 mgsoil/d for child (1-6 y), 100 mgsoil/dfor over 6 y old(Note the 2008/2009harmonized screening leveltable identifies CalEPA asthe source of the valuereflected there).38For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, screening level, industrialscenario, indoor worker.CF = conversion factor, 10-6kg/mgFI = fraction ingested from contaminated sourceEF = exposure frequency, 365d/yED = exposure duration, 70 y by convention, 9 y is nationalmedian time at one residenceBW = body weight, 70 kg adult, 16 kg childAT = averaging time = ED×365 d/yDecember 2009Page B-29TABLE B.6State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 6StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesEvaluation CriteriaNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceTX1,000Mar-09cTRRP (2009), TRRP ProtectiveConcentration Levels, Tables 1-5(http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/trrp/trrppcls.html); TXCEQ (2005), TXCEQRegulatory Guidance RG-366/TRRP-22:Tiered Development of Human Health PCLs(http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/comm_exec/forms_pubs/pubs/rg/rg-366_trrp_22.html);Haney (2009) (personal communication).Tier 1 residential soil PCL for 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQfor both a 0.5-acre and 30-acre source area,total and combined; includes ingestion, dermal,inhalation, and vegetable consumption. "TheTRRP Tier 1 protective concentration levels(PCLs) are the defaultcleanup standards in theTX Risk Reduction Program." A level of1 ng TEQ/kg was cited by Paustenbach et al.(2006) as the promulgated TX value. Note the2005 guidance indicates 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs,but the TX 2009 tables reflect TCDD alone;Haney (2009) clarified the basis as TEQs.Paustenbach etal. (2006) waspeer reviewed aspart of thejournalpublicationprocess.TCEQ documents areavailable online.Toxicity value not found in toxicity tables provided. TCEQdocumentation indicates the PCL is based on the noncancerendpoint.5,000520Sep-06cEPA (2006f), ROD, OU 1, Jasper CreosotingCompany, Inc.(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006060001482.pdf).Tier 1 commercial/industrial scenario for 2,3,7,8­TCDD TEQ for both a 0.5-acre and 30-acresource area, total and combined, as above.Industrial scenario for 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ,worker. The lower values of the soil directcontact PRGs for protection of both humanhealth and the ecological receptors wereselected as the final soil direct contact PRGs;10-5risk level. (No 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected.)ROD indicates: Value developed by taking the ratio of thetoxicological reference value (TRV) known to cause adverseeffects to the total dose fromthe site-specific risk estimates(HQs) and factoring out thesite-specific soil exposureconcentrations used in those estimates. The resulting value isthe soil concentration that would represent an excessive risk. A17.7For 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalents,represents the Region6 medium-specificscreening level (note these are now harmonizedas joint regional screening levels, see Table 11of the report).lower range PRG was established by using a no-effect level TR.An upper-range PRG was established by using a lowest-effectlevel TRV. The final PRG was the average of the no-effect andlowest-effect level PRGs as allowed in EPA guidance andrecommended in TCEQ guidance document.1,000Jun-00TXNRCC (2000), Proposed Remedial ActionDocument: Toups State Superfund Site: SourLake, Hardin County(http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/remediation/superfund/register/pdf0100.pdf).Residential scenario for2,3,7,8-TCDD; cleanupgoal based on soil-to-groundwater pathway orsoil ingestion/inhalation/dermal contact,whichever is lower.1,000Oct-98cEPA (1998d), ROD AMD, OU 02, UnitedCreosoting Co., Conroe(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0699032.pdf);CH2M HILL (2005b), Second Five-YearReview for the United Creosoting CompanySuperfund Site(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/Residential soil target action level for 2,3,7,8­TCDD equivalents. Based on the EPA OSWERdirective. Cleanup values for sediment were thesame as those for soil. (2,3,7,8-TCDD itself wasnot detected). The AMD states no changeswere necessary from the1989 ROD. Both fiveyear reviews found the same, no changesneeded to the cleanup level.Cancer risk comparisons based on EPA values:Cancer risk= 10-6Exposure period= 70 yTX Department of Health (TDH) also identifies these values:20,000f05-06008.pdf);TDH under cooperative agreement withATSDR (2003) Health Consultation:Sediments in Stewarts Creek, ConroeCreosoting Co.(http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/epitox/consults/cccsed_hc_fnl.pdf).Industrial soil target action level for 2,3,7,8­TCDD equivalents.Body weight= 15 kg for child, 70 kg for adultSoil incidental ingestion rate = 200 mg/d for a child,100 mg/day for an adultDecember 2009Page B-30..TABLE B.7State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 7StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewEvaluation CriteriaTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceIA19Jul-09c150,000(mg/kg-d)-1IADNR (undated), Statewide Soil Standards,Residential cleanup level for TCDD based onResidentialSFo is from 1997 HEAST; RfD is from an earlier72n(SFo)10-9mg/kg-dIA Land Recycling Program (LRP); personalcommunication from Drustrup (2009); basedon risk calculation in:cancer risk.Residential cleanup level for TCDD where it iscleanup valuebased on cancerrisk found online,value (field feedback during review phaseindicated it was from EPA IRIS (this basis isunclear); note the value is the same as the 1998360n(RfD)IA General Assembly (1998), EnvironmentalProtection [567], Chapter 137, Iowa LandRecycling Program and Response ActionStandards(http://www.iowadnr.gov/land/consites/documents/chap137.pdf)the only contaminant of concern; field reviewfeedback indicated basis is noncancer endpointNonresidential cleanup level for TCDD; fieldreview feedback indicated basis is noncancerendpoint.noncancer valuesprovided from thefield via personalcommunicationduring the fieldreview phase.ATSDR chronic MRL, which is the source of thesame value indicated in the EPA RSL table, andalso noted by selected other states).Standards are based on a cancer TR of 5×10-6.CL =11/Coral+1/Cdermwhere:Coral,derm= RF×ATAbs×CF×(A+B)andA = (ERc×EFc×EDc)/BWcB = (ERa×EFa×EDa)/BWaCL = cleanup level (mg/kg)EDa= exposure duration for adult, 24 yEDc= exposure duration for child, 6 yEFa= exposure frequency for adult, 350 d/yEFc= exposure frequency for child, 350 d/yERa= exposure rate for adult, 100 mg/d oral,400 mg/d dermalERc= exposure rate for child, 200 mg/d oral,560 mg/d dermalBWa= body weight adult, 70 kgBWc= body weight child, 15 kgCF = conversion factor, 10-6kg/mgAbs = absorption factor, 1 oral, 0.03 dermalAT = averaging time, 25,550 dRF = TR / SFTR = target risk, 5×10-6SF = slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1142006cEasthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilBasis not provided.Limited informationBasis not provided.14(2004)Jul-04cstandard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groups(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000ppt.pdf); lists same values identified in:EC(2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in OtherStates, cited in table available via TRW News(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).MIDEQ (2004), Dioxin Contamination in theMidland Area(http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deqwhm-hwp-Dow-FactsFinal_251769_7.pdf).For dioxin TEQ, residential scenario. No cleanuplevel found from searches of IA websites orRODS database, but theMI document notes: “Ofthe other states that have derived safe levels fordioxin in soil, seven are lower than Michigan ...Iowa [is] at 14 ppt.” No specific reference for IAwas cited or located, thus no other informationwas found (including for toxicity value and basis).is available via theweblinks at left,with neither thederivationmethodology norbasis of underlyingtoxicity values.December 2009Page B-31TABLE B.7State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 7StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewEvaluation CriteriaTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceKS60Jun-07c150,000(mg/kg-d)-1KDHE (2007), Risk-Based Standards for KSFor 2,3,7,8 TCDD, residential scenario.Cleanup levels andSource of slope factors and other toxicologicalReferences are from 1979-1998, including(SFo=SFi=SFd)RSK Manual - 4th Version(http://www.kdheks.gov/remedial/download/RSK_Manual_07.pdf); Nightingale (2009)(personal communication).“Chemical-specific and media-specific risk-basedcleanup goals were calculated using guidanceand directives from the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency and variousRBC equationswith soil exposurefactors areavailable online;information is given as EPA 1997 HEAST. “Thesoil exposure pathways evaluated in the humanhealth risk-based calculations include incidentalingestion of soil, inhalation of airborne particulatesthe 1996 EPA Region 9 PRGs100other technical resources.”For 2,3,7,8 TCDD, industrial (non-resident)scenario.1997 HealthEffectsAssessment.Summary Tables(dusts), inhalation of chemicals volatilizing from thesoil (volatile compounds only), and dermal contactwith soil (organic compounds only).” RBCcalculation for residential scenario:(HEAST), are nolonger maintained.RBC =____TR×BW×AT×365 d/y____EF×ED×[(INGs×CF×SFo)+(INH×SFi×{1/VFs+1/PEF})+(SFo×CF×SA×AF×ABS)]where:RBC = risk based concentration (mg/kg)TR = target cancer risk, 10-5BW = body weight, 70 kgAT = averaging time, 70 yEF = exposure frequency, 350 d/yED = exposure duration, 30 yINGs= soil ingestion rate, 100 mg/dCF = conversion factor, 10-6kg/mgSFo= oral cancer slope factor,150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1INH = soil inhalation rate, 20 m3/dSFi= inhalation cancer slope factor,150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1VFs= soil volatilization factor, m3/kgPEF = particulate emission factor,1.18×109m3/kgSA = surface area of skin, 5000 cm2/dAF = adherence factor, 0.2 mg/cm2MO(1,000)Jul-09Garoutte (2009) (personal communication).Feedback during field review indicated MO hasnot established or adoptedany specific cleanuplevel for dioxin in soil, while also stating that theMO Department of Health and Senior Services(MDHSS) had been involved with the EPA andMDNR in establishing 1 ppb as a surface soilcleanup level for contaminated sites in MO.Apr-06MDNR (2006), MRBCA Technical Guidance(Appendices)(http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/hwp/mrbca/docs/mrbca-append6-06.pdf).MDNR MRBCA Technical Guidance document(updated June 2008) contains guidelines forsurface soil. Thisdocumentwas searched forTCDD and dioxin, but no information was found.MDNR document isavailable online.1,0001,0001997Sep-05cHirschhorn (1997a), Cleanup Levels forDioxin-Contaminated Soil.EPA (2005c), Missouri Electric Works Sites,OU 02, Cape Girardeau(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0705052.pdf).Indicated for 2,3,7,8 TCDD, residential scenario;1 ppb for residential land use from EPA 1988decision for Superfund cleanup at Times Beach,MO, set the stage for the policy-based level.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, residential scenario.TCDD was a combustion byproduct of concernduring thermal treatmentof PCB-contaminatedsoil. TCDD soil concentrations were monitoredto ensure levels below 1 ppb.Articlepeerreviewed as part ofjournal publicationprocess.Available online(RODS database).Concentration appears to reflect the OSWERdirective. The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluationof Kociba et al. (1978) underlies the OSWERvalue.December 2009Page B-32....TABLE B.7State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 7StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewEvaluation CriteriaTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceMO20,000Apr-93cEPA (1993b), Ground Water OU 02, SyntexFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential scenario. ToxicityAvailable onlineConcentration appears to reflect the OSWER(cont’d.)1,000Sep-86cAgribusiness, Inc., Verona(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0793071.pdf).EPA (1986) Ellisville Site, OU 02, Ellisville(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0786006.pdf).value not found. Action level provided forexcavation and treatment of surface soils (withmaintenance of a vegetative cover over soilscontaining between 1 and 20 ppb dioxin).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential scenario. Toxicityvalue not found. (Document updates the 1985ROD and 1991 ROD Amendment.) Toxicity valuenot found.(RODS database).directive. The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluationof Kociba et al. (1978) underlies the OSWERvalue.Available online(RODS database).Concentration appears to reflect the OSWERdirective. The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluationof Kociba et al. (1978) underlies the OSWERvalue.NEJul-09Borovich (2009) (personal communication).Feedback during field review indicates that theremediation goals here are both screening levelsand preliminary cleanup goals. The NDEQVoluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) does allow asite to develop different risk-based cleanuplevels based on site characterization and NDEQapproval. For sites not under VCP regulations,the NDEQ may use EPA RGs or mediumspecific screening levels as cleanup levels, givenproper documentation.Slope factor from the EPA1997 HEAST. TheNDEQ documentation indicates a slope factorother than HEAST would be used if (a) the sourcewas considered “higher” in the EPA’s toxicityhierarchy and (b) the science behind the level waswell-documented and available for review.NDEQ indicates a plan to update the VCPRemediation Goals Lookup Table based onthe most recent reviewof toxicological data.3.9Oct-08c150,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1NDEQ (2008), NE Voluntary CleanupGuidance(http://www.deq.state.ne.us/Publica.nsf/23e5e39594c064ee852564ae004fa010/d243c2b56eFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential soil; based ondirect contact.Cleanup levels andRG equations withsoil exposurefactors available toSlope factors and other toxicological informationare taken from EPA 1997 HEAST. Equation forcalculating the residential soil concentration forincidental ingestion of carcinogenic compounds is:16034ea8486256f2700698997/$FILE/VCP%20Guidance%20Oct%202008.pdf).NDEQ (2006), Protocol for VCP RemediationGoals Lookup Tables(http://www.deq.state.ne.us/Publica.nsf/23e5e39594c064ee852564ae004fa010/d243c2b56e34ea8486256f2700698997/$FILE/ATTEBI5L/RG%20Protocol%20August%202006.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, industrial soil; based on directcontact.public; EPA(1997a) HealthEffectsAssessmentSummary Tables(HEAST) values fornonradionuclideshave not beenfound via openaccess online.CL= _1[(1/ Cing)+(1/Cderm)+(1/Cinh)]where:Cres soil ingestion – ca= TRr×ATcEFr×IFSadj×SFo×10-6mg/kgCres soil dermal – ca= TRr×ATcEFr×SFSadj×ABSd×(SFo/ABSGI)×10-6mg/kgCres soil inhalation – ca= TRr×ATcEFr×EDa×[(URF×1000μg/mg)]CL = cleanup level, (mg/kg)TR = target risk, 10-6SFo= oral slope factor,150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1ATc= averaging time, 25,550 dEFr= exposure frequency, 350 d/yEDa= exposure duration, 30 yIFSadj= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor,114 (mg-y/kg-d)-1SFSadj= age-adjusted soil dermal factor,361 mg-y/kg-dABSd= dermal absorption fraction, 0.03ABSGI= gastrointestinal absorption eff., 1.0URF = unit risk factor, 3.3×10-3(μg/m3)-1PEF = particulate emission factor,1.2×109m3/kgDecember 2009Page B-33TABLE B.8State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 8StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesEvaluation CriteriaNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceCODec-07CODPHE (2007), CO Soil Evaluation Values(CSEV)(http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/csev.pdf).The CODPHE has developed CO soil evaluationvalues (CSEVs), but no dioxin value was found inthe table.CODPHE (2007)document isavailable online.MT4.5Dec-09c130,000(mg/kg-d) ̄1MTDEQ (2009), Soil Screening ProcessSome state-specific risk-based screening levelsIntra-agencyMTDEQ documentSee Tables 11 and 13 of the report for informationReflects current WHO TEFs, Attachment C18(SFo)(Attachment C)(http://www.deq.state.mt.us/StateSuperfund/vcraguide.asp).(RBSLs) are provided on website but no specificvalue was found for dioxin. Newly updatedguidance (Attachment C) shows 2-part process,to address both direct contact and leaching togroundwater. For Part 1, flow chart directs usersto screen soil dioxin concentrations based on2009 EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs),which are as TCDD. (Regional EPA values wererecently harmonized, see Table 13 of this report.)Values at left are for residential and industrialuse, respectively. For Part 2, site contaminantsare compared to the risk-based soil screeninglevel using a dilution attenuation factor of 10.Beyond this value for TCDD (e.g., for otherdioxins) “The DEQ uses the most current toxicitydata, including toxicity equivalency factors(TEFs), as much as possible. Because of this,the DEQ requires dioxin/furan calculations for soiland water samples to use the World HealthOrganization (WHO) 2005 TEFs.” (These TEFsare presented in Van den Berg et al. [2006].)review.and the EPA RSLTable and User'sGuide (EPA2009e,f) withequations areavailable online.underlying the regional screening levels, includingthe toxicity value.(December 2009) updates the basicguidance from August 2002.62.5Jun-08MTDEQ (2008), Final Feasibility Study Report,For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, residential scenario.MTDEQ (2008a) isMTDEQ used the earlier World HealthWHO TEFs were recently updated, as103KRY Site(http://www.deq.state.mt.us/StateSuperfund/KPT/FinalFSJuly2008/FinalFSreportComplied.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, industrial scenario.Limited information; the document states that thecleanup levels are based on risk analysis and soilmodeling in Appendix C, which cannot be foundavailable online, butnot the appendixwith the key data.Organization (WHO) (1998) Toxicity EquivalenceFactors (TEFs) for TCDD and dioxin-likecompounds (DLCs) to determine cleanup levels.captured in 2005 and 2006 publications(seeVan den Berg et al. [2006]).online.736For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, residential subsurfacescenario.736For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, industrial subsurfacescenario.NDNo state-specific guidelines for dioxin soilcleanup levels were identified from the NDDepartment of Health, Division of WasteManagement website.SD1,000Nov-09Jun-96cSDDENR (2009), Lookup Table For SurfaceSoil (0-3.2 feet)(http://denr.sd.gov/des/gw/LookUpTables/Lookup_Tables.aspx).U.S. AF (1996), ROD, Ellsworth Air ForceBase, OU 08, Ellsworth AFB(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0896124.pdf).No soil screening or cleanup values for dioxinwere identified on the SDDENR website. TheSDDENR has developed look-up tables withTier 1 action levels calculated for some soilcontaminants leaching to ground water based on10-5cancer risk, but no value was identified fordioxin.For dioxin TEQ, international toxic equivalentscorresponding to dioxin concentrations werebelow the 1,000 ppt level of concern forresidential soil; risk associated with dioxins insurface soil is in the 10-5range.SDDENR (2009)website and lookuptables are availableonline (website lastupdatedNovember 24).Availableonline.Site-specific risk assessment results for exposureto surface soil are within EPA target range forincremental risk, and TCDD TEQ are below1,000 ppt; the specific source of this value wasnot provided (but could be the 1998 OSWERdirective, which is based on an evaluation byKimbrough et al. [1984] of Kociba et al. [1978]data).December 2009Page B-34TABLE B.8State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 8StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceUT1,000May-06Jun-00UT (2006), UT LUST Program ScreeningLevels for Soil and Groundwater(http://www.undergroundtanks.utah.gov/docs/tank_news_sum06.pdf).U.S. ACE (2000), Final OU 4 Hotspot, RODAmendment for OU 4, Ogden Hill(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0800533.pdf).UTDEQ has developed initial screening levels(ISLs), for leaking underground storage tanks(LUSTs). No screening level was found fordioxin.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, remedial action goals forsite soils where future land use iscommercial/industrial.LUST table (2006)is available onlineat the UTDEQwebsite.Available online(RODS database).37Dec-97c150,000(SFO)(mg/kg-d)-1EPA (1997d), Explanation of SignificantDifference, PetrochemRecycling Corp./EkotekPlant, Salt Lake City, OU 01(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e0898175.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEF, derived from the soilperformance standard, based on a combinationof soil preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) andapplicable or relevant and appropriaterequirements (ARARs). Value is for a cancer riskof 10-6(site wide) for the commercial worker forexposure to soil via ingestion and dermalabsorption. These performance standards“represent the levels ofprotection that must beachieved through containment of the low-levelcontaminated soils”.Available online(RODS database).Values were calculated based on the sameequations and assumptions as in the August 2,1994 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessmentfor the Petrochem Site. The equation for the soilperformance standard (SPS)is not available, butthe parameter values are given as:TR = target risk, 10-6BW = body weight, 70 kgAT = averaging time, 70 yEF = exposure frequency 250 d/yED = exposure duration, 25 y3,7001,000Sep-92EPA (1992b), ROD, Ogden Defense Depot(DLA), OU 04, Ogden(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0892061.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEF, derived from the soil hotspot performance standard based on acombination of soil PRGs and applicable orrelevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs).Value is for localized areas with elevated cancerrisk above 10-4(hot spots) for the industrialworker for exposure to soil via ingestion anddermal absorption. These performancestandards “establish the levels of soils that mustbe excavated and shipped for offsite disposal”.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Value derived from theDioxin Disposal Advisory Group as therecommended total equivalency value of lessthan 1 ppb of dioxin in contaminated soil. (Notethis document preceded the 1998 OSWERdirective.)Available online(RODS database).SFo= slope factor oral, 150,000(mg/kg-d) ̄1CF = conversion factor, 10-6kg/mgIR = ingestion rate for soil, 50 mg/d1,000RMCOEH-UT DFPM (undated), A Comparisonof Dioxin Levels Found in Residential Soils ofDavis County Utah with Those Found inResidential Soils in the Denver Front Range(http://www.wasatchintegrated.org/PDF/Davis%20Dioxin%20Study.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Davis County studysampled soil for dioxin, using the ATSDRscreening and action levels as a point ofreference, based on De Rosa et. al. (1997).(Note the date of this document is at least 2001,per its most recent internal citation.)Availableonline.December 2009Page B-35TABLE B.8State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 8StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of Most Recent ScienceWY4.50.154.5(Jul-09)Jun-09cc130,000 (mg/kg-d) ̄1Griffin (2009) (personal communication).WYDEQ (2009), Fact Sheet #12: Soil CleanupField feedback indicated this was the cleanuplevel for dioxin (unrestricted/residential scenario).Field feedback indicated this was the value forthe residential scenario based on migration togroundwater.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential scenario, based on130,000(mg/kg-d) ̄1The WYDEQScreening levels from Regions 3, 6, and 9(SFo)Level Lookup Table(http://deq.state.wy.us/volremedi/downloads/Current%20Fact%20Sheets/FS_12.pdf),direct contact; the fact sheet links to the Region 9PRG table. Prior to the WYDEQ June update, theresidential value was3.9 ppt. Regional EPAvalues were recently harmonized, see relatedentry in Table 13 of the report. The fact sheetindicates: “Note that prior to evaluation,concentrations of dioxins and furans may beadjusted using appropriate toxicity equivalencyfactors (TEF) [see EPA (1989) for furtherinformation].” Nevertheless, the fact sheet linksto the Regional screening value, which is basedon TCDD. (Thus, in this report, the latter isindicated as the general basis for the WY value.)For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, industrial scenario, based ondirect contact. Prior to the WYDEQ June update,the Regional screening value of 16 ppt wasidentified for the industrialvalue. No industrialcleanup levels were identified in the June updateof the WY fact sheet, leaving this instead to asite-specific determination. (RegionalEPA valueswere recently harmonized, see related entry inTable 13 of the report.)document isavailable online.were harmonized in 2008(see related entryin Table 13), and updated in fall 2009; theseinclude an updated SF of 130,000 permg/kg-d. Note thatWYDEQ indicates anintent to update its table whenever theRegion 9 PRGs are updated.As a furthernote, WHO (2005) has updated the TEFs(also see Van den Berg et al. [2006]).4.3May-04150,000(mg/kg-d) ̄1U.S. AF (2004b), ROD, OU 10, Landfill 7 andFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD; used 2001 EPA Region 3Note that the EPA 2001 Region 3 tables were38(SFo)Fire Protection Area 1, F.E. Warren Air ForceBase(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0804104.pdf).industrial and residential RBCs for dioxin as initialscreening levels. Levels of 2,3,7,8- TCDD did notexceed RBCs. One dioxin and one furan didexceed RBC levels and further evaluation isprovided in the baseline risk assessment (BRA)(Landfill 7/FPTA 1 RI [U.S. AF 2002d]) (whichcould not be found online)). The ROD indicatesthe SFois from IRIS.updated May 2009 to EPA RSLs; see Table 13 ofthe report for RSL values and derivation.December 2009Page B-36TABLE B.9State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 9StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceAS4.5Oct-08c130,000(mg/kg-d)-1GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008a), Evaluation ofFor dioxin TEQs, environmental screening levelsThe equations andEquations for calculating Tier 1 ESLs and the toxicity value wereValues derived in a manner(Amer.Samoa)(SFo)Environmental Hazards at Sites withContaminated Soil and Groundwater – PacificBasin Edition(ESLs), based on direct soil contact, 10-6risk(except for construction/trench worker: 10-5risk perlower exposure frequency and duration).toxicity value used toderive Tier 1environmentaltaken from 2008 EPA RSLs. See Guam entry for specificenvironmental screening level equations. Regarding directexposure: text indicates dioxins are not considered significantlysimilar to the 2008 EPARSLs. Toxicity value wasadopted from the 2008 EPA18(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume1mar2009.pdf);Volume 2, Appendix 1(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume2app1mar2009.pdf);Volume 2, Appendices 2-9(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume2app2to9mar2009.pdf).Approach is based on Guam EPA procedures;calculations are supported by the spreadsheetatHDOH (2008b), Evaluation of EnvironmentalHazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil andGroundwater - Hawai‘i Edition(http://www.hawaiidoh.org/references/HDOH%202008.pdf).“Although prepared specifically for Guam EPA, theuse of well-accepted, US Environmental Agency(USEPA) standards, modelsand protocols shouldpermit flexible use of the guidance throughouttropical and subtropical areas of the Pacific Basinregion with little or no modification.” “The screeninglevels are based on slight modifications to theUSEPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goalsand more recent Regional Screening Levels(USEPA 2004, 2008). The modifications as used inHawai’i have been discussed in detail with USEPARegion IX. No adjustment of the HDOH Tier 2screening levels is necessary for use in Guam andother areas of the Pacific Basin.”4.5 ppt is the Tier 1 environmental screening levelfor unrestricted use, shallow soil:≤3 m, belowground surface (bgs).Tier 1 environmental screening level forcommercial/industrial land use scenario, shallowscreening levels fordifferent exposurescenarios areavailable online.Equations provided inAppendix 2, adoptedfrom 2008 EPA RSLdocumentation.[“The Tier 1environmentalscreening levels wereupdated in October2008 to incorporateupdates to theUSEPA RegionScreening Levels(USEPA 2008).”]This information isavailable online.mobile in soil due to their strong sorption to organic carbon andclay particles, so considerationof soil leaching hazards was notneeded. Also notes: “The 2008U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (USEPA)Regional Screening Levels(RSLs; USEPA2008a) replacePreliminary Remediation Goals(PRGs)previously published by individual regions. This includes PRGspublished by USEPA Region IX (USEPA 2004) and referencedin pre-2008 editions of the CNMI and HDOH guidancedocuments.”The slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1was taken from the 2008EPA RSL table, which is based on a CalEPA maximumlikelihood estimate (MLE) and linearized 95% upper confidencevalue (UCL); using animal data (NTP 1980a, 1982a) convertedto equivalent human exposures per scaling factors.Assumptions include: oral and inhalation routes are equivalent,air concentration assumed to be daily oral dose, route ofexposure does not affect absorption, and no difference inmetabolism/ pharmacokinetics between animals and humans.Total weekly dose levels were averaged over the week to get adaily dose level; this assumes daily dosing in NTP studies wouldRSL (which is more recentthan others, but does notreflect more recent scientificdata such as the 2004 NTPstudy); see notes for parallelentries for GM, NMI, TT.Document cites the recent2005 WHO TEFsdocumented in Van denBerg et al. (2006). Notehowever that Table L ofVolume 2, Appendix 1reflects the old (pre-2005)cancer classificationscheme, indicating “B1?” forTCDD. The cancer slopefactor was revised inOctober 2007 from previousguidance (this affected theaction levels).soil (≤3 m bgs).have given the same results as the actual twice weekly dosing1,500Tier 1 environmental screening level, deep soilschedule (because the TCDD half-life is relatively long, both(>3 m bgs) for: unrestricted (residential) use,schedules should give similar tissue concentrations).commercial/industrial use, and construction/trenchworker.421,400,000(mg/kg-d)-1For dioxin TEQs, Tier 2 action levels, direct42 ppt was derived using the basic calculation in the HDOH(SFo)contact, 10-4risk; especially intended forredevelopment of former agricultural fields but(2008b) spreadsheet, with the target risk level updated from 10-6to 10-4.apply to any site. Guidelines rather than strict,The SF of 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1, tapped the SF from MNDOHregulatory, cleanup requirements; alternate values(2003), which is the upper bound from animal bioassay datacan be proposed in site-specific assessments.given in the EPA reassessment; this value was derived fromUnrestricted (residential) land use:Kociba et al. (1978) and is higher than the value recommended<42 ppt: No action required.in the draft reassessment, which is based on human data; this42-450 ppt: “Within USEPA range of acceptablehealth risk.” Removal and offsite disposal of small,higher SF was used to generate a lower bound. See Guamentry in this table for equations used to calculate action levels.easily identifiable hotspots is recommended.Consider other measures to reduce daily soilexposure. For large areas, notify futurehomeowners of elevated levels.450130,000(mg/kg-d)-1>450 ppt: Unrestricted (residential) land use is notAs above, using the SFofrom the recently harmonized 2008(SFo)recommended in the absence of remedial action toreduce exposure.EPA RSL, updates the previousTier 2 action level of 390 ppt,which had used the previous RSL SFoof 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1.1701,400,000(mg/kg-d)-1<170 ppt: Commercial/industrial use, no action.Same approach as described above for the action level of(SFo)170-1,800 ppt: Within USEPA range of acceptablehealth risk. Remedial actions vary depending onsite-specific factors, including current and planned42 ppt; the upper-bound animal-based SF of 1,400,000(mg/kg-d)-1was used to generate a lower bound for cleanupconsideration.use, available options for onsite isolation or offsitedisposal, and technical/economical constraints.1,800130,000(mg/kg-d)-1>1,800 ppt: Commercial/industrial use notAs above, using SFoof 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1from the recently(SFo)recommended in absence of remedial actions toreduce potential exposure.harmonized 2008 EPA RSL; updates the previous Tier 2 level of1,600 ppt, which reflected the previous SFo,150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1.December 2009Page B-37TABLE B.9State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 9StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceAZ4.5May-07c130,000(mg/kg-d)-1AZDEQ (2007), Title 18. Environmental QualityFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential use, 10-6risk level.The AZDEQEquations and default parametervalues for SRL derivation areThe toxicity value is theChapter 7. Remedial Action(http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-07.htm);ADHS (1999), Deterministic Risk AssessmentThe 2007 soil remediation levels (SRLs) updatethe 1997 values and apply unless the site wascharacterized before May5, 2007 and remediatedor a risk assessment completed before May 5,2010 (in which case the 1997 values apply). Thedocumentation andADHS guidancedocument areavailable online.However, specificindicated in ADHS (1999), although the link appears to bedamaged as the equations werenot visible. Equations wereadopted from the 1996 Region 9 PRG document. The toxicityvalue was not found in the AZDEQ or ADHS document. (Notethat ADHS [1999] mentions slope factors were taken from IRIS,slope factor used in the EPAregional screening leveltable from that time, whichdoes reflect the more recentscientific literature, such as4516038382006(2004)Apr-01cccGuidance(http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/oeh/pdf/guidance.pdf).Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilstandard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groups(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000ppt.pdf); lists same valuesidentified in: EC(2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in OtherStates, cited in table available viaTittabawassee River Watch News(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).EPA (2001), ESD, Tucson International AirportArea, OU 02(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e0901612.pdf).target risk of 10-6must be used if current orintended future use of a contaminated site is achild care facility or school where children <18 arereasonably expected to be in frequent, repeatedcontact with soil. Per field feedback (Stralka,2009), AZDEQ has adopted the recentlyharmonized RSL (see Table 13 in this report).For2,3,7,8-TCDD,residential use, 10-5risk level.This value updates the 1997 residential SRL of38 ppt (provided here as context for entries below).As stated: a risk level of 10-5may be used for anycarcinogen other than a known human carcinogen.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, nonresidential use, based oncancer risk; this updates the 1997 SRL of 240 ppt(provided here as context for the entry below).Basis not provided, but appears to reflect theAZDEQ 1997 residential SRL (which was updatedto 45 ppt in 2007, see entry above).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential scenario; shown intable excerpted from AZ Administrative CodeTitle 18, Chapter 7, Article 2, Appendix A, SoilRemediation Levels (listed as current throughDecember 31, 1999).toxicity values usedto derive the SRLsare not provided ineither document.Limited information isavailable via theweblinks at left, withneither the derivationmethodology norbasis of underlyingtoxicity values.Available online (viaRODS database).HEAST, or NCEA.) Field input indicated the adoption of theEPA RSL and underlying toxicity value (see residential value).Specific information was not provided for the nonresidential SRL,including for toxicity value or risk level (e.g., to determine if 10-5)is assumed, per the 1997 SRL indication of TCDD as a B2(probable) rather than A (known) human carcinogen.Basis not provided, but see entry for AZDEQ (2007) above.See entry for AZDEQ (2007) above.Excerpted table identifiesTCDD as: Group B2 carcinogen. (Probable human carcinogen,with inadequate or no evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.Sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in laboratory animals.)the 2004 NTP study).Reflects the older EPAcancer classificationscheme (updated by EPA in2005).240For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, nonresidential scenario.December 2009Page B-38TABLE B.9State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 9StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceCA4.6194Jan-052006(2004)c130,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1CalEPA (2005a), Human-Exposure-BasedScreening Numbers Developed to AidEstimation of Clean-Up Costs forContaminated Soil(http://www.oehha.ca.gov/risk/pdf/screenreport010405.pdf).CalEPA (2005b), Use of CA Human HealthScreening Levels (HHSLs) in Evaluation ofContaminated Properties(http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Brownfields/documents/2005/CHHSLsGuide.pdf);CalEPA (2009d), Human Health RiskAssessment (HHRA) Note 2,Interim, RemedialGoals for Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compoundsfor Consideration at California HazardousWaste Sites;(http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/AssessingRisk/upload/HHRA_Note2_dioxin-2.pdf).Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilstandard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groups(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000ppt.pdf); lists same valuesidentified in: EC(2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in OtherStates, cited in table available viaTittabawassee River Watch News(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential land use, HHSL.Note that a value of 50 ppt as dioxin TEQ wasrecently suggested an interim remedial goaldeveloped for consideration at sites in California.This value is for a target risk of 10-6and is basedon the HHSL, with an adjustment that reflectsmultiplying by 10 “to account for the minimalcontribution of soil and dust to the dioxin humanbody burden, as shown in the University ofMichigan dioxin exposure study.”(Note the studyhas recently undergone independent technicalreview.) The CalEPA document is suggestedresidential remedial goal should only beconsidered if a farming scenario is not relevant.Note that the remedial goal based on noncancereffects is 78 ppt, so the cancer-based goal isprotective. The noncancer-based value iscalculated for the residential child, with 1 pg/kg-dconsidered the minimum risk level for theneurological endpoint (based on data for monkeys,described in ATSDR (1998/2008).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, commercial/industrial land use,HHSL.Basis not provided.Information on theHHSLs and theirderivation basis isavailable online,including the sourceof the cancer slopefactor, via theCalEPA OEHHAwebsite.Limited information isavailable via theweblinks at left, withneither the derivationmethodology norbasis of underlyingtoxicity values.Indicates the slope factor was computed from the OEHHA REL.HHSL equations for both residential and industrial-occupationalscenarios consider ingestion, dermal, and inhalation exposures.To simplify this presentation,only the ingestion component isincluded below because this pathway dominates (over dermaland inhalation contributions to the total).TR×ATrHHSLres=.EFr×(CSFo×IFSadj×10-6kg/mg)where:TR= target risk, 10-6ATr= averaging time, 25,550 dCSFo= 130,000 per mg/kg-dEFr= exposure frequency, 350 dIFSadj=residential soil ingestion rate, 114 mg-y/kg-dHHSLind=TR×ATr×BWa.EFo×EDo×(IRSo×CSFo×10-6kg/mg)where:TR= target risk, 10-6ATr= averaging time, 25,550 dBWa= adult body weight, 70 kgEFo= occupational exposure frequency, 250 d/yEDo= occupational exposure duration, 25 yCSFo= 130,000 per mg/kg-dIRSo= occupational soil ingestion rate, 100 mg/dBasis not provided.December 2009Page B-39TABLE B.9State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 9StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceCA3.9Mar-08c130,000(mg/kg-d) ̄1NAVFAC (2008), ESD for OU 3 ROD, CampFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Original remediation goalAvailable online (viaDerivation of NOAEL-based toxicity reference value for(cont’d.)(SFo)Pendleton(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e2008090002747.pdf).of 4.1 ng/kg (from 2/21/08 ROD for OU 5) wasrevised to 3.9 ng/kg, based on the 2004 EPARegion 9 PRG-residentialfor 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Thebasis of the original 4.1ng/kg was identified as theRODS database).mammals in Sample et al., (1996), which summarizes severaltoxicity studies, including the study by Murray et al. (1979).Three-generation dietary study in rats, NOAEL of0.000001 mg/kg-d for the reproductive endpoint. Total443.9May-08ecoc130,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d) ̄1AFRL (2008), ROD AFRL Soil and DebrisSites OUs 4 and 9, Edwards AFB(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008090002438.pdf).EPA-derived mean rural soil TCDD TEQconcentration (EPA 2000).Site-specific ecological PRG; ESD, original RODwas written in 1996; a remediation goal wasdeveloped for 2,3,7,8 TCDDat Site 1A, burn ashsite. "The value for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 exposureestimates for mammalian receptors was 0.000044.The upper-bound limit for an acceptable exposurepoint concentration for thedioxins (the eco PRG) isapproximately 4.4×10-5mg/kg (44 pg/g) or less."For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ,adopted the EPA Region 9PRG-residential valueof 3.9 ng/kg as theremediation goal for dioxin, but indicated thatdetected levels were not of concern.Available online (viaRODS database).uncertainty factor (UF) of 1 produced a toxicity reference value(TRV) of 0.000001 mg/kg-d. Tier-1 average daily dose wasestimated as follows:Tier-1 ADD = (Csoil×T1-IRF)+(Csoil×IRS×T1-IRF)where:Csoil= soil EPC (mg COPC/kg soil dry weight)T1-IRF= Tier-1 food ingestion rate (kg food dry weight/kg bodyweight-d)IRS= incidental soil ingestion rate (% of food ingestion rate)COPC= chemical of potential concern1.2300271,000Feb-95Feb-01Mar-99cccDoA (1995), Fort Ord, OU 05, Marina(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0995138.pdf).DOE (2001), Interim Site-Wide ROD for LLNL,Site 300(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0901606.pdf).EPA (1999b), ROD, McCormick & BaxterCreosoting Co., OU 01 and 03, Stockton(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0999044.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, adult residential scenario; PRGtaken from the Draft Final Technical Memorandum,Preliminary Remediation Goals, Fort Ord, CA(June 24, 1994). PRGs were developed perprocedures in the EPA Risk Assessment Guidancefor Superfund, Vols. 1-2.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, PRG for construction workerscenario.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, cleanup standard atbuilding 850 Firing Table area. The Region 9industrial PRG was adopted as the cleanupstandard.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. EPA 1998 OSWERdirective (Approach for Addressing Dioxin in Soil atCERCLA and RCRA Sites) taken into account inderiving the cleanup standard.Available online (viaRODS database).However, thetechnicalmemorandum wasnot found online.Available online (viaRODS database).(Note Region 9 PRGshave since beenharmonized withRegions 3 and 6screening levels.)Available online (viaRODS database).Refers to PRGs derived inthe Draft Final TechnicalMemorandum, Preliminary Remediation Goals, Fort Ord,California (dated June 24, 1994), and Indicates they weredeveloped according to procedures in the EPA RiskAssessment. Guidelines for Superfund, Vols. 1 and 2. Thespecific equations and toxicity value were not found in the ROD.See toxicity value basis information in the body of this report.Concentration reflects OSWER directive (which is based on anevaluation by Kimbrough et al. [1984]of a study by Kociba et al.[1978]).1,000Sep-03cEPA (2003g) ROD AMD, Selma Treating Co.OU 1, Selma(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0903016.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, theactual concentration isunclear because of a units/symbol issue. The 2003ROD amendment identifies a value fordioxins/furans TEQ from the original (1988) RODas “1 microgram per kilogram (pg/kg)” -- and thenadjacent to this entry identifies the value from the2003 ESD as “1 pg/kg.”It is not clear if the morerecent value is intended to also be 1 microgram/kg,or 1,000 ppt (which seems more likely than 0.001ppt). (Note the 2003 update did changeconcentrations for two other contaminants.)Available online (viaRODS database).Concentration appears to reflect OSWER directive (which isbased on an evaluation by Kimbrough et al. [1984] of a study byKociba et al. [1978]).December 2009Page B-40TABLE B.9State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 9StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceGM(Guam)4.5181,500Oct-08c130,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008a), Evaluation ofEnvironmental Hazards at Sites withContaminated Soil and Groundwater – PacificBasin Edition(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume1mar2009.pdf);Volume 2, Appendix 1(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume2app1mar2009.pdf);Volume 2, Appendices 2-9(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume2app2to9mar2009.pdf).Calculations supported by spreadsheet atHDOH (2008b), Evaluation of EnvironmentalHazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil andGroundwater - Hawai‘i Edition(http://www.hawaiidoh.org/references/HDOH%202008.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ,environmental screeninglevels based on direct soil contact, 10-6risk (exceptconstruction/ trench worker: 10-5risk per lowerexposure frequency and duration).“Although prepared specifically for Guam EPA, theuse of well-accepted, US Environmental Agency(USEPA) standards, modelsand protocols shouldpermit flexible use of the guidance throughouttropical and subtropical areas of the Pacific Basinregion with little or no modification.” “Thescreening levels are based on slight modificationsto the USEPA Region IX Preliminary RemediationGoals and more recent Regional Screening Levels(USEPA 2004, 2008). The modifications as used inHawai’i have been discussed in detail with USEPARegion IX. No adjustment of the HDOH Tier 2screening levels is necessary for use in Guam andother areas of the Pacific Basin.” (This updatedearlier guidance prepared for the Commonwealthof the Mariana Islands DEQ.(See the AS entry where these values are firstdiscussed for further details, across all columns.)Unrestricted land use: 4.5 is the Tier 1environmental screening level for shallow soil(≤3 m bgs).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Commercial/industrialland use, Tier 1 environmental screening level, forshallow soil (≤3 m bgs).(See the AS entry where these values are firstdiscussed for further details.)For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Construction/trenchworker scenario, Tier 1 environmental screeninglevel for deep soil (>3 m bgs).(See the AS entry where these values are firstdiscussed for further details.)Equations areprovided in HDOH(2008) Appendix 2,adopted from the2008 EPA RSLdocumentation. Theslope factor wastaken from the EPARSL table. Thisinformation isavailable online.Equations for calculating Tier 1 environmental screening levelswere taken from 2008 EPA RSL documentation, as was thetoxicity value. (For the basis, see the AS entry and discussion inthe body of this report.)Environmental screening level/RSLequations for the residential,industrial, and trench worker scenarios consider ingestion,dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. To simplify thispresentation, only the ingestion component is reflected belowbecause this pathway is the dominant contributor to the total.Unrestricted land use:Cres=TR×ATr.EFr×(CSFo×IFSadj×10-6kg/mg)where:TR= target risk, 10-6ATr= averaging time, 25,550 dCSFo= 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1EFr= exposure frequency, 350 dIFSadj= residential soil ingestion rate, 114 mg-y/kg-dCommercial/industrial land use:Cind=TR×ATr×BWa.EFo×EDo×(IRSo×CSFo×10-6kg/mg)where:TR=target risk, 10-6ATr= averaging time, 25,550 dBWa= adult body weight, 70 kgEFo= occupational exposure frequency, 250 d/yEDo= occupational exposure duration, 25 yCSFo= 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1IRSo= occupational soil ingestion rate, 100 mg/dConstruction/trench worker:Cind=TR×ATr×BWa.EFctw×EDctw×(IRSctw×CSFo×10-6kg/mg)where:TR= target risk, 10-5ATr= averaging time, 25,550 dBWa= adult body weight, 70 kgEFo=occupational exposure frequency, 35 d/yEDo=occupational exposure duration, 7 yCSFo= 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1IRSo= worker soil ingestion rate, 330 mg/dReflects the slope factorfrom the recentlyharmonized EPA RSL table;as a note, this value doesnot reflect more recentscientific literature (e.g., the2004 NTP study).See notes for parallelentries for AS, NMI, and TT.December 2009Page B-41TABLE B.9State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 9Evaluation CriteriaNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisEquations areprovided inHDOH(2008) Appendix 2,adopted from the2008 EPA RSLdocumentation.Slopefactors weretakenfrom EPA RSL tablesand MNDOH (2003).This information isavailable online.The SF of 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1was usedto generate a lowerbound, as describedfor AS.The SF factorof 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1was taken from the 2008EPA RSL table,to derive the standard cleanup level.As forTier 1,Tier 2 equationsfor residentialand industrialscenarios consider ingestion,dermal, and inhalation routesofexposure. Tosimplify this presentation, onlythe ingestioncomponent is reflected belowbecause this pathway is thedominant contributor.Unrestricted(residential) landuse:Cres=TR×ATr.EFr×(CSFo×IFSadj×10-6kg/mg)where:TR=target risk, 10-6ATr=averaging time, 25,550 dCSFo=130,000 or 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1EFr=exposure frequency, 350dIFSadj=residential soilingestion rate, 114 mg-y/kg-dCommercial/industrial landuse:Cind=TR×ATr×BWa.EFo×EDo×(IRSo×CSFo×10-6kg/mg)where:TR=target risk, 10-6ATr=averaging time, 25,550 dBWa=adult bodyweight, 70 kgEFo=occupational exposurefrequency, 250 d/yEDo=occupational exposureduration, 25yCSFo=130,000 or 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1IRSo=occupational soil ingestion rate, 100 mg/dSoilEnd-ToxicityReferenceStateConcDatepointInformation SourceValue(ppt)BasisGM421,400,000(mg/kg-d)-1GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008a)(cont’d.)Oct-08c(cont’d.)(SFo)450130,000(mg/kg-d)-1(SFo)1701,400,000(mg/kg-d)-1(SFo)170­1,8001,800130,000(mg/kg-d)-1(SFo)390 Aug-07cU.S.AF(2007a), ROD for Sites 7, 16, 17, 31,and 36, Northwest Field, Andersen AFB(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008090002420.pdf).ContextNotesFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ,Tier2 action levels, directcontact, 10-4risk; especially intended forredevelopment of former agricultural fields butapplyto anysite.These are guidelines ratherthanstrict, regulatory, cleanup requirements, andalternate valuescan be proposed in site-specificassessments.(See the AS entrywhere these values are firstdiscussed for further details, across all columns.)Unrestricted (residential) use:<42 ppt: No action required.(See parallel ASentryfor lower bound context.)42-450 ppt:“Within USEPArange of acceptablehealth risk. Consider removaland offsite disposalof localized spill areaswhenpossible in ordertoreduce potential exposure (not required for large,former field areas).”>450 ppt: Residential use not recommended in theabsence of remedial actions to reduce potentialexposure.(See parallel ASentryfor SF/update context.)For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ,Tier2 action levels forcommercial/industrial scenario:<170 ppt: No action required.(See parallel ASentryfor lower bound context.)170-1,800 ppt: “Within USEPA range ofacceptablehealth risk. Remedial actions varydependingonsite-specific factors, includingcurrent and planned use, available options foronsite isolationor offsite disposal, and technicaland economicalconstraints.”>1,800 ppt: Commercial/industrial use notrecommended in the absence of remedial actionsto reduce potential exposure.(See parallel ASentryfor SF/update context.)For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ,cleanup level, unrestricteduse.Cleanuplevel for removal action at Site 36;Value reflects PRG for industrial use.Document states “The cleanup level for dioxins insurface soilwas equivalent to 10-4resident childcancer risk ... Although the cleanup level forTCDD-TEQ was initially established to beequivalent to 10-4cancer risk, confirmation sampleresults were belowthe residential PRG and weretherefore protective of 10-6cancer risk. Riskstohuman receptors (future resident adults andchildren – the most conservative receptorpopulation) were reduced to acceptable risk levels,allowing for unlimited use and unrestricted accessto the land.”Available online (viaDocument refers to the 2007 risk assessmentupdate to reflectRODS database).morerecent values, including for the exposure calculation andslope factor, but specific information was notfound. The RODdiscussion includes some more specific context (e.g., the childsoil ingestion rate, which was considered tooverestimate intake,was based onstudies by Binder et al. [1986]and Clausing etal.[1987]) but thespecific calculations with values were notincluded.Incorporation ofMostRecent ScienceThe standard cleanup levelreflects the slope factor fromthe recentlyharmonizedEPA RSL table(2008,updated in2009).December 2009Page B-42TABLE B.9State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 9StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceGM(cont’d.)9.13Dec-03July-02cc150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1150,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1U.S. AF (2003b), ROD for Urunao Dumpsites 1and 2, Urunao OU, Andersen AFB(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0904002.pdf).U.S. AF (2002), Final ROD for Harmon AnnexOU, Andersen AFB(http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/1dca993480c9ecd788257205002bf81e/$FILE/andersen%20ROD%20harmon%20annex.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Forresident child, surfacesoil, remedial goal objective (RGO) correspondingto 10-6risk level.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. For resident child,subsurface soil, RGO corresponding to 10-6risklevel.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. The evaluation used thisscreening toxicity value “taken from USEPARegion IX Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)Table, USEPA, November2000” as a comparisonvalue in screening site soil concentrations.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ,Considered for soil at IRPSite 39/Harmon Substation, 1,000 ppt reflectsOSWER directive; Region 9 PRGs were alsoconsidered; “Subsurface soil exceeded theRegion 9 residential PRG (0.0038μg/kg), but wasless than the industrial PRG (0.03μg/kg). ThisTEQ concentration is considerably lower than thesubsurface dioxin cleanup standard of 1.0μg/kgestablished bythe U.S. AF, GEPA, and the Officeof Solid Waste and Emergency Response(OSWER) directive (IT/OHM, 1999c), and nofurther action is required.Therefore, the area onthe southwest corner of Parcel A was notrecommended for remediation.”Indicates cancer slope factor of150,000 per mg/kg-d: weight ofevidence cancer guideline description: B2/respiratory and liver;from HEAST (5/1/95). (Reflects earlier carcinogen classification.)Ingestion intake = Conc×CR×EF×ED×CFBW×ATwhere:Intake = mg/kg-dConc = chemical concentration, mg/kgEF = exposure frequency, 350 d/yED = exposure duration, 30 yCR = ingestion rate, 100 mg/dCF = conversion factor, 10-6kg/mgBW = body weight, 70 kgAT = averaging time, 25,550 dThe sources cited for the specific information that would informthis entry (e.g., IT/OHM reports) have not been found online.9.433.91,000December 2009Page B-43TABLE B.9State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 9StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceHI3.942390Sum-08Sum-08cc150,000(SFo)1,400,000(SFo)150,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d) ̄1(mg/kg-d)-1(mg/kg-d)-1HDOH (2008b), Evaluation of EnvironmentalHazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil andGroundwater - Hawai‘i Edition(http://www.hawaiidoh.org/references/HDOH%202008.pdf);calculations supported by spreadsheet(gepatier2.deoct2008.xls) are available via thisweblink.Also reflects information from:EPA (1996), Soil Screening Guidance: User'sGuide(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/soil/pdfs/ssg496.pdf).HDOH (2008b), Evaluation of EnvironmentalHazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil andGroundwater - Hawai‘i Edition(http://www.hawaiidoh.org/references/HDOH%202008.pdf);HDOH (2006), Proposed dioxin action levelsfor East Kapolei Brownfield Site(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/dioxinactionlevelsmarch2005.pdf);MNDOH (2003), Cancer Risk Assessment forDioxins(www.canceractionny.org/cancerriskassessment.htm).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. From the EPA SoilScreening Guidance, for Environmental ActionLevels (EAL), Volume 1: "this documentincorporates and significantly expands upon theUSEPA Preliminary Remediation Goals and morerecent Regional Screening Levels." Report issimilar to the GEPA report of same namedeveloped for the Pacific Basin (see Guam), muchis the same, although some scenarios andterminology differ. (Note the June 2008 Brewermemo in Appendix 8 of the GEPA (2008)/HDOH(2008a) report indicates that ambient levels (asdioxin TEQ) in undisturbed areas in former sugarcan fields (in HI) appear to be <50 ppt. Tier 1environmental action level (EAL) for unrestricteduse scenario, includes potential use for residentialhousing, schools, day care, and health care.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. HDOH established Tier 2action levels primarily to guide remedial actions forformer agricultural fields. They do not serve asstrict regulatory cleanup requirements. Tier 2action levels were initially proposed in 2006document but updated in 2008. GEPA updatedvalues further to reflecttoxicity value updates in2008 RSLs (see GM).Residential/recreational, low risk, 42 ppt: no furtheraction required; memo from Environmental RiskAssessment HEER Office to BrownfieldsCoordinator HEER Office.“This memo presents anapproach for assessing dioxin contamination at theEast Kapolei Brownfield site” ... ”The dioxin actionlevels are not recommended for use in Hawai’i.”For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ,residential/recreationalscenarios, intermediate risk; >42- 390 ppt.Residential/recreational, high risk, >390 ppt:residential use not recommended absent remedialactions to reduce potential exposure.Process: determine area-wide background totaldioxins (e.g., across the 400-acre site as a whole).If background is <42 ng/kg, identify “hot spots” asareas that exceed 42 ng/kg TEQ dioxins. Evaluatethe feasibility of removing or capping soil to reducelong-term exposure (see below). If background is>42 but <390, identify “hotspots” as areas thatexceed background and similarly evaluate thefeasibility of remove or capping soil. For areas thatexceed 42 ng/kg dioxins (2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ) butare within background, recommended (but notrequired) are exposure minimization measures andnotice to future homeowners of potential healthrisks (e.g., include in CC&Rs, notice to deeds).Toxicity valuesconsideredOSWER 2003hierarchy (IRIS,PPRTVs); EPASupplementalGuidance forDeveloping SoilScreening Levelsfor SuperfundSites, PeerReview Draft.The EPA RSL tableand User's Guidewith equations areavailable online; thePPRTVs are notpublicly availableonline.Equations areprovided in HDOH(2008) Appendix 2,adopted from the2008 EPA RSLdocumentation.Slope factors weretaken from EPA RSLtables and MNDOH(2003). Thisinformation isavailable online.Reflects equations for noncancer and cancer endpoints fromEPA (1996); suite of equations addresses exposures viaingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact. To simplify thispresentation, the following screening-level equation focuses onincidental ingestion of carcinogenic contaminants in residentialsoil, as this is the dominant pathway:SL =.TR×AT×365 d/y.SFo×EF×IFsoil/adj×10-6kg/mgwhere:SL =screening level, (mg/kg)TR=target cancer risk, 10-6AT=averaging time, 70 yEF= exposure frequency, 350SFo=oral slope factor, (mg-kg-d)-1IFsoil/adj=age-adjusted soil ingestion factor, 114 mg-y/kg-dThe SF factor of 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1was taken from theprevious Region 9 PRGs (subsequently updated). The SF of1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1, was used to generate a lower bound, asdescribed for AS.As for the Tier 1 equations, Tier2 equations for residential andindustrial scenarios consider ingestion, dermal, and inhalationroutes of exposure. To simplifythis presentation, the equationfor the dominant route, ingestionof carcinogenic contaminants inresidential soil, is provided below.Cres=TR×ATr_______________[EFr×(CSFo×IFSadj×10-6kg/mg)]where:TR= target risk, 10-6ATr= averaging time, 25,550 dCSFo=150,000 or 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1EFr=exposure frequency, 350 dIFSadj=res. soil ingestion rate, 114 mg-y/kg-dEPA User's Guide publishedin 2008; the document doesnot reflect changes in TCDDscreening levels presentedin the 2008 EPA RSL tables.Note that the documentcites an SFoof 150,000rather then 130,000 permg/kg-d, which is reflectedin the RSL tables.Reflects slope factorunderlying previous PRG.December 2009Page B-44TABLE B.9State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 9StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesEvaluation CriteriaNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceHI(cont’d.)170Sum-08c1,400,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1150,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, industrial/commercial, lowrisk, <170 ppt; see residential/recreational, lowrisk.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ,industrial/commercial,intermediate risk, 170-1,600 ppt; seeresidential/recreational, intermediate risk.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ , industrial/commercial,high risk, >1,600 ppt; see residential/recreational,Equation for ingestion of carcinogenic contaminants in industrialscenario:Cind=TR×ATr×BWa[EFo×EDo×(IRSo×CSFo×10-6kg/mg)]where:TR = target risk, 10-6ATr= averaging time, 25,550 d1,600high risk.BWa= adult body weight, 70 kgEFo= occupational exposure frequency, 250 d/yEDo= occupational exposure duration, 25 yCSFo= 150,000 or 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1IRSo= occupational soil ingestion rate, 100 mg/d42006Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilBasis not provided.Limited information isBasis not provided.(2004)standard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groupsavailable via theweblinks at left, with(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Reqneither the derivationuest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000methodology norppt.pdf); lists same valuesidentified in: ECbasis of underlying(2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in Othertoxicity values.States, cited in table available viaTittabawassee River Watch News(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).NMI4.5Oct-08c130,000(mg/kg-d)-1GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008a), Evaluation ofFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ,environmental screeningEquations areBased on recent Guam EPA guidance; as described for AS,See notes for parallel(North’nMariana(SFo)Environmental Hazards at Sites withContaminated Soil and Groundwater – Pacificlevels (ESLs), based on direct soil contact, 10-6risk (except construction/ trench worker: 10-5riskprovided in HDOH(2008) Appendix 2,Equations for calculating Tier 1 ESLs and the toxicity value weretaken from 2008 EPA RSL documentation. See GM entry forentries for AS, GM, and TT.Islands)Basin Editionper lower exposure frequency and duration).adopted from thespecific environmental screening level equations. Regarding(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume1mar2009.pdf);Volume 2, Appendix 1 and Appendices 2-9(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume2app1mar2009.pdf;http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume2app2to9mar2009.pdf);calculations supported by spreadsheet atHDOH (2008b), Evaluation of EnvironmentalHazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil andGroundwater - Hawai‘i Edition(http://www.hawaiidoh.org/references/HDOH%202008.pdf);“Although prepared specifically for Guam EPA, theuse of well-accepted, US Environmental Agency(USEPA) standards, modelsand protocols shouldpermit flexible use of the guidance throughouttropical and subtropical areas of the Pacific Basinregion with little or no modification.” “Thescreening levels are based on slight modificationsto the USEPA Region IX Preliminary RemediationGoals and more recent Regional Screening Levels(USEPA 2004, 2008). The modifications as used inHawai’i have been discussed in detail with USEPARegion IX. No adjustment of the HDOH Tier 2screening levels is necessary for use in Guam andother areas of the Pacific Basin.” (This updated the2008 EPA RSLdocumentation. Theslope factor wastaken from the EPARSL table. Thisinformation isavailable online.direct exposure: text indicates dioxins are not consideredsignificantly mobile in soil due to their strong sorption to organiccarbon and clay particles, so consideration of soil leachinghazards was not needed. Also notes: “The 2008 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)Regional ScreeningLevels(RSLs; USEPA 2008a) replacePreliminary RemediationGoals(PRGs) previously published by individual regions. Thisincludes PRGs published by USEPA Region IX (USEPA 2004)and referenced in pre-2008 editions of the CNMI and HDOHguidance documents.”The slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1was taken from the 2008EPA RSL table, based on the CalEPA value, maximumlikelihood estimate (MLE) and linearized 95% upper confidencevalue (UCL) using animal data (NTP 1980a, 1982a) converted toGEPA 2008 updates information from HDOHearlier guidance prepared for the Commonwealthequivalent human exposures per scaling factors. Assumptions(2005), Screening for Environmental Concernsof the Mariana Islands DEQ. See the AS entryfrom CalEPA include: oral and inhalation routesare equivalent,at Sites with Contaminated Soil andwhere these values are first discussed for furtherair concentration assumed to be daily oral dose, route ofGroundwater, Volume 1: Summary Tier 1details, across all columns.)exposure does not affect absorption, and no difference inLookup Tables(http://www.deq.gov.mp/artdoc/Sec8art133ID453.pdf);Stralka (2009) (personal communication).Unrestricted land use: 4.5 is Tier 1 ESL for shallowsoil (≤3 m bgs). (Field input indicated NMI followscurrent Guam guidance, which updated HDOH[2005], which previous indicated a value of3.9 ppt).metabolism/ pharmacokinetics between animals and humans.Total weekly dose levels were averaged over the week to get adaily dose level; this assumes daily dosing in NTP studies wouldhave given the same results as the actual twice weekly dosingschedule (because the TCDD half-life is relatively long, bothschedules should give similar tissue concentrations).December 2009Page B-45TABLE B.9State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 9StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceNMI18Oct-08c130,000(mg/kg-d)-1For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Commercial/industrial(cont’d.)(SFo)land use, Tier 1 ESL for shallow soil (≤3 m bgs).(See AS where these values are first discussed forfurther details.) (Field input indicated this updatefrom the previous value of 16 ppt from HDOH[2005].)1,500For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Construction/trenchworker scenario, Tier 1 environmental screeninglevel for deep soil (>3 m bgs). (See AS wherethese values are first discussed for further details.)(Field input indicated this update from the previousvalue of 2,000 ppt identified from HDOH [2005].)42Oct-08c1,400,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008a)(cont’d.)For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, Tier2 action levels, directcontact, 10-4risk; especially intended forredevelopment of former agricultural fields butapply to any site. These are guidelines rather thanstrict, regulatory, cleanup requirements, andalternate values can be proposed in site-specificassessments. (See AS where these values areThe action level of 42 ppt was derived using the basiccalculation in the HDOH (2008b) spreadsheet, with the targetrisk level updated from 10-6to 10-4.The SF of 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1was used to generate a lowerbound, as described for AS (and GM). See Guam entry in thistable for the equations used to calculate action levels.first discussed for further details.) Unrestricted(residential) use: <42 ppt: No action required.(See parallel AS entry for lower bound context.)42-450 ppt: “Within USEPA range of acceptablehealth risk. Consider removal and offsite disposalof localized spill areas when possible in order toreduce potential exposure (not required for large,former field areas).”450130,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1>450 ppt: Residential use not recommended in theabsence of remedial actions to reduce potentialexposure. (See AS for SF context.)As above, using the SFofrom the recently harmonized 2008EPA RSL; updates the previousTier 2 action level of 390 ppt,per the previous RSL SFo, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1.1701,400,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, Tier 2 action levels,commercial/industrial scenario:<170 ppt: No action required.(See parallel AS entry for lower bound context.)Same approach as for the 42 ppt action level above; the SF of1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1was used to generate a lower bound.170­1,800170-1,800 ppt: “Within USEPA range ofacceptable health risk. Remedial actions varydepending on site-specific factors, includingcurrent and planned use, available options foronsite isolation or offsite disposal, and technicaland economical constraints.”1,800130,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1>1,800 ppt: Commercial/industrial use notrecommended in absence of remedial actions toreduce potential exposure.(See parallel AS entry for SF/update context.)As above, using SFoof 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1from the recentlyharmonized 2008 EPA RSL; updates the previous Tier 2 level of1,600 ppt, which reflected the previous SFo,150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1.December 2009Page B-46TABLE B.9State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 9StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceNV3.917.738.1Feb-09c150,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1NDEP (2009), Basic Comparison Levels(http://ndep.nv.gov/bmi/docs/bcl_calculations_table09.pdf);NDEP (2009), User's Guide and BackgroundTechnical Document for NDEP BasicComparison Levels (BCLs) for Human Healthfor the BMI Complex and Common Areas(http://ndep.nv.gov/bmi/docs/bcl_guidance09.pdf).2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential soil. (Values designedfor use at the BMI Complex and Common Areas inHenderson, NV.) Identifies HEAST as the sourceof the toxicity value.(Note that the table titleindicates Basic Comparison Levels 2008, but thefooter of this document identifies the date ofFebruary 12, 2009, as supported by the weblink.)2,3,7,8-TCDD, for industrial/commercial worker(outdoor).2,3,7,8-TCDD, for industrial indoor worker withoutdermal exposure.Former HEASTtables not available;equations used toidentify comparisonlevels for residentialand industrialscenarios areavailable online.Toxicity value cites (former) EPAHEAST, no date indicated.Residential scenario: ingestion of carcinogenic contaminants insoil (driving pathway):CL =TR×AT.CSFo×10-6×EF×IFSadjwhere:CL= comparison level, mg/kgTR=target risk, 10-6AT= averaging time, 25,550 dCSFo= 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1EF= exposure frequency, 350 dIFSadj= adjusted soil ingestion, 114 mg-y/kg-dIndustrial/commercial scenario, outdoor worker: ingestion ofcarcinogenic contaminants in soil:CL =TR×AT×BWa.EFo×EDo×(IRSo×CSFo×10-6kg/mg)where:TR=target risk, 10-6AT= averaging time, 25,550 dBWa= adult body weight, 70 kgEFo= occupational exposure frequency, 250 d/yEDo= occupational exposure duration, 25 yCSFo= 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1IRSo= industrial outdoor worker soil ingestion rate, 100 mg/dIndustrial scenario, indoor worker: ingestion of carcinogeniccontaminants:CL =TR×AT×BWa.EFo×EDo×(IRSo×CSFo×10-6kg/mg)where:TR=target risk, 10-6AT= averaging time, 25,550 dBWa= adult body weight, 70 kgEFo= occupational exposure frequency, 250 d/yEDo= occupational exposure duration, 25 yCSFo= 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1IRSo= indoor worker soil ingestion rate, 50 mg/dDecember 2009Page B-47TABLE B.9State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 9StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceNV42006Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilBasis not provided.Limited information isBasis not provided.(cont’d.)(2004)standard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groupsavailable via theweblinks at left, with(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Reqneither the derivationuest%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000methodology norppt.pdf); lists same valuesidentified in: ECbasis of underlying(2004), Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in Othertoxicity values.States, cited in table available viaTittabawassee River Watch News(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).TT4.5Oct-08c130,000(mg/kg-d)-1GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008a), Evaluation ofField feedback for TT during the review phaseToxicity values, andEquations for calculating Tier 1 ESLs were taken from 2008 EPAAs a note, the AS, GM, HI,(TrustTerritories)(SFo)Environmental Hazards at Sites withContaminated Soil and Groundwater – PacificBasin Edition(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume1mar2009.pdf);(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume2app1mar2009.pdf);(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume2app2to9mar2009.pdf);Stralka (2009) (personal communication).indicated soil cleanup levels are determined on asite-specific basis (Stralka, 2009). Other onlineinformation suggests the context summarized forAS may be considered, sothat information isoffered here for context.)The environmental screening levels (ESLs) arebased on slight modifications to the USEPARegion IX Preliminary Remediation Goals andmore recent Regional Screening Levels (USEPA2004, 2008). The modifications as used in Hawai’ihave been discussed in detail with USEPARegion IX. No adjustment of the HDOH Tier 2screening levels is necessary for use in Guam andother areas of the Pacific Basin.”equations used toderive Tier 1environmentalscreening levels fordifferent exposurescenarios areavailable online in theHDOH document.RSLs, as was the toxicity value.See parallel entries for AS and GM for further details.NMI, and TT values appearto reflect a similar approachas that for the EPA 2008RSLs. As for many relativelyrecent values, the toxicityvalue reflected is morecurrent than others; it isadopted from the 2008 EPARSLs, which reflects morerecent data than Kociba etal. (1978) but not even morerecent scientific data (suchas the 2004 NTP study):Tier 2 levels incorporate thedraft slope factor fromGuam EPA (2008) updatedthe earlier guidanceMNDOH (2003), whichprepared for the Commonwealth of the Marianareflects the upper boundIslands, DEQ. Although not specifically preparedfrom bioassay data basedfor TT, the document states, “Although preparedon the earlier study byspecifically for Guam EPA, the use of well-Kociba et al. (1978) (takenaccepted, US Environmental Agency (USEPA)from the range of valuesstandards, models and protocols should permitgiven in the EPA 2003flexible use of the guidance throughout tropical andreassessment, rather thansubtropical areas of the Pacific Basin region withthe recommended valuelittle or no modification.”(upper bound fromFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Tier 1 ESL, residential scenarioepidemiological data).for shallow soil (≤3 m, below ground surface, bgs)is 4.5 ppt.18For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Tier 1 ESL, industrial scenario,shallow soil (≤3 m bgs).1,500For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Tier 1 ESL, construction/trenchworker scenarios, deep soil (>3 m bgs).December 2009Page B-48TABLE B.9State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 9StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceTT42Oct-08c1,400,000(mg/kg-d)-1GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008a), Evaluation of(See the AS entry where these values are firstEquations areThe SF of 1,400,000 (mg/kg-d)-1, which was proposed severalAs described above, does(cont’d.)(SFo)Environmental Hazards at Sites withContaminated Soil and Groundwater – PacificBasin Edition(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume1mar2009.pdf);(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/pbvolume2app2to9mar2009.pdf) seeAppendix 8;discussed for further details, across all columns.)In addition to the Tier 1 ESL values, HDOHestablished Tier 2 action levels primarily to guideremedial actions for former agricultural fields. Theydo not serve as strict regulatory cleanuprequirements. Values were initially proposed in2006 document but updated in 2008 to reflect mostrecent toxicological data from EPA RSLs.provided inAppendix 2 of the2008 document,adopted from the2008 Regional EPARSLs. Slopefactors were takenfrom the EPA RSLtables (currentyears ago by MNDOH (2003) (derived from Kociba et al.[1978]), was used to generate a lower bound.The slope factor of 130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1is from the currentEPA RSL table.See the Guam entry for the equations used to calculateintake/dose.not reflect more recentscientific data (such as the2004 NTP study).HDOH (2006), Proposed dioxin action levelsfor East Kapolei Brownfield Site(http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/dioxinactionlevelsmarch2005.pdf).Tier 2 action levels for TCDD (TEQs), residentialscenario:<42 ppt: No action required.42-450 ppt: Removal and offsite disposal of small,easily identifiable hot spots recommended.Consider other measures to reduce daily exposurevalue) and MNDOH(2003) proposedvalue. Thisinformation isavailable online.450130,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1to soil. For new developments, notify futurehomeowners of elevated levels of dioxin on theproperty.(See parallel AS entry for lower bound context.)>450 ppt: Residential use not recommended inabsence of remedial actions to reduce potentialexposure.(See parallel AS entry for SF/update context.)170170­1,8001,8001,400,000(SFo)130,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1(mg/kg-d)-1For TCDD (TEQs), Tier 2 action levels, industrialscenario: <170 ppt: No action required.(See parallel AS entry for lower bound context.)170-1,800 ppt: “Within USEPA range of acceptablehealth risk. Remedial actions vary depending onsite-specific factors, including current and planneduse, available options for onsite isolation or offsitedisposal, and technical and economicalconstraints.”>1,800 ppt: Commercial/industrial use notrecommended in absence of remedial actions toreduce potential exposure.(See parallel AS entry for SF/update context.)For additional details, see the AS entry where these values arefirst discussed.December 2009Page B-49TABLE B.10State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 10StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceAK38Jun-08c150,000(SFо)(mg/kg-d)-1ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response,Contaminated Sites Program (2008a), CleanupLevels GuidanceFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD based on direct contactwith soil, exposure frequency 330 d/y.Document doesnot mention anyintra-agency orEquations/tables foreach element of thecleanup levelUsed EPA standards for exposure frequency and developedAK-specific soil parameters for equations. Equation used fordioxin in residential soil:EPA documents referred torange from 1996-2004.4763(http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/guidance/cleanuplevels.pdf);ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response,Contaminated Sites Program (2008b), CumulativeFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD based on direct contactwith soil, exposure frequency 270 d/y.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD based on direct contactwith soil, exposure frequency 200 d/y.external review.equation are given inthe ADECdocumentation, whichis available online.CL = TR×AT×365d/y;EF×SFo×IFsoil/adj×10-6kg/mgwhere:39Jan-04c150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1Risk Guidance(http://ddoe.dc.gov/ddoe/lib/ddoe/Riggs_Remedy_94.pdf).ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response(2004), Dioxin and the Haines-Alaska Pipeline(http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/docs/hfp/hfpdioxin_factsh_1_04.pdf).Residential scenario, for dioxins; ADECadopted the Region 9 PRG for TCDD butcalculated value based on TR of 10-5insteadof 10-6Equation basis forRegion 9 PRG andADEC document areavailable onlineCL = cleanup level, mg/kgTR = target cancer risk, 10-5AT = averaging time, 70 yEF = exposure frequency, Arctic zone 200 d/y, under40-inch zone 270 d/y, and over 40-inch zone 330 d/ySFo= oral slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1IFsoil/adj= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor, 114 (mg-y/kg-d)-1Used EPA Region 9 PRG equation to derive value for TCDD.Slope factors and other toxicological information are takenfrom EPA 1997 HEAST ADEC based value on TR of 10-5.4400.4Jun-03Jul-96ccEPA (2003d), ESD, OU 01, Arctic Surplus,Fairbanks(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e1003009.pdf);EPA (2008d), First Five Year Review Report forArctic Surplus Salvage Yard Superfund Site,Fairbanks(http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/CLEANUP.NSF/sites/fiveyr/$FILE/Arctic%20Surplus%20First%20121808.pdf).EPA (1996d), ROD, OU 01, Standard Steel andMetal Salvage Yard (USDOT), Anchorage(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1096141.pdf);U.S. ACE, (2008) Second Five-Year ReviewReport for Standard Steel and Metal Salvage Yard(USDOT), Anchorage(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f2008100002158.pdf).Industrial scenario for dioxins.Did not alteroriginal 1995 ROD; value reflects risk-basedconcentration (RBC) for 10-5risk level.For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Residential scenarioscreening value for 10-6risk level. Five-yearreviews have not indicated any change to thecleanup level.Available online(RODS database).Available online(RODS database).December 2009Page B-50TABLE B.10State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 10StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceID1,000Apr-03cEPA (2003c), ESD, OU 03, Idaho NationalEngineering Laboratory (USDOE), Idaho Falls(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e1003133.pdf);USDOE (2007), Five Year Review of CERCLAResponse Actions at the INL(http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/CLEANUP.NSF/sites/INEEL/$FILE/DOE-NE-ID-11201-R3.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, based on EPA 1998OSWER directive.Available online(RODS database).The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation of Kociba et al. (1978)underlies the OSWER value.1,000Aug-02cEPA (2006b), Poles, Incorporated IntegratedAssessment(http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/9f3c21896330b4898825687b007a0f33/434a255cbae5217d88256b560065cb04?OpenDocument);For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ , residential scenario;EPA OSWER PRGs; based on dioxinscreening of surface soil samples from aresidential area nearby Poles Inc. and IdahoHill Elementary School in Oldtown.Available online(RODS database)The Kimbrough et al. (1984) evaluation of Kociba et al. (1978)underlies the OSWER value.5,000­EPA (2002), Poles Incorporated Dioxin/FuranFor 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ , industrial scenario;20,000Sampling, Surface Soil Samples AnalyticalResults Summary, Oldtown(http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/9f3c21896330b4898825687b007a0f33/434a255cbae5217d88256b560065cb04/$FILE/Soil%20Results.PDF).per EPA OSWER PRGs based on dioxinscreening of surface soil samples taken fromPoles Inc. in Oldtown.OR4.5Sep-09c130,000 (mg/kg-d)-1ORDEQ (2009), Risk-Based Concentrations(http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/RBDMTaRBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD;residential; directcontact via ingestion, dermal, or inhalation.Substantialrevisions madeEquations used forthe derivation can beThe basic equations are from 1995-2000; revisions were madein 2003. Calculations are based on cancer risk of 10-6.2003 document cites (DEQ,2000); (EPA, 1996a); (ASTM1220ble.pdf);ORDEQ (2003), Risk-Based Decision Making forthe Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites(http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/RBDMGuidance.pdf);RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD;urban residential;direct contact via ingestion, dermal, orinhalation.RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD;occupational; directcontact via ingestion, dermal, or inhalation.in 2003 withinput from TPHGeneric RemedyWork Groupalong with DEQemployees;found online in theORDEQ (2003)document for theremediation ofpetroleumcontaminated sitesAlthough a toxicity value was notexplicitly identified in theupdated table, a value of 130,000 per mg/kg-d can be inferredbecause of the use of the RSLs as the basis, per Bailey(2009); this can be confirmed by check calculations.1995); Mott (1995); Mariner etal. (1997); and Park and SanJuan (2000) as the basis forthe equations provided.150Bailey (2009) (personal communication).RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; construction; directcontact via ingestion, dermal, or inhalation.updated in 2009.(Appendix B).4,200RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; excavation; directcontact via ingestion, dermal, or inhalation.19RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD;residential; leachingto groundwater.66RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD;urban residential;leaching to groundwater.140RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; occupational;leaching to groundwater.December 2009Page B-51TABLE B.10State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 10StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceOR(cont’d.)3.9May-05c150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1ORDEQ (2005), Pre-Calculated Hot Spot Look-UpTables(http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/cu/PreCaRBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, residential scenariofor exposure by ingestion, inhalation ofvapors/particulates, and dermal contact.Acceptable risk level calculated using EPA Region 9 PRGequation of that time:PRG =16lculatedHotSpotLookupTables.pdf).RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; industrial scenario forexposure by ingestion, inhalation ofvapors/particulates, and dermal contact.TR×AT_____________________EF[(IFSaj×SFo×CF)+(SFSaj×ABS×SFo×CF)+(InhFaj×SFi)/PEF]TR = target cancer risk, 10-6ATr= averaging time, 25,550 dEFr= exposure frequency, 350 d/yIFSadj= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor, 114 (mg-y/kg-d)-1SFo,i= oral and inhalation slope factor, 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1CF = 10-6kg/mgSFSadj= soil dermal contact factor, 361 mg-y/kg-dABS = dermal absorption fraction, 0.03InhFadj= 11 (m3-y/kg-d)PEF = particulate emission factor, 1.316×1093.92006Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilBasis not provided.Limited information isBasis not provided.(2004)standard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groups(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000ppt.pdf); lists same values identified in: EC (2004),Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in Other States, citedin table available via Tittabawassee River Watch(TRW) News,(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).available via theweblinks at left, withneither the derivationmethodology norbasis of underlyingtoxicity values.December 2009Page B-52TABLE B.10State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 10StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceWA111,5006.6750to1,0008.7875107.7Jun-09Jan-982006(2004)Sep-03Feb-00cc150,000(SFo)(mg/kg-d)-1WADEC (2009), Cleanup Levels and RiskCalculations(https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/clarc/Reporting/CLARCReporting.aspx).WADEC (1998), Fact Sheet: Controlling Metalsand Dioxins in Fertilizers(http://www.ecy.wa.gov/news/1998news/fert.html).Easthope (2006), ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soilstandard: Letter from concerned citizens,environmental groups(http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201000ppt.pdf); lists same values identified in: EC (2004),Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in Other States, citedin table available via Tittabawassee River Watch(TRW) News,(http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF).EPA (2003f), Final ROD, OU 10, Oeser CompanySuperfund Site Remedial Action, Bellingham,(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1003135.pdf).EPA (2000), Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor SuperfundSite, Soil and Groundwater Operable Units,Bainbridge Island, OU 02,04(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1000047.pdf);U.S. ACE (2007), Second Five-Year ReviewReport for the Wyckoff./Eagle Harbor SuperfundSite, Bainbridge Island, KitaspCounty(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f2007100001727.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Unrestricted scenario;Method B, Carcinogen, Standard FormulaValue, Direct Contact (ingestion only);Cleanup Levels and Risk Calculation(CLARC) tool, a searchable databasedeveloped and maintained by the WADepartment of Ecology.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Industrial scenario;Method C, Carcinogen, Standard FormulaValue, Direct Contact (ingestion only);CLARC tool, a searchable databasedeveloped and maintained by the WADepartment of Ecology.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Used as a finalcleanup level for dioxins but it is possible thata higher cleanup level could be used if thereare no exposure pathways or the existingpathways have been mitigated. This levelwas established by Model Toxics Control Act(MTCA) Method B Residential Soil Standardfrom the MTCA.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Residential scenariofor direct exposure via ingestion of dioxins;screening level, adopted per ATSDR (theselevels are used as screens to trigger a morecomprehensive, site-specific evaluation ofpotential human exposure).Basis not provided.For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, site-specific cleanuplevel derived from WA Dept. of Ecology,MTCA Method C for industrial scenario,10-5risk level.Residential scenario for 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicityequivalency factor (TEF), reasonablemaximum exposure (RME) concentration,2.52 x 10-5cancer risk from EPA (1994b).Soil cleanup levels in the ROD were based onMTCA method B TEQ calculations. Thesecond five-year report concludes that theminor changes in the basis for TEQcalculations would not significantly changethe level of protectiveness. The only changesmade were for other dioxin compounds (not2,3,7,8-TCDD)."AlthoughCLARC hasundergonereview to ensurethe quality of theinformationprovided, there isno assurancethat CLARC isfree from errors.""CLARC includestechnical informationrelated to theestablishment ofcleanup levels underthe Model ToxicsControl Act CleanupRegulation,chapter 173-340WAC."SCL = (RISK×ABW×AT×UCF);(CPF×SIR×AB1×ED×EF)where:SCL = soil cleanup level, mg/kgRISK = acceptable cancer risk level, 1 in 1,000,000ABW = average body weight over the exposure duration, 16kgAT = averaging time, 75 yUCF = unit conversion factor, 1,000,000 mg/kgCPF = carcinogenic potency factor as defined in WAC173-340-708(8)SIR = soil ingestion rate, 200mg/dAB1= gastrointestinal absorption fraction, 1.0ED = exposure duration, 6 yEF = exposure frequency, 1.0Limited information isavailable via theweblinks at left, withneither the derivationmethodology norbasis of underlyingtoxicity values.Basis not provided.Available online(RODS database).Available online(RODS database).Equation for ingestion for RME exposure, based on data fromEPA (1987) and Van den Berg et al. (1998, 2006):IFsoil/adj (mg-y/kg-d) =(Isoil/age 1-6 x Dage1-6)+ (Isoil7-31 x Dage7-31)(Wage1-6)(Wage7-31)where:IFsoil/adj = age-adjusted soil ingestion factor (114 mg-y/ kg-d)Wage1-6 = average body weight from ages from 1-6 (15 kg)Wage7-31 = average body weight from ages from 7-31 (70 kg)Dage1-6 = exposure duration during ages 1-6 (6 y)Dage7-31 = exposure duration during ages 7-31 (24 y)Isoil/age 1-6 = ingestion rate of soil ages 1-6 (200 mg/d)6.67Soil cleanup level for 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ.Isoil7-31 = ingestion rate of soil all other ages (100 mg/d)December 2009Page B-53TABLE B.10State Cleanup Levels for Dioxin in Soil:Region 10StateSoilConc(ppt)DateEndpointBasisToxicity ReferenceValueInformation SourceContext NotesNature of PeerReviewTransparencyPublic AvailabilityEvaluation CriteriaScientific BasisIncorporation of MostRecent ScienceWA4Sep-97cEPA (1997b), ROD, OU 01, Old NavyLandfill screening level,for 2,3,7,8-TCDD,Available onlineIndustrial equation for carcinogenic effects of hazardous(cont’d)Dump/Manchester Laboratory (USEPA/NOAA),Manchester(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r10-6cancer risk; MTCA Method C forindustrial scenario.(RODS database).substances due to ingestion:Soil cleanup level = RISK × ABW × AT × UCF1097201.pdf);U.S. ACE (2004), First Five-Year Review ReportCPF × SIR × ABI × ED × EFwhere:2706.7Jul-94for Manchester Annex Superfund Site, KitsapCounty(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f04­10009.pdf).EPA (1994c), ROD, OU 02,Naval Air Station,Whidbey Island (Ault Field)(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1094077.pdf);DoN (2004), Final Five-Year Review OperableUnits 1 through 5 Naval Air Station, WhidbeyIsland, Oak Harbor(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f04­10003.pdf).For 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, cleanup level.Residential scenario for dioxin; 10-6risk level.Neither five-year review mention any changesin dioxin levels.Available online(RODS database).RISK = acceptable cancer risk level, 1 in 100,000ABW = average body weightover exposure duration, 70 kgAT = averaging time, 75 yUCF = unit conversion factor, 106mg/kgCPF = carcinogenic potency factorSIR = soil ingestion rate, 50 mg/dABI = gastrointestinalabsorption fraction, 0.1ED = exposure duration, 20 yEF = exposure frequency, 0.4400May-93EPA (1993c), ROD, OU 01, EPA SuperfundRecord of Decision: American Crossarm &Conduit Co., Chehalis(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1093060.pdf);EPA (2004g), Second Five-Year Review ReportFor 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Residential scenariofor incidental soil ingestion for dioxin, RME,calculated over a lifetime (75 y), upper-bound95thpercentile, Region 10 assumptions.Neither five-year review mention any changesin dioxin-contaminated soil.Available online(RODS database).200for American Crossarm & Conduit Co. SuperfundSite, Chehalis(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f04­For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Industrial scenariofor dioxin; RME for landfill.2,00010004.pdf).For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Industrial scenariofor dioxin; RME for mill.50,000For 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Industrial scenariofor dioxin; RME for treatment areas.December 2009Page B-54

# B.2 REFERENCES

ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation), 2004, Dioxin and the HainesAlaska Pipeline , Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Contaminated Sites

Program (Jan.); http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/docs/hfp/hfpdioxin_factsh_1_04.pdf

. ADEC, 2008a , Cleanup Levels Guidance, Division of Spill Prevention and Response,

Contaminated Sites Program (June 9);

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/guidance/cleanuplevels.pdf

. ADEC, 2008b, Cumulative Risk Guidance, Division of Spill Prevention and Response,

Contaminated Sites Program (June 9);

http://ddoe.dc.gov/ddoe/lib/ddoe/Riggs_Remedy_94.pdf

. ADEM (Alabama Department of Environmental Management), 2008, Alabama Risk-Based

Corrective Action Guidance Manual (April);

http://www.adem.state.al.us/LandDivisi on/Guidance/ARBCAApril2008final.pdf

. ADHS (Arizona Department of Health Sciences), 1999, Deterministic Risk Assessment

Guidance (March 15); http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/oeh/pdf/guidance.pdf

. AFRL (Air Force Research Laboratory), 2008, Record of Decision Air Force Research

Laboratory Soil and Debris Sites Operable Units 4 and 9, Edwards Air Force Base

, CA1570024504, Kern and San Bernardino Counties, CA (May);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008090002438.pdf

. Anderson M., (2009), personal communication from M. Anderson (IDEM, Indianapolis, IN) to

M. Mangino (EPA Region 5, Chicago, IL) (June 19).

APEC (Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission), 2008, Regulation No. 23,

Hazardous Waste Management (April 25);

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/regs/files/reg23_final_080526.pdf

. ARDEQ (Arkansas Department. of Environmental Quality), 2009a, Arkansas Corrective Action

Strategy , Technical Branch, Hazardous Waste Division;

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/hazwaste/branch_tech/risk_assessment.htm

. ARDEQ, 2009b, Hazardous Waste Division-Technical Branch;

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/hazwaste/branch_tech/cas.htm#CAS

. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), 1995, Standard Guide for Risk-Based

Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites , West Conshohocken, PA (DOI:

10.1520/E1739-95R02).

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 1998/2008b, Toxicological Profile

for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins , U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS), Atlanta, GA (Dec.); http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp104.pdf ; Appendix B

(policy guideline) updated Sept. 2008.

ATSDR, 2005, Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual , DHHS, Atlanta, GA;

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHAmanual/index.html

. ATSDR, 2006, Health Consultation: A Review of Soil Data, Marion Pressure Treating Co.,

Marion, Union Parish, LA ;

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/Marion%20Pressure%20Treating%20Company/Mari

onPressureTreatingCoHC013106.pdf

. 

# ATSDR, 2008a, Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) , DHHS, Atlanta, GA (Dec.);

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls (identifies 1998 as date of final [extant] dioxin MRL).

ATSDR, 2008b, Update to the ATSDR Policy Guideline for Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds

in Residential Soil , DHHS, Atlanta, GA (Oct. 15, 73 Federal Register [FR] 61:133; with

minor editorial update Nov. 28, 73 FR 72:484);

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/dioxi n/policy/Dioxin_Policy_Guidelines.pdf

.

December 2009 Page B-55

# AZDEQ (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality), 2007, Title 18. Environmental Quality

Chapter 7. Remedial Action (May 5); http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18

­

07.htm

. Bailey M., 2009, personal communication from M. Bailey (EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA) to

K. Deener (EPA NCEA, Washington, DC) (July 10).

Bates E., Akindele F., Sprinkle D., 2002, American Creosote Site Case Study:

Solidification/Stabilization of Dioxins, PCP and Creosote for $64 per Cubic Yard,

Environmental Progress , 21(2):79-84 (July).

Binder S., Sokal D., Maughan D., 1986, Estimating Soil Ingestion: The Use of Tracer Elements

in Estimating the Amount of Soil Ingested by Young Children

, Archives of Environmental

Health

, 41:341-345.

Borovich J., 2009, personal communication from J. Borovich (Remediation Section, NDEQ) to

M. Beringer (EPA Region 7, Kansas City, KS) (July 13).

Byrd S., 2009, personal communication from S. Byrd (SC Department of Health and

Environmental Control [DHEC], Columbia, SC) to K. Deener (EPA National Center for

Environmental Assessment [NCEA], Washington, DC) (Aug. 5).

CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency), 2002/2003, Air Toxics Hot Spots

Program, Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part II, Technical Support Document for

Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors , Office of Environmental Health Hazard

Assessment (OEHHA), Sacramento, CA (Dec.; Appendix A was updated April 2003);

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/pdf/TSDNov2002.pdf

. CalEPA, 2004, Proposition 65 Status Report, Safe Harbor Levels: No Significant Risk Levels for

Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive

Toxicity , OEHHA, Sacramento and Oakland, CA (June).

CalEPA, 2005a, Human-Exposure-Based Screening Numbers Developed to Aid Estimation of

Cleanup Costs for Contaminated Soil , OEHHA, Sacramento, CA (dated as Nov. 2004

with Jan. 2005 revision); http://www.oehha.ca.gov/risk/pdf/screenreport010405.pdf

. CalEPA, 2005b, Use of California Human Health Screening Levels in Evaluation of

Contaminated Properties (Jan.);

http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Brownfields/documents/2005/CHHSLsGuide.pdf

. CalEPA, 2005c, Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors

, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, OEHHA, prepared by Air

Toxicology and Epidemiology Section, and Reproductive and Cancer Hazard

Assessment Section, Sacramento and Oakland, CA (May);

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot _spots/pdf/May2005Hotspots.pdf

. CalEPA, 2007, Public Health Goal for TCDD in Drinking Water , OEHHA, Pesticide and

Environmental Toxicology Branch (June) (review draft for second public comment

period); http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/PHGDioxin062907.pdf

. CalEPA, 2009a, Air Toxics Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines Part II: Technical Support

Document for Cancer Potency Factors, OEHHA, Air Toxicology and Epidemiology

Branch (May); http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2009/TSDCancerPotency.pdf

. CalEPA, 2009b, Proposition 65 Status Report, Safe Harbor Levels: No Significant Risk Levels

for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing

Reproductive Toxicity , OEHHA, CA (Feb.);

http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/2009FebruaryStat.pdf

. CalEPA, 2009c, Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Values, Appendix H , OEHHA,

CA (July); http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2009/AppendixHexposure.pdf

. CalEPA, 2009d, Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note 2, Interim, Remedial Goals for

Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds for Consideration at California Hazardous Waste

Sites , D.L. Berry and K. Klein, California Departm ent of Toxic Substances Control (May);

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/AssessingRisk/upload/HHRA_Note2_dioxin-2.pdf

.

December 2009 Page B-56

# CDHS (California Department of Health Services), 1986, Report on Chlorinated Dioxins and

Dibenzofurans, Part B, Health Effects of Chlorinated Dioxins and Dibenzofurans (as

cited in CalEPA 2002/2003).

CEHTUF (Center for Environmental and Human Toxicology at the University of Florida), 2005

, Technical Report: Development of Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs) , prepared by

University of Florida, Gainseville, FL, for Division of Waste Management, Florida

Department of Environmental Protection (Feb.);

http://toxicology.ufl.edu/documents/TechnicalFeb05.pdf

. CH2M HILL, 2003, Second Five-Year Review Report for the Vertac Incorporated Superfund

Site, EPA ID: 000023440, Jacksonville, Pulaski County, Arkansas, prepared for

U.S. EPA Region 6; http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f04-06002.pdf

. CH2M HILL, 2005a, Second Five-Year Review for American Creosote Works, EPA ID:

LAD000239814, Winnfield, Louisiana, prepared for U.S. EPA Region 6;

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f05-06003.pdf

. CH2M HILL, 2005b, Second Five-Year Review for the United Creosoting Company Superfund

Site, EPA ID: TXD980745574, Conroe, Montgomery County, Texas, prepared for

U.S. EPA Region 6 (Aug. 29); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f05

­ 06008.pdf

. Clausing P., Brunekreef B., van Wijnen J.J., 1987, A Method for Estimating Soil Ingestion by

Children, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health , 59:73-82.

CODPHE (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment), 2007, Table 1: Colorado

Soil Evaluation Values , Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (Dec.);

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/csev.pdf

. CWLP (City Water, Light & Power), 2005, Supplement to Part 7 of PSD Permit Application,

Additional Impact Analysis for Metals , Springfield, IL;

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r5/r5ard.nsf/c408a2009710018f8625716f004d9038/df97027430f

55b6d862571a3005a188e/$FILE/CWLP%20Metals%20Analysis_3_14_06.pdf

. DoA (U.S. Department of the Army), 1995, No Action Plug-In Record of Decision , Sacramento

Corps of Engineers (Feb.), with cover page, EPA Superfund Record of Decision

, FORT

ORD, EPA ID: CA7210020676, OU 05, Marina, CA, 04/13/1995, EPA/ROD/R09-95/138;

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0995138.pdf

. DoA, 2005, Decision Document, EBS-13 Parcel, Operable Unit 6 , prepared by Tetra Tech Inc.,

Oak Ridge, TN for The Fork Pickett Base Realignment and Closure Office, Blackstone,

VA (May 18); with cover page EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Fork Pickett, EPA ID:

VA2210020705, OU 06, Blackstone, VA, 05/18/2005 , EPA/ROD/R03-05/061 (May 18);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0305061.pdf

. DoA, 2007a, Canal Creek Study Area, Record of Decision for Remedial Action – G-Street

Salvage Yard, Final, U.S. Army Garrison Aberdeen Proving Ground, Environmental

Conservation and Restoration Division, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland (Sept.);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2007030001944.pdf

. DoA, 2007b, Record of Decision: Site 180 (PICA 093) Waste Burial Area, Final, Picatinny, NJ

(Sept.); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2007020002538.pdf

. DeCaprio A.P., McMartin D.N., O’Keefe P.W., Rej R., Silkworth J.B., and Kaminsky L.S., 1986,

Subchronic Oral Toxicity of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin in the Guinea Pig:

Comparisons with a PCB-Containing Transformer Fluid Pyrolysate, Fundamental and

Applied Toxicology

, 6:454-463.

DEDNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control), 1999,

Remediation Standards Guidance under the Delaware Hazardous Substance Cleanup

Act (Dec.);

http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/divisions/awm/sirb/docs/pdfs/misc/remstnd.pdf

.

December 2009 Page B-57

# De Rosa C.T., Brown D., Dhara R., Garrett W., Hansen H., Holler J., Jones D., Jordan-Izaguirre

D., O’Conner R., Pohl H., Xintaras C., 1997, Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds in Soil,

Part 1: ATSDR Interim Policy Guideline, Toxicology and Industrial Health , 13:759-768;

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps21/dioxindt.html

. DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services), 2003, Residential Dioxin Contamination

, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Health Assessment and

Consultation, Atlanta, GA (Sept. 19); http://health.state.tn.us/Environmental/PDFs/hc-e

easygoer.pdf

. DoD (U.S. Department of Defense), 2006, Final Record of Decision, Operable Unite 6, Site 12,

Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC, September 2006 ; with cover sheet EPA

Superfund Record of Decision: Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station, EPA ID:

NC1170027261, OU 06, Havelock, NC, 09/28/2006 EPA/ROD/R2006040001306

(Sept. 28); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001306.pdf

. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2001, Interim Site-Wide Record of Decision for Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory, Site 300, February, 2001; with cover sheet EPA

Superfund Record of Decision, Lawrence Livermore Natl Lab (Site 300) (USDOE), EPA

ID: CA2890090002, OU 08, Tracy, CA, 02/23/2001 , EPA/ROD/R09-01/606 (Feb. 23);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0901606.pdf

. DOE, 2004, Record of Decision, Remedial Alternative Selection for the R-Area Burning/Rubble

Pits (131-R and 131-1R) and Rubble Pile (631-25G) Operable Unit (U), CERCLIS

Number 43, WSRC-RP-2004-4004, Revision 1, May 2004, Prepared by Westinghouse

Savannah River Company LLC, Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC, 29808, prepared for

USDOE under Contract No. DE-AC090-96SR18500; with cover sheet EPA Superfund

Record of Decision: Savannah River Site (USDOE), EPA ID: SC1890008989, OU 43,

Aiken, SC, 08/20/2004 EPA/ROD/R04-04/088 (Aug. 20);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0404088.pdf

. DOE, 2007, Five Year Review of CERCLA Response Actions at the Idaho National Laboratory

, DOE/NE-ID-11201, DOE-NE Idaho Operations Office (Feb.); .

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/CLEANUP.NSF/sites/INEEL/$FILE/DOE-NE-ID-11201

­ R3.pdf (via

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/cleanup.nsf/4c5259381f6b967d88256b5800611592/e0374e

8ab1a731a98825651a004e2031?OpenDocument ).

DoN (U.S. Department of the Navy), 1997, Final Record of Decision, Site 09 — Allen Harbor

Landfill, Naval Construction Battalion Center, Davisville, Rhode Island , prepared by EA

Engineering, Science, and Technology, Bedford, MA for DoN Northern Division, Lester

PA (Sept.); with cover page, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Davisville Naval

Construction Battalion Center, EPA ID: RI6170022036, OU 01, North Kingstown, RI

09/29/1997, EPA/ROD/R01-97/157 (Sept.);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0197157.pdf

. DoN, 2004, Five-Year Review, Operable Units 1 through 5

, Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island,

Oak Harbor, Washington , prepared by The Environmental Company, Inc., Bellevue, WA,

prepared for the DoN Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Engineering Field Activity,

Northwest; http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f04-10003.pdf

. Drustrup B., 2009, personal communication from B. Drustrup (IADNR, Des Moines, IA) to

D. Easley (EPA Region 7, Kansas City, KS) (July 13).

Easthope T., 2006, ATSDR 1,000 ppt dioxin soil standard: Letter from concerned citizens,

environmental groups (subject), email from T. Easthope (Director, Environmental Health

Project, Ecology Center, Ann Arbor, MI), et al., to H. Frumkin (ATSDR/OD) with cc to

A. Yarbrough (ATSDR/OD/HAC), May 2; available via Tittabawassee River Watch

http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/TRW/Request%20to%20atsdr%20to%20clarify%201

000ppt.pdf (accessed June and December, 2009).

December 2009 Page B-58

# EC (Ecology Center), 2004, Dioxin Soil Cleanup Levels in Other States , Ecology Center (Ann

Arbor, MI) source cited in table image available from Tittabawassee River Watch (TRW)

News; http://www.trwnews.net/images/StateCleanup2006.PDF

. FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection), 2005, Technical Report: Development

of Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs) (Feb.);

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/rules/documents/62-777/TableIISoilCTLs4

­ 17-05.pdf

. GADNR (Georgia Department of Natural Resources), 1992, Hazardous Site Response Act,

Chapter 391-3-19-Appendix 1: Regulated Substances and Soil Concentrations that

Trigger Notification ; http://rules.sos.state.ga.us/docs/391/3/19/AP.pdf

. Garoutte J., 2009, personal communication from J. Garoutte (MDHSS, Jefferson City, MO) to M.

Beringer (EPA Region 7, Kansas City, KS) (July 17).

GEPA (Guam EPA)/HDOH (Hawaii Department of Health), 2008, Evaluation of Environmental

Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater (Oct.);

http://hawaii.gov/health/environment al/hazard/pdf/pbvolume1mar2009.pdf

. Goodman D. and Sauer R., 1992, Hepatotoxicity and Carcinogenicity in Female SpragueDawley Rats Treated with 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlordibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD): A Pathology

Working Group Reevaluation

, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology , 15:245-52.

Griffin S., 2009, personal communication from S. Griffin (EPA Region 8, Denver, CO) to

K. Deener (EPA NCEA, Washington, DC) (July 16).

Haney J., 2009, personal communication from J. Haney (Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality [TCEQ], Austin, TX) to A. Davidson (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL)

(Dec. 3).

Hansen E., 2009. personal communication from E. Hansen (MN Pollution Control Agency) to

K. Deener (EPA NCEA, Washington, DC) (Oct. 28).

HDOH (Hawaii Department of Health), 2005, Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites

with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Volume I: Summary Tier 1 Lookup Tables

, prepared by R. Brewer, HI Department of Health, Hazard Evaluation and Emergency

Response (HEER), Honolulu, HI, for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,

Division of Environmental Quality, Saipan, CNMI (Oct.);

http://www.deq.gov.mp/artdoc/Sec8art133ID453.pdf

. HDOH, 2006, Proposed Dioxin Action Levels for East Kapolei Brownfield Site (subject),

memorandum from R. Brewer (Environment al Risk Assessment HEER Office) to

D. Bernstein (Brownfields Coordinator HEER Office) through Barbara Brooks

(Toxicologist, HEER), East Kapolei, O’ahu, HI (March 23);

http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/pdf/dioxinactionlevelsmarch2005.pdf

. HDOH, 2008, Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and

Groundwater - Hawai‘i Edition, Volume 1: User’s Guide , Environmental Management

Division, Honolulu, Hawai’I; http://www.hawaiidoh.org/references/HDOH%202008.pdf

. Heltman J., 2008, EPA Requires Limited Dioxin Cleanup at Dow Site Absent Final Risk Levels

, Risk Policy Report (July 29); Source: Tittabawassee River Watch (TRW) News;

http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/EPA/epa072908.htm

. Hess T., 2009, personal communication from T. Hess (MS Department of Environmental

Quality, Jackson, MS) to K. Deener (EPA NCEA, Washington, DC) (Aug. 10).

Hirschhorn J.S., 1997a, Cleanup Levels for Dioxin Contaminated Soils

, Remediation Journal

, 7(3):63-80 (Summer).

Hirschhorn J.S., 1997b, Two Superfund Environmental Justice Case Studies ;

http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/Cl eanup/two_superfund_environmental_just.htm

(June).

HSOH (2008), see GEPA (2008)/HDOH (2008): Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites

with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater;

December 2009 Page B-59

# http://www.hawaiidoh.org/references/HDOH%202008.pdf ;

http://hawaii.gov/health/environment al/hazard/pdf/pbvolume2app1mar2009.pdf ;

http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental /hazard/pdf/pbvolume2app2to9mar2009.pdf

. IADNR (Iowa Department of Natural Resources), undated, Statewide Soil Standards for

Contaminants in Soil and Groundwater

, Iowa Land Recycling Program ;

http://programs.iowadnr.gov/riskcalc/pages/standards.aspx

. IA General Assembly, 1998, Iowa Administrative Code, Environmental Protection [567],

Chapter 137, Iowa Land Recycling Program and Response Action Standards (Nov. 18)

http://www.iowadnr.gov/land/consites/documents/chap137.pdf

. IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management), 2001, RISC Technical Guide

(Feb. 15); http://www.in.gov/idem/files/risctechguidance.pdf

. IDEM, 2006, Risk Integrated System of Closure, RISC, Provisional 2006 Default Closure Levels

(data sheet), provided in personal communication from Anderson (2009).

IDEM, 2009, RISC Technical Guide, Appendix 1, Default Closure Tables (May 1);

http://www.in.gov/idem/file s/risctech_appendix1_2006_r1.pdf

. Ingersoll C., MacDonald D., Wang N., Crane J., Field L., Haverland P., Kemble N., Lindskoog

R., Severn C., Smorong D., 2001, Predictions of Sediment Toxicity Using Consensus

Based Freshwater Sediment Quality Guidelines

, Archives of Environmental

Contamination and Toxicology , 41:8-21.

IT/OHM (IT/OHM Remediation Services Corp.), 1999a, Remediation Activities at Areas of

Concern 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, and 22. Public Law Parcels 103-339, Harmon Annexes,

Andersen Air Force Base, Guam (Sept.).

IT/OHM, 1999b, Remediation Verification Report for IRP Site 19/Landfill 24, Andersen Air Force

Base, Guam (June).

IT/OHM, 1999c, Remediation Verification Report for Harmon Substation, Andersen Air Force,

Guam (June).

KDHE (Kansas Department of Health and Environment), 2007, Risk-Based Standards for

Kansas Risk Manual B 4th Version (Jun.);

http://www.kdheks.gov/remedial/download/RSK_Manual_07.pdf

. Kimbrough R.D., Falk H., Stehr P.l., Fries G., 1984, Health Implications of

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) Contamination of Residential Soil

, Journal of

Toxicology and Environmental Health , 14(1):47-93.

Kociba R.J., Keyes D.G., Beyer J.E., Cerreon R.M., Wade C.E., Dittenber D.A., Kalnins R.P.,

Frauson L.E., Park C.N., Barnard S.D., Hummel R.A., Humiston C.G., 1978, Results of a

Two-Year Chronic Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pDioxin in Rats

, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology , 46(2):279-303.

KY Legislature, 2009, Kentucky Administrative Regulation ;

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/401/100/030.htm

. LDEQ (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality), 2003a, Recap Table 1 Screening

Option: Screening Standards for Soil and Groundwater ;

http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=bIPYm4ICf9g%3d&tabid=2

930

. LDEQ, 2003b, Title 33 Part V. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, Subpart 1, Table 2

Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes (Mar. 20);

http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/portals/0/planning/regs/pdf/HW083fin.pdf

. Lund, S., 2009, personal communication from S. Lund (GA Department of Natural Resources,

Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, GA) to K. Deener (EPA NCEA, Washington,

DC (Oct. 8).

MacDonald D., Smith S., Wong M., Murdoch P., 1992, The Development of Canadian Marine

Environmental Quality Guidelines , prepared for Interdepartmental Working Group on

December 2009 Page B-60

# Marine Environmental Quality Guidelines and CCME, Environment Canada, Ottawa,

Ontario (121 pp.).

MacDonald D., Ingersoll C., Berger T., 2000, Development and Evaluation of Consensus-Based

Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems

, Archives of Environmental

Contamination and Toxicology , 39:20-31.

MADEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection), 2007, The Massachusetts

Contingency Plan

, 310, CMR 40 (Dec. 14);

http://www.mass.gov/dep/service/regulations/310cmr40.pdf

. MADEP, undated A, Documentation for the S-1 Standards ;

http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/prop_s1.htm

. MADEP, undated B, Documentation for the S-2 Standards ;

http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/prop_s2.htm

. MADEP, undated C, Documentation for the S-3 Standards ;

http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/prop_s3.htm

. MADEP, undated D, UCLs (Upper Concentration Limits) ;

http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/ucls.htm

. Mariner P.E., Jin M., Jackson R.E., 1997, An Algorithm for the Estimation of NAPL Saturation

and Composition from Typical Soil Chemical Analysis

, Ground Water Monitoring and

Remediation , 17(2):122-129.

Martin J., 2009, personal communication from J. Martin (Superfund Branch, KY Department for

Environmental Protection) to G. Taylor (EPA Region 4, Atlanta GA) (Aug. 5).

MDNR (Missouri Department of Natural Resources), 2006, MRBCA Technical Guidance

(Appendices) (Apr.); http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/hwp/mrbca/docs/mrbca-append6

­ 06.pdf

. MEDEP (Maine Department of Environmental Protection), 1997a, Implementation of Remedial

Action Guidelines , Bureau of Remediation & Waste Management, Voluntary Response

Action Program (May 20); http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/rem/documents/fed

dod/rags.pdf

. MEDEP, 1997b, Technical Basis and Background for Soil Cleanup Guidelines Based on Direct

Contact , Bureau of Remediation & Waste Management, Voluntary Response Program

(May 28); http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/federalfacilities/pdf/techbasis.pdf

. MEDEP, 2001, Regulating Agricultural Utilization of Solid Wastes in Maine (March);

http://www.maine.gov/spo/ceo/documents/landuse2006/06i.pdf

. MEDEP, 2009a, Maine Remedial Action Guidelines for all Scenarios, Public Review Draft (July

17) ;

http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/publications /guidance/rags/MERAGS%20APPENDIX%2

01_2_3%20Numbers_Public_Rev_Draft_7-17-09.xls

. MEDEP, 2009b, Technical Basis and Background for the Maine Remedial Action Guidelines

, Draft for Public Review (July 17);

http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/publications/ guidance/rags/MERAG_Basis_Draft_For_P

ublic_Comment_2009_july_14_V2-rhd.DOC

. MIDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality), 1998, More Details on Dioxin 90 ppt

value, Excerpt from Part 201, Generic Soil Direct Contact Criteria

, Technical Support

Document (Aug. 31); http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-whm-hwp-dow

excerpt_of_dcc_tsd_251913_7.pdf

. MIDEQ, 2001, Part 201 Generic Soil Direct Contact Criteria Technical Support Document

, Lansing, MI; http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-whm-hwp

excerpt_of_dcc_tsd.pdf (accessed July 2009; in August 2009, the weblink does not

appear to be functional).

December 2009 Page B-61

# MIDEQ, 2004, Department of Environmental Quality: Dioxin Contamination in the Midland Area

July 2, 2004 ; http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-whm-hwp-Dow

FactsFinal_251769_7.pdf

MIDEQ, 2005, Attachment 6, from Technical Support Document, Part 201 Generic Cleanup

Criteria and Screening Levels, Part 213 Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels (RBSLs)

, Remediation and Redevelopment Division (RRD) (April);

http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-rrd-OpMemo_1-Attachment6.pdf (accessed

July 2009; in August 2009, the weblink does not appear to be functional).

MIDEQ, 2006, Attachment 1, Table 2, Soil: Residential and Commercial, from Technical

Support Document, Part 201 Generic Cleanup Criteria and Screening Levels, Part 213

Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels (RBSLs) , Remediation and Redevelopment Division

(RRD) (Jan.23); http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-rrd-OpMemo_1

­ Attachment1Table2SoilResidential_283553_7.pdf ; from Technical Support Document,

Part 201 Generic Cleanup Criteria and Screening Levels, Part 213 Tier 1 Risk-Based

Screening Levels ; http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3311_4109_9846_30022

­ 101581--,00.html ; http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-rrd-OpMemo_1

­ Attachment6_285488_7.pdf ).

MNDOH (Minnesota Department of Health), 2003, Cancer Risk Assessment for Dioxins

, prepared by MDOH at the request of the Risk Evaluation/Air Modeling Unit,

Environmental Standards and Analysis Section, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

(March 17); www.canceractionny.org/cancerriskassessment.htm

. Mott H.V., 1995, A Model for the Determination of the Phase Distribution of Petroleum

Hydrocarbons at Release Sites

, Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation

, 15(3):157-167.

MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency), 1999, Draft Guidelines: Risk-Based Guidance for

the Soil - Human Health Pathway, Volume 2, Technical Support Document, Working

Draft , MPCA Site Remediation Section (Jan.);

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/cleanup/pubs/srv3_99.pdf

. MPCA, 2008, Second Five-Year Review Report for Ritari Post and Pole Superfund Sit e,

Sebeka, Wadena County, Minnesota, September 2008 , prepared by MPCA, St. Paul,

MN (Sept. 26); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f2008050002503.pdf

MPCA, 2009, Risk-Based Guidance for the Soil - Human Health Pathway, Tier 1 and Tier 2

SRV Spreadsheets (June);

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/cleanup/riskbasedoc.html#pathway

. MSDEQ (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality), 2002, Final Regulations Governing

Brownfield Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment in Mississippi (Feb. 28);

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/pdf/Main_HW-2/$File/HW-2.pdf?OpenElement

. MTDEQ (Montana Department of Environmental Quality), 2007, Table 1: Tier 1 Surface Soil

(0-2 ft) RBSLs (mg/kg) (Oct.); http://deq.mt.gov/rem/hwc/rbca/NewRBCA7

­ 2007/revSurfSoilRBSLs10-07.pdf

. MTDEQ, 2008a, Final Feasibility Study Report, KRY Site , (June), prepared by Tetra Tech EM

Inc., Helena, MT (July 2007);

http://www.deq.state.mt.us/StateSuperfund/KPT/FinalFSJuly2008/FinalFSreportComplie

d.pdf

. MTDEQ, 2009, Attachment C, Soil Screening Process (Dec.);

http://www.deq.state.mt.us/StateSuperfund/vcraguide.asp

. Murray F.J., et al., 1979, Three-Generation Reproduction Study of Rats Given 2,3,7,8­

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) in the Diet

, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology

, 50:241-252.

NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command) Mid-Atlantic, 2007a, Record of Decision, Site

5 Soil, Operable Unit 4 (OU 4), Naval Air Station, Joint Reserve Base, Willow Grove,

December 2009 Page B-62

# Pennsylvania (Sept.);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2007030001999.pdf

. NAVFAC Washington, 2007b, Record of Decision for Sites 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, and 13, Washington

Navy Yard, Washington, DC (Sept.);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008030002103.pdf

. NAVFAC, 2008, Explanation of Significant Difference for Operable Unit 3 Record of Decision,

NAVFAC Southwest , CA2170023533, San Diego, CA (March 17);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e2008090002747.pdf

. NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources), 2005,

Guidelines for Establishing Remediation Goals at RCRA Hazardous Waste Sites

, Division of Waste Management, Hazardous Waste Section (May);

http://wastenot.enr.state.nc.us/hwhome/guidance/pdf/HWScleanup5-05draft.pdf

. NCDENR, 2009, Inactive Hazardous Sites Program Guidelines for Assessment and Cleanup

Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites Branch Health-Based Soil Remediation Goals (Oct.);

http://www.wastenotnc.org/sfhome/stateleadguidance.pdf ;

http://www.wastenotnc.org/soiltable.pdf (updated link and value; see preceding entry)

. NCI/NTP (National Cancer Institute/National Toxicology Program), 1980, Bioassay of a Mixture

of 1,2,3,6,7,8- and 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins for Possible Carcinogenicity

(Gavage Study) , TR 198, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public

Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD;

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/LT_rpts/tr198.pdf

. NDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection), 2009 , Basic Comparison Levels

(Feb. 12); http://ndep.nv.gov/bmi/docs/bcl_calculations_table09.pdf . (Note that the table

title indicates NDEP Basic Comparison Level s 2008, but the footer of this document

identifies the date of February 12, 2009, as supported by the weblink.)

NDEP, 2009, User's Guide and Background Technical Document for NDEP Basic Comparison

Levels (BCLs) for Human Health for the BMI Complex and Common Areas ;

http://ndep.nv.gov/bmi/docs/bcl_guidance09.pdf

. NDEQ (Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality), 2006, Protocol for VCP Remediation

Goals Lookup Tables ;

http://www.deq.state.ne.us/Publica.nsf/23e5e39594c064ee852564ae004fa010/d243c2b

56e34ea8486256f2700698997/$FILE/ATTEBI5L/RG%20Protocol%20August%202006.p

df

. NDEQ, 2008, Nebraska Voluntary Cleanup Program Guidance (Oct.);

http://www.deq.state.ne.us/Publica.nsf/23e5e39594c064ee852564ae004fa010/d243c2b

56e34ea8486256f2700698997/$FILE/VCP%20Guidance%20Oct%202008.pdf

. NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services), 2007, Risk Characterization

and Management Policy, Groundwater Quality Table 2, Appendix A-E with Soil Values

, Hazardous Waste Remediation Bureau (May);

http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/waste/hwrb/documents/rcmp.pdf

. Nightingale S., 2009, personal communication from S. Nightingale (KDHE, Topeka, KS) to

M. Beringer (EPA Region 7, Kansas City, KS) (July 17).

NJDHSS (New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services), 2001 , Public Health

Assessment: Franklin Burn Site (Mar.);

http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/assess/fb_pc.pdf

. NMED (New Mexico Environment Department), 2006, Technical Background Document For

Development of Soil Screening Levels, Revision 4.0 Volume 1 Tier 1: Soil Screening

Guidance Technical Background Document, Table A-1 , Hazardous Waste Bureau and

Ground Water Quality Bureau Voluntary Remediation Program (June);

ftp://ftp.nmenv.state.nm.us/hwbdocs/HWB/guidance_docs/NMED_June_2006_SSG.pdf

.

December 2009 Page B-63

# Nosek J.A., et al., 1992, Toxicity and Reproductive Effects of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pDioxin in Ring-Necked Pheasant Hens

, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health

, 35:187-198.

NTP (National Toxicology Program), 1982, Carcinogenesis Bioassay of 2,3,7,8­

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (CAS no. 1746-01-6) in Osborne-Mendel Rats and B6C3F1

Mice (Gavage Study) , DHHS Publication No. (NIH) 82-1765, Carcinogenesis Testing

Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; National

Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC.

NTP, 2004, Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin

(TCDD) in Female Harlan Sprague-Dawley Rats (Gavage Study), NIH publication

No. 04-4455, NTP TR 521, DHHS, PHS, NIH, Research Triangle Park, NC;

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/LT_rpts/tr201.pdf

. NYDEC (New York Department of Environmental Conservation) and NYDOH (New York State

Department of Health), 2006, New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program,

Development of Soil Cleanup Objectives, Technical Support Document (Sept.);

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/re mediation_hudson_pdf/techsuppdoc.pdf

. NYDEC, 2009, TAGM 4046, Table 3 ; http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/30582.html

. OHEPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency), 2008, Closure Plan Review Guidance for

RCRA Facilities; Table A-3, Residential Risk Based Generic Cleanup Numbers (GCNs)

for Ohio Hazardous Waste Closures ;

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dhwm/cprg/2008CPRG.pdf ;

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dhwm/cprg/GCNTablesExcel.xls

. OHEPA, 2009, Closure Plan Review Guidance for RCRA Facilities , Division of Hazardous

Waste Management (Oct.); http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/32/pdf/2008CPRG.pdf

. OKDEQ (Oklahoma Department of Environment al Quality), Land Protection Division, 2004, Site

Cleanup using Risk-Based Decision Making ;

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/lpdnew/FactSheets/RiskbasedDecisionGuidanceFinal.pdf

. Olsen M., 2009, personal communication from M. Olsen (EPA Region 2, New York, NY) to

K. Deener (EPA NCEA, Washington, DC) (July 16).

ORDEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality), 2000, Guidance for Conduct of

Deterministic Human Health Risk Assessments, Waste Management and Cleanup

Division (May Revision); http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/RBDMGuidance.pdf

. ORDEQ, 2001, Quality Assurance Policy, Policy 760.00, Environmental Cleanup Division

(April 3);

http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/cu /CleanupProgramQualityAssurancePolicy.pdf

. ORDEQ, 2003, Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated

Sites, Land Quality Division, Environmental Cleanup and Tanks Program, Portland, OR

(Sept. 22); http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/RBDMGuidance.pdf

. ORDEQ, 2005, Pre-Calculated Hot Spot Look-Up Tables, Waste Management and Cleanup

Division, Portland, OR (May 31, updates the previous methodology from Oct. 20, 1998);

http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/do cs/cu/PreCalculatedHotSpotLookupTables.pdf

. ORDEQ, 2008, Risk Based Concentrations , Land Quality Division, Portland, OR (Sept. 16);

http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/RBDMTable.pdf

. ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), 1997, Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for

Ecological Endpoints ; as cited in U.S. ACE (2003).

ORNL, 1998, A Guide to the ORNL Ecotoxicological Screening Benchmarks: Background,

Development, and Application, (May);

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/whtppr21.pdf ; as cited in

DEDNREC, 1999, Remediation Standards Guidance under the Delaware Hazardous

Substance Cleanup Act.

December 2009 Page B-64

# PA (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania), 1997, Pennsylvania Bulletin

, Environmental Quality

Board Administration of the Land Recycling Program (Act 2)

, Ingestion Numeric Values,

27:33 (Aug. 16); http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter250/s250.306.html

. PADEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection), 2001, Medium-Specific

Concentrations (MSCs) for Organic Regulated Substances in Soil, Direct Contact

Numeric Values (Nov.24);

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/landrecwaste/lib/landrecwaste/land_recycling/table_3a.p

df

. PADEP, 2002, Land Recycling Program Technical Guidance Manual, 253-0300-100 (June 8);

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/ocrlgs/cwp/view.asp?a=1459&q=518850

. Park H.S and San Juan C., 2000, A Method for Assessing Leaching Potential for Petroleum

Hydrocarbon Release Sites: Multiphase and Multisubstance Equilibrium Partitioning

, Soil and Sediment Contamination , 9(6): 611-632.

Paustenbach D.J., Fehling K., Scott P., Harris M., Kerger B.D., 2006, Identifying Soil Cleanup

Criteria for Dioxins In Urban Residential Soils: How Have 20 Years of Research and

Risk Assessment Experience Affected the Analysis?, Journal of Toxicology and

Environmental Health , Part B, 9:87-145;

http://ndep.nv.gov/bmi/docs/060406_dioxin%20paper.pdf

. PWG (Pathology Working Group), 1990, as reported by Sauer (1990).

RIDEM (Rhode Island and Providence Plantation Department of Environmental Management),

2004, Rules and Regulations for the Investigation and Remediation of Hazardous

Material Releases , Office of Waste Management (Feb.);

http://www.dem.ri.gov/pubs/regs/regs/waste/remreg04.pdf

. Rios Jafolla N., 2009, personal communication from N. Rios Jafolla (EPA Region 3,

Philadelphia, PA) to K. Deener (EPA NCEA, Washington, DC) (July 27).

RMCOEH, UDFPM (Rocky Mount ain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health,

Department of Family and Preventative M edicine, University of Utah), undated, A

Comparison of Dioxin Levels Found in Residential Soils of Davis County Utah with

Those Found in Residential Soils in the Denver Front Range (date is 2001 or later, per

the most recent internal citation);

http://www.wasatchintegrated.org/PDF/Davis%20Dioxin%20Study.pdf

. Sample B.E, Opresko D.M, Suter G.W. II, 1996, Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996

Revisions , ES/ER/TM-86/R3, Health Sciences Research Division, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory, TN, prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental

Management (June); http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm86r3.pdf

. Sauer M., 1990, Pathology Working Group: 2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin in SpragueDawley Rats , PATHCO Inc., submitted to the Maine Scientific Advisory Panel (as cited in

TSG 1990).

SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control), 2004, Evaluation

of the Koppers Inc. Site under the RCRIS Corrective Action Environmental Indicator

Event Code CA723 (Human Exposures) (Aug. 19)

, with attachment , Documentation of

Environmental Indicator Determination (Feb. 1999),

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/pubs/eipdfs/Koppers%20CA725,%20dated%20

August%2019,%202004.pdf

. SCDHEC, 2008, Removal Activities Fact Sheet (May);

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/ pubs/superfund_docs/NytronicsFact%20Sheet

050108FINAL.pdf

. Schantz S.L., Ferguson S.A., Bowman R.E., 1992, Effects of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pDioxin on Behavior of Monkeys in Peer Groups

, Neurotoxicology and Teratology

, 14:433-446.

December 2009 Page B-65

# SDDENR (South Dakota Department of the Environment and Natural Resources), 2009, Lookup

Table for Surface Soil (0-3.2 feet) (Nov. 24);

http://denr.sd.gov/des/gw/LookUpTables/Lookup_Tables.aspx

. Stralka D., 2009, personal communication from D. Stralka (EPA Region 9, San Francisco, CA)

to K. Deener (EPA NCEA, Washington, DC) (July 31).

TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality), Remediation Division, 2005, TCEQ

Regulatory Guidance RG-366/TRRP-22: Tiered Development of Human Health PCLs ;

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/comm_exec/forms_pubs/pubs/rg/rg-366_trrp_22.html

. TDH (Texas Department. of Health), 2003, Health Consultation: Sediments in Stewarts Creek,

Conroe Creosoting Co., prepared under cooperative agreement with ATSDR;

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/epitox/consults/cccsed_hc_fnl.pdf

. Thiel D., Martin S., Goodman B., Sullivan J., 1995, Use of Loading Rates to Establish Dioxin

Criteria for Land Application of Sludge

, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

, 14(8):1443-1450.

Toth K., Somfai-Relle S., Sugar J., et al., 1979, Carcinogenicity Testing of Herbicide 2,4,5­

Trichlorophenoxyethanol Containing Dioxin and of Pure Dioxin in Swiss Mice

, Nature

, 278:548-9.

TRRP (Texas Risk Reduction Program), 2009, Protective Concentration Levels; Tables 1-5 ;

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/trrp/trrppcls.html

. TSG (Toxic Steering Group, linked from MI DEQ 1998), 1990, Carcinogenicity Slope Factor for

2,3,7.8-TCDD: Overview and Recent Developments , Toxic Steering Group Meeting

(July 10); http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-whm-hwp-dow

slope_factor_251918_7.pdf

. TXNRCC (Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Superfund Cleanup Section

Remediation Division), 2000, Proposed Remedial Action Document: Toups State

Superfund Site: Sour Lake, Hardin County, Texas (June);

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/remediation/superfund/register/pdf0100.pdf

. U.S. ACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 2000, Defense Distribution Depot Hill, Utah, Ogden

Site 1, Final Operable Unit 4 Hotspot, Record of Decision: Amendment for Operable

Unit 4 , prepared by Montgomery Watson for the U.S. ACE, Sacramento District (June);

with cover page EPA Superfund Record of Decision Amendment: Ogden Defense Depot

(DLA), EPA ID: UT9210020922, OU 04, Ogden, UT, 08/09/2000 , EPA/AMD/R08-00/533

(Aug. 9); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0800533.pdf

. U.S. ACE, 2003, Record of Decision for Phase III Parcels, Letterkenny Army Depot,

Chambersburg, Pennsylvania , prepared by Weston Solutions, Inc., West Chester, PA,

for U.S. ACE Baltimore District, Baltimore, MD (Aug.); with cover page EPA Superfund

Record of Decision: Letterkenny Army Depot (Se Area), EPA ID: PA6213820503, OU

14, Chambersburg, PA, 08/14/2003 , EPA/ROD/R03-03/065 (Aug. 14);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0303065.pdf

. U.S. ACE, 2004, First Five-Year Review Report for Manchester Annex Superfund Site, Kitsap

County (Sept. 30); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f04-10009.pdf

. U.S. ACE, 2006, Phase IV BRAC Parcels, Groundwater Southeastern (SE) Area, Operable Unit

(OU) 3B and Part of Soil Operable Unit SE OU 8, AEDBR Sites LEAD-016, -114, -115,

Letterkenny Army Depot, Final , 05P-0886-2, prepared by Weston Solutions, Inc., West

Chester, PA, for U.S. ACE Baltimore District, Baltimore, MD (April); with cover page,

EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Letterkenny Army Depot (SE Area), EPA ID:

PA6213820503, OU 15, Chambersburg, PA, 06/07/2006, EPA/ROD/R2006030001362

(June 7); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006030001362.pdf

.

December 2009 Page B-66

# U.S. ACE, 2007, Second Five-Year Review Report for the Wyckoff./Eagle Harbor Superfund

Site, Bainbridge Island, prepared for EPA Region 10 (Sept. 26);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f2007100001727.pdf

. U.S. ACE, 2008 , Second Five-Year Review Report for Standard Steel and Metal Salvage Yard

(USDOT), Anchorage, prepared for EPA Region 10 (March);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f2008100002158.pdf

. U.S. AF (U.S. Air Force), 2002, Final Record of Decision for Harmon Annex Operable Unit,

Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp.,

Lakewood, Co, and EA ES&T, Inc., Yigo, Guam, for AF Center for Environmental

Excellence, Brooks AFB, TX (July 2002); with cover page EPA Superfund Record of

Decision, Andersen Air Force Base, EPA ID: GU6571999519, OU 04, YIGO, GU,

07/02/2002 , EPA/ROD/R09-02/635 (July 2);

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/1d

ca993480c9ecd788257205002bf81e/$FILE/andersen%20ROD%20harmon%20annex.p

df

. U.S. AF, 2003a, Site SS-026 Explosive Ordinance Disposal Range: Record of Decision,

Plattsburgh Air Force Base, Installation Restoration Program, Plattsburgh, NY, (March);

with cover page EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Plattsburgh Air Force Base, EPA

ID: NY4571924774, OU 18, Plattsburgh, NY, 6/20/2003, EPA/ROD/R02-03/022

(June 20); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0203022.pdf

. U.S. AF, 2003b, Final Record of Decision for Urunao Dumpsites 1 and 2, Urunao Operable Unit,

Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp.,

Lakewood, Co, and EA ES&T, Inc., Yigo, Guam, for AF Center for Environmental

Excellence, Brooks AFB, TX (Dec.); with cover page EPA Superfund Record of

Decision, Andersen Air Force Base, EPA ID: GU6571999519, OU 07, YIGO, GU,

12/01/2003 , EPA/ROD/R09-04/002 (Dec. 1);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0904002.pdf

. U.S. AF, 2004a, Final Record of Decision for the Electrical Power Substation Area of Concern

(SS-44) at the Former Griffiss Air Force Base, Air Force Real Property Agency, Rome,

NY, (Nov.); with cover sheet EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Griffiss Air Force Base

(11 Areas), EPA ID: NY4571924451, OU 28, Rome, NY, 03/17/2005, EPA/ROD/R02­

05/015 (Mar. 17, 2005); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0205015.pdf

. U.S. AF, 2004b, Final Record of Decision, Zone D, Operable Unit 10, Landfill 7 and Fire

Protection Area 1, F.E. Warren Air Force Base ( May); with cover sheet EPA Superfund

Record of Decision, F.E. Warren Air Force Base, EPA ID: WY5571924179, OU 10,

Cheyenne, WY 06/21/2004, EPA/ROD/R08-04/104 (June 21);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0804104.pdf

. U.S. AF, 2006, Final ROD for Remedial Action at OU 8, Ellsworth AFB, SD , Air Combat

Command, Ellsworth AFB (June), with cover page, EPA Superfund Record of Decision,

Ellsworth Air Force Base, EPA ID: SD2571924644, OU 08, Ellsworth AFB, SD,

06/07/1996 , EPA/ROD/R08-96/124 (June 7);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0896124.pdf

. U.S. AF, 2007a

, ROD for Sites 7, 16, 17, 31, and 36, Northwest Field OU, Anderson AFB

, Guam , GU6571999519, prepared by EA ES&T, Inc., Yigo, Guam for AF Center for

Engineering and the Environment, Hickham AFB, HI (Aug.);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008090002420.pdf

. U.S. AF, 2007b, Record of Decision to Address Environmental Restoration Program Sites

Operable Unit 34 (Site LF-17), OT-25 Annex Portion of OU-40, and the LTA Cove

Portion of Operable Unit 51(Site SS-63), Langley Air Force Base, Virginia

(Nov.); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008030002117.pdf

.

December 2009 Page B-67

# U.S. AF, 2008a, Record of Decision to Address Surface Water and Sediment at Operable Unit

51 Environmental Restoration Program Site SS-63, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia

(Aug.); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008030002441.pdf

. U.S. AF, 2008b, Record of Decision for Operable Units 21, 23, 35, 37, and 44, Langley Air

Force Base, Virginia (Sept.);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008030002565.pdf

. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1985, Health Assessment Document for

Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins, EPA/600/8-84/014F, NTIS No. PB86-122546, Office

of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (Region 7), 1986, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Ellisville Site, EPA ID:

MOD980633010, Ellisville, MO, 09/29/1986, EPA/ROD/R07-86/006 (Sept. 29);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0786006.pdf

. U.S. EPA, 1987, Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures

of Chlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) , Risk

Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, EPA/625/3-87/012 (updated 1989).

U.S. EPA, 1989a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1, Human Health

Evaluation Manual, Interim Final , Washington, DC, Office of Emergency and Remedial

Response, EPA/540/1-89/002;

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessmen t/ragsa/pdf/rags-vol1-pta_complete.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 5), 1989b, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Laskin/Poplar Oil Co., EPA

ID: OHD061722211, OU 01, Jefferson Township, OH, 06/29/1989, EPA/ROD/R05­

89/091 (June 29); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0589091.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 5), 1989c , EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Wedzeb Enterprises, Inc.,

EPA ID: IND980794374, OU 01, Lebanon, IN, 06/30/1989, EPA/ROD/R05-89/097

(June 30); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0589097.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 6), 1990, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Rogers Road Municipal

Landfill, EPA ID: ARD981055809, OU 01, Jacksonville, Arkansas, 09/27/1990,

EPA/ROD/R06-90/063; http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0690063.pdf

. U.S. EPA, 1991a, Calculation of Risk Based Preliminary Remediation Goals, (December);

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsb/pdf/chapt3.pdf

. U.S. EPA, 1991b, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Standard

Default Exposure Factors , Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER

Directive 9285.6-03.

U.S. EPA, 1992a, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications , EPA/600/8­

91/011B, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.

U.S. EPA (Region 8), 1992b, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Ogden Defense Depot (DLA),

EPA ID: UT9210020922, OU 04, Ogden, UT, 09/28/1992, EPA/ROD/R08-92/061

(Sept. 28); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0892061.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 6), 1993a, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: American Creosote Works,

Inc. (Winnfield Plant), EPA ID: LAD000239814, OU 01, Winnfield, Louisiana,

04/28/1993 , EPA/ROD/R06-93/086;

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0693086.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 7), 1993b, Record of Decision, Ground Water Operable Unit #2, Syntec

Agribusiness, Inc., Verona, Missouri , prepared by EPA (Apr. 8); with cover sheet EPA

Superfund Record of Decision: Syntex Facility, EPA ID: MOD007452154

, OU 02,

Verona, MO, 05/07/1993, EPA/ROD/R07-93/071 (May);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0793071.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 10), 1993c, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: American Crossarm &

Conduit Co., EPA ID: WAD057311094, OU 01, Chehalis, WA, 06/30/1993,

EPA/ROD/R10-93/060 (May);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1093060.pdf

.

December 2009 Page B-68

# U.S. EPA, 1994a, Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) , National Center for

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development and Office of

Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA, 1994b, Superfund Chemical Data Matrix , Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response, EPA 540-R-94-009.

U.S. EPA (Region 10), 1994c, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Naval Air Station, Whidbey

Island (Ault Field), EPA ID: WA5170090059, OU 02, Whidbey Island, WA, 05/17/1994,

EPA/ROD/R10-94/077 (July 2);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1094077.pdf

. U.S. EPA, 1995a, Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil , Region III, Office of Superfund

Programs, EPA/903-K-95-003 (Dec.);

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/info/solabsg2.htm

. U.S. EPA (Region 3), l995b, Region III Biological Technical Assistance Group Screening

Levels -- Draft. (Sept.), as cited in U.S. ACE (2003).

U.S. EPA (Region 3), 1995c, Region III Risk-Based Concentration Tables (Oct. 20).

U.S. EPA (Region 

# 9) , 1995d, EPA Superfund Record of Decision, Fort Ord

, EPA ID:

CA7210020676; Marina, CA, 04/13/1995, EPA/ROD/R09-95/138 (April 13);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0995138.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 6), 1995e, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Southern Shipbuilding, EPA

ID: LAD008149015, OU 01, Slidell, Louisiana, 07/20/1995, EPA/ROD/R06-95/093;

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0695093.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 9), 1996a, Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals , San Francisco CA

(S.J. Smucker, Regional Toxicologist).

U.S. EPA, 1996b, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document

, EPA/540/R-95/128, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (May);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/soil/index.htm#user

U.S. EPA, 1996c, Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide , Publication 9355.4-23, Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response (July);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/soil/pdfs/ssg496.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 10), 1996d, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Standard Steel & Metal

Salvage Yard (USDOT), EPA ID: AKD980978787, OU 01, Anchorage, AK, 07/16/1996,

EPA/ROD/R10-96/141 (July 16);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1096141.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 6), 1996e, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Vertac, Inc., EPA ID:

ARD000023440, OU 02, Jacksonville, Arkansas, 09/17/1996, EPA/ROD/R06-96/102;

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0696102.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 7), 1996f, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Des Moines TCE, EPA ID:

IAD980687933, OU 02, 04, Des Moines, IA, 12/13/1996, EPA/ ROD/ EPA/ROD/R07­

97/030 (Dec. 13) http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0797030.pdf

. U.S. EPA, 1997a, Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST): Annual Update, FY

1997 (July), Office of Research and Development and Office of Emergency and

Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (Region 10), 1997b, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Old Navy Dump/Manchester

Laboratory (USEPA/NOAA), EPA ID: WA8680030931, OU 01, Manchester, WA,

09/30/1997, EPA/ROD/R10-97/201 (Sept. 30);;

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1097201.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 6), 1997c, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Lincoln Creosote, EPA ID:

LAD981060429, OU 01, Bossier, Louisiana, 11/26/1997, EPA/ROD/R06-98/047

(Nov. 26); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0698047.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 8), 1997d, EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Petrochem

Recycling Corp./Ekotek Plant, EPA ID: UTD093119196, OU 01, Salt Lake City, UT,

December 2009 Page B-69

# 12/09/1997, EPA/ESD/R08-98/175 (Dec. 9);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e0898175.pdf

. U.S. EPA, 1998a, Approach for Addressing Dioxin in Soil at CERCLA and RCRA Sites . OSWER

Directive 9200.4-26, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC

(April 13); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedy/pdf/92-00426-s.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 6), 1998b, EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Vertac,

Inc., EPA ID: ARD000023440, OU 02, Jacksonville, Arkansas, 01/12/1998,

EPA/ESD/R06-98/160; http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e0698160.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 5), 1998c, EPA Superfund Record of Decision Amendment:

Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co., EPA ID: MID060174240, OU 03, Dalton Township, MI

, 02/26/1998

, EPA/AMD/R05-98/101 (Feb. 26 );

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0598101.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 6), 1998d, EPA Superfund Record of Decision Amendment: United

Creosoting Co., EPA ID: TXD980745574, OU 02, Conroe, Texas, 10/14/1998,

EPA/AMD/R06-99/032; http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0699032.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 3), 1999a, Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination (Feb. 5);

http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/md/hhpdf/hh_mdd981041601.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 9), 1999b, EPA Superfund Record of Decision, McCormick & Baxter

Creosoting Co., EPA ID: CAD009106527, OU 01, 03, Stockton, CA 03/31/1999

, EPA/ROD/R09-99/044 (Mar. 31);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0999044.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 8), 1999c, Final Superfund Preliminary Closeout Report, Ellsworth Air Force

Base, Rapid City, South Dakota (Sept. 10);

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=090000648018a0b8&dis

position=attachment&contentType=pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 5), 1999d, EPA Superfund Record of Decision Amendment: MacGillis &

Gibbs Co./Bell Lumber & Pole Co., EPA ID: MND006192694, OU 01,03, New Brighton,

MN, 09/30/1999, EPA/AMD/R05-99/147 (Sept. 30);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0599147.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2000a, Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins

, Human

Health Risk Assessment Bulletins , (May);

http://www.epa.gov/Region4/waste/ots/healtbul.htm

. U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2000b, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Soil and Groundwater

Operable Units, Bainbridge Island, Washington, Record of Decision ; with cover sheet

EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor, EPA ID:

WAD009248295, OU 02, 04, Bainbridge Island, WA, 02/14/2000, EPA/ROD/R10-00/047

(Feb. 14); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1000047.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 8), 2000c, EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Ogden

Defense Depot (DLA), EPA ID: UT9210020922, OU 01, Ogden, UT, 09/13/2000,

EPA/ESD/R08-00/564 (Sept. 13);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e0800564.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 9), 2001, EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Tucson

International Airport Area

, AZD980737530, OU 02, Tucson, AZ, 05/04/2001,

EPA/ESD/R09-01/612 (Apr. 4);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e0901612.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2002a, Surface Soil Samples Analytical Results Summary: Poles

Incorporated Dioxin/ Furan Sampling, Oldtown, ID (Aug.);

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/9f3c21896330b4898825687b007a0f33/434

a255cbae5217d88256b560065cb04/$FILE/Soil%20Results.PDF

.

December 2009 Page B-70

# U.S. EPA (Region 6), 2002b, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Marion Pressure Treating,

EPA ID: LAD008473142, OU 01, Marion, Louisiana, 06/28/2002, EPA/ROD/R06-02/009;

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0602009.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 5), 2002c, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Sangamo Electric Dump/

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge (USDOI), EPA ID: IL8143609487, OU 04,

Carterville, IL, 09/12/2002, EPA/ROD/R05-02/044 (Sept. 12);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0502044.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 5), 2003a, Ecological Screening Levels (Aug. 22);

http://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/ca/ESL.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 6), 2003b, Medium-Specific Screening Levels (Feb. 19);

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/LPDnew/HW/02screentable.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2003c, Explanation of Significant Differences for the Record of Decision

for the Test Area North Operable Unit 1-10 (Apr.), with cover sheet EPA Superfund

Explanation of Significant Differences: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (USDOE),

EPA ID: ID4890008952, OU 03, Idaho Falls, ID, 03/26/2003, EPA/ESD/R10-03/133

(Mar. 26); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e1003133.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2003d, EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Arctic

Surplus, EPA ID: AKD980988158, OU 01, Fairbanks, AK, 06/17/2003 , EPA/ESD/R10­

03/009 (Jun. 17); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e1003009.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2003e, Record of Decision, Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection

for the Soil and Groundwater at the Wrigley Charcoal Site, Wrigley, Hickman County,

Tennessee ; with cover sheet EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Wrigley Charcoal

Plant, EPA ID: TND980844781, OU 00, Wrigley, TN, 07/18/2003 EPA/ROD/R04-03/576

(July 18); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0403576.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2003f, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Oeser Co., EPA ID:

WAD008957243, OU 10, Bellingham, WA, 09/18/2003, EPA/ROD/R10-03/135

(Sept. 18); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1003135.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 9), 2003g, Selma Pressure Treating Superfund Site, Record of Decision

Amendment, with cover page, EPA Superfund Record of Decision Amendment, Selma

Treating Co., EPA ID: CAD029452141, OU 01, Selma, CA, 09/30/2003, EPA/AMD/R09­

03/016 (Sept. 30); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0903016.pdf

. U.S. EPA, 2003h Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments , OSWER

Directive 9285.7-53, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC

(Dec. 5); http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/hhmemo.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 9), 2004a, Primary Remediation Goal Table (Oct.);

http://www.epa.gov/region09/superfund/prg/files/04prgtable.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 9), 2004b, Users Guide and Background Technical Document for US EPA

Region 9’s Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG) Table;

http://www.epa.gov/region09/superfund/prg/files/04usersguide.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 2), 2004c, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Vega Baja Solid Waste

Disposal, EPA ID: PRD980512669, OU 01, Rio Abajo Ward, PR, 04/06/2004,

EPA/ROD/R2004020001421 (April 6);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2004020001421.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 2), 2004d, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Franklin Burn, EPA ID:

NJD986570992, OU 01, Franklin Township, NJ, 05/03/2004,

EPA/ROD/R2004020001417 (May 3);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2004020001417.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2004e, Woolfolk Chemical Works Site, OU #3: Amended Record of

Decision, August 27, 2004 ; with cover sheet EPA Superfund Record of Decision

Amendment: Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc., EPA ID: GAD003269578, OU 03, Fort

December 2009 Page B-71

# Valley, GA, 08/30/2004 , EPA/AMD/R04-04/664 (Aug. 30);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0404664.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 1), 2004f , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1, Shpack Landfill

Superfund Site Record of Decision Summary, September 2004 ; with cover sheet EPA

Superfund Record of Decision: Shpack Landfill, EPA ID: MAD980503973, OU 1,

Norton/Attleboro, MA, 09/30/2004 , EPA/ROD/R01-04/694 (Sept. 30);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0104694.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2004g, Second Five-Year Review Report for American Crossarm &

Conduit Co. Superfund Site, Chehalis, Washington (Sept.);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f04-10004.pdf

. U.S. EPA, 2005a, Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, EPA/630/P-03/001F (March);

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=116283 , as cited in VADEQ,

2008c Voluntary Remediation Program Risk Assessment Guidance

. U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2005b, Amendment to the Record of Decision Carolina Transformer Site,

Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina, July 2005; with cover sheet EPA

Superfund Record of Decision Amendment: Carolina Transformer Co., EPA ID:

NCD003188844, OU 1, Fayetteville, NC, 7/22/2005, EPA/AMD/R04-05/038 (July 22);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0405038.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 7), 2005c, Record of Decision, Missouri Electric Works Site, Cape Girardeau,

Missouri, prepared by USEPA, Region VII, Kansas City, Missouri, September 2005; with

cover sheet EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Missouri Electric Works, EPA ID:

MOD980965982, OU 02, Cape Girardeau, IA, 09/28/2005, EPA/ROD/R07-05/052

(Sept. 28); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0705052.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 1), 2005d, Record of Decision Summary Service of New England, Inc

(SRSNE) Site, Southington, Connecticut, September 2005 ; with cover sheet EPA

Superfund Record of Decision, Solvents Recovery Service of New England

, EPA ID:

CTD009717604, OU 03, Southington, Connecticut

, 09/30/2005 , EPA/ROD/R01-05/008

(Sept. 30); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0105008.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 6), 2005e, Second Five-Year Review Report: Rogers Road Municipal Landfill

Superfund Site, EPA ID: ARD981055809, Pulaski County, Arkansas (Sept.) ;

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f05-06017.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2006a, Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection:

Escambia Wood Treating Company: Superfund Site, Operable Unit 01 (Soil), Pensacola,

Escambia County, Florida, February 2006; with cover sheet EPA Superfund Record

of Decision: Escambia Wood – Pensacola, EPA ID: FLD008168346, OU 01, Pensacola,

FL, 02/13/2006, EPA/ROD/R2006040001445 (Feb. 13);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001445.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2006b, Poles, Incorporated Integrated Assessment (May 26);

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/9f3c21896330b4898825687b007a0f33/434

a255cbae5217d88256b560065cb04?OpenDocument

. U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2006c, Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection:

Brown’s Dump Site, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, August 2006; with cover sheet

EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Brown’s Dump, EPA ID: FLD980847016, OU 00,

Jacksonville, FL, 08/24/2006, EPA/ROD/R2006040001161 (Aug. 24);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001161.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2006d, Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection:

Jacksonville Ash Site, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, August 2006; with cover

sheet EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Jacksonville Ash Site, EPA ID:

FLSFN0407002, OU 01, Jacksonville, FL, 08/24/2006, EPA/ROD/R2006040001162

(Aug. 24); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001162.pdf

.

December 2009 Page B-72

# U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2006e, Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection,

Sigmon's Septic Tank Site, Statesville, Iredell County, North Carolina

, September 2006 ;

with cover sheet EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Sigmon’s Septic Tank Service,

EPA ID: NCD062555792, OU I, Irdell, NC, 09/19/2006, EPA/ROD/R2006040001281

(Sept. 19); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001281.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 6), 2006f, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Jasper Creosoting Company

Inc., EPA ID: TXD008096240, OU 01, Jasper, Texas, 09/20/2006,

EPA/ROD/R2006060001482, Region 6 (Sept.);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006060001482.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2006g, Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection:

Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Company: Superfund Site, Operable Unit 02

(Residual Dioxin in Soil), Whitehouse, Duval County, Florida

, September 2006 ; with

cover sheet EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Co.,

EPA ID: FLD991279894, OU 02, Whitehouse, FL, 09/28/2006,

EPA/ROD/R2006040001242 (Sept. 28);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006040001242.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region4), 2007, Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection:

Picayune Wood Treating Site Picayune, Pearl River County, Mississippi (Sept.);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2007040001948.pdf

. U.S. EPA, 2008a, Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook , EPA/600/R-06/096F, National

Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC (dated Sept., released Oct. 30);

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=199243

. U.S. EPA, 2008b, Frequently Asked Questions on the Update to the ATSDR Policy Guideline

for Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds in Residential Soil , OSWER 9285.7-84FS

(Dec.); http://www.epa.gov/superfund/additions.htm ;

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/92-857-84fs.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 9), 2008c, Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants (previous PRG

table).

U.S. EPA (Region 10), 2008d, First Five Year Review Report for Arctic Surplus Salvage Yard

Superfund Site , ARCSF 24-6, Fairbanks, Alaska (Dec.);

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/CLEANUP.NSF/sites/fiveyr/$FILE/Arctic%20Surplus%20Firs

t%20121808.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 4), 2008e , Lower Roanoke River, Weyerhaeuser Operable Unit 2, Martin

County, NC, Part 2: The Decision Summary (Sept.);

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2008040002458.pdf

. U.S. EPA, 2009a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health

Evaluation Manual, Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment

, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Washington, DC (Jan.)

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsf/pdf/partf_200901_final.pdf

. U.S. EPA (Region 3), 2009b, Mid-Atlantic Risk Assessment, Human Health Risk Assessment,

Risk-Based Concentration Table ; http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/index.htm

(last updated May 2009, accessed November 2009).

U.S. EPA, 2009c, Record of Decision System (RODS), online database, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response, Washington, DC; http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods

(last updated June 3, 2009; accessed December 2009).

U.S. EPA (Region 9), 2009d, Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals ;

http://www.epa.gov/region09/superfund/prg / (page last updated May 27, 2009; accessed

December 2009).

U.S. EPA (Region 3), 2009e, Regional Screening Level (RSL) Table Residential Soil (April);

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb

concentration_table/Generic_Tables/index.htm ;

December 2009 Page B-73

# http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb

concentration_table/Generic_Tables/pdf/ressoil_sl_table_run_APRIL2009.pdf (page last

updated June 8, 2009; accessed December 2009).

U.S. EPA (Region 3), 2009f, User’s Guide (for the Risk-Based Concentration Table) , MidAtlantic Risk Assessment; http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb

concentration_table/usersguide.htm#parameters (page last updated May 20, 2009;

accessed December 2009,).

U.S. EPA, 2009g, EPA’s Science Plan for Activities Related to Dioxins in the Environment

, Washington, DC (May 26); http://www.epa.gov/dioxin/scienceplan ;

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=209690

. UT, 2006, Utah LUST Program Screening Levels for Soil and Groundwater (Summer);

http://www.undergroundtanks.utah.gov/docs/tank_news_sum06.pdf

. VADEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality), 2008c, Voluntary Remediation Program

Risk Assessment Guidance (Sept. 10); http://www.deq.virginia.gov/vrprisk/raguide.html

. VADEQ, 2009a, Table 2.9, Selection of Contaminants of Concern Soil: Restricted

(Commercial/Industrial) , Voluntary Remediation Program (June 23);

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/vrprisk/files/screen/vrp29.xls

. VADEQ, 2009b, Table 2.5, Selection of Contaminants of Concern Soil: Unrestricted

(Residential), Voluntary Remediation Program (July 8);

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/vrprisk/files/screen/vrp25.xls

VADEQ, 2009c, Table 4.2, Cancer Toxicity Data (July 8);

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/ default/vrprisk/files/toxicity/vrp42.xls

. Van den Berg M., et al., 1998, Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for

Humans and Wildlife

, Environmental Health Perspectives , 106(16):775-792;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533232 /

. Van den Berg M., et al., 2006, The 2005 World Health Organization Re-evaluation of Human

and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds

, Toxicological Sciences , 93(2):223-241 (July);

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprin t/93/2/223?ijkey=pio0gXG6dghrndD&keytype=re

f

. VTDEC (Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation), undated, Brownfields Reuse

Initiative, Cleanup Standards and Guidance ;

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/SMS/RCPP/Cleanup-Stand-Guid.htm

. WADEC (Washington State Department of Ecology), 1998, Fact Sheet: Controlling Metals and

Dioxins in Fertilizers, Ecology Publication #98-1251-HWTR, Olympia, WA (Jan.)

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/news/1998news/fert.html

. WADEC, 2007, Model Toxics Control Act Statute and Regulation, Publication No. 94-06, Toxics

Cleanup Program, Olympia, WA (Nov. Revision); http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/9406.pdf

. WADEC, 2009, Cleanup Levels and Risk Calculations (CLARC Database Search)

, https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/clarc/Reporting/CLARCReporting.aspx

. Wheat G., 2000, [USCC] Dioxins and Furans (WI DNR, May 10 email, identifies concentrations

from WI Dept. of Health and Family Services, Division of Health, and Dept. of Natural

Resources, Division of Watershed Management;

http://mailman.cloudnet.com/pipermail/compost/2000-May/006755.html ; cites Thiel et al.

(1995) and WI Dept. of Health memo (May 4, 1994) from Goldring, Bureau of Public

Health, subject: "Revision of DOH Gui delines for Dioxin in Landspread Sludge.”

White K.L. Jr., Lysy H.H., McCay J.A., et al., 1986, Modulation of Serum Complement Levels

Following Exposure to Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxin s, Toxicology and Applied

Pharmacology , 84:209-219.

WHO (World Health Organization), 2005, Project for the Re-evaluation of Human and

Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) of Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds

,

December 2009 Page B-74

# Interational Programme on Chemical Safety, Chemicals Assessment (with link to Van

den Berg et al., 2006); http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/tef_update/en /

. WIDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources), 2005, Overview and Composting

Product Approval , WI-613-05 (May)

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/wm/publications/anewpub/WA613.pdf

. Wright D., 2009, personal communication from D. Wr ight (Division of Remediation, MEDEP) to

M. McDonough (EPA Region 1, Boston, MA) (July 23).

WVDEP (West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection), 2001, Voluntary Remediation

and Redevelopment Act Guidance Manual, Version 2.1 (March 13);

http://www.wvdep.org/Docs/3200_Rem ediationGuidanceVersion2-1.pdf

. WYDEQ (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality), 2009, Fact Sheet #12: Soil Cleanup

Level Look-up Table , Voluntary Remediation Program (Jun. 30);

http://deq.state.wy.us/volremedi/downloads/Current%20Fact%20Sheets/FS_12.pdf

.

December 2009 Page B-75