RECEIVED
CLERK'S OFFICE
MAY 0 6 2008
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control Board
Ice
ORIGINAL
•
._?•
Alisa, I couldn't remember if I sent you a copy of the DRAS User Alert
so here it is (the pdf) along with a few other items requested by Mike.
Mike, here also are the spreadsheet and word document regarding the
toxicity reference value updates.
(See attached file: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0984-0032.pdf)(See attached file:
COCsWupdates0206.xls)(See attached file: DRAS_Tox Data - R5.doc)
Mike, I will also be looking into the support document to double-check
the SI DAFs. Please contact me with any additional questions. Let me
know if either of you require an Agency reperesentative at the hearing.
Thanks,
Todd D. Ramaly
Environmental Scientist
RCRA Programs Section
U.S. EPA - Region 5
(312) 353-9317
From:
?
<Ramaly.Todd@epamail.epa.gov>
To:
?
MMaxwell@weaverboos.com; LiuA@ipcb.state.il.us
Date:
?
5/6/2008 10:31:24 AM
Subject:
?
DRAS issues
User Alert for DRAS Version 2
In using Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) version 2, EPA has identified
certain problems and is currently developing version 3 to address these known problems. The
model can still be used for its intended purpose by user over-rides to the input variables and in
some cases, performing necessary correction calculations by hand. However, EPA would like
users to be aware of the following:
(1)
Incorrect Landfill Dilution and Attenuation Factors for 13 constituents:
Constituent
DRAS ver. 1.1
DAF
DRAS ver. 2.0
DAF
Correct
DAF
Cobalt
10
0
10
Iron
10
0
10
Magnesium
10
0
10
Manganese
10
0
10
Molybdenum
10
0
10
Tin
10
0
10
Ally! chloride
10
0
18
Chloro-1,3 butadiene, 2-chloropropene
10
0
18
methyl chloride (chloromethane)
10
0
18
2-nitropropane
10
0
18
1,1-dichloroethane
1
1
18
1,2-dichloroethane
1
1
18
dimethyl phthalate
1
1
18
(2)
When selecting chemicals of concern (COCs) in steps 4 and 5, COCs with both carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenic effects need to be entered twice. After doing so, you must scroll to the right
along the row of that COC's properties until you get to a drop-down menu near the end that
allows you to select
noncarcinogen
or
carcinogen.
Make sure there is one of each for COCs
with both effects. Also note that the default for this drop down box is
noncarcinogen,
so in the
case of something like dioxin (where we only have toxicological data for carcinogenic effects)
you must correct the selection to
carcinogen.
LI
(3) The backward calculations are not working for the fish ingestion and air volatiles pathways.
Since the limiting pathways screen is based on the backward calculations, do not use the limiting
pathways screen. Instead, review the pathways listed on the hazard quotient and risk results
screens instead of relying on the limiting pathways screen. If the fish ingestion or air volatiles
pathways are represented as part of the calculated hazard quotient or risk, use the following
technique to calculate the delisting level corresponding to the forward calculations:
The observed concentration's relationship to the DRAS-calculated hazard quotient or risk
level is the same as the "allowable level" concentration's relationship to the target hazard
quotient or risk level. Thus, a simple ratio relationship exists, as shown in the equation
on the next page. Solving for the unknown allowable level means multiplying the target
hazard quotient or risk level by the observed concentration, and then dividing by the
DRAS-forward-calculated hazard quotient or risk level, as follows:
Observed Concentration
Allowable Delisting Level
DRAS Estimated Risk or Hazard Quotient Target Cancer Risk or Hazard Quotient
Allowable Delisting Level = Target Cancer Risk or Hazard Quotient x ?
Observed Concentration
DRAS Estimated Risk or Hazard Quotient
(5) A unit conversion error occurred in the air volatiles pathway equations.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
MEMORANDUM
DATE:?
February 3, 2006
SUBJECT:?
Updates to DRAS Toxicity Values
FROM:?
Mario Mangino, PhD, Toxicologist
Todd D. Ramaly, Environmental Scientist
Waste Management Branch (DW-8J)
U.S. EPA Region5
TO:?Regional Delisting Staff
In keeping with our attempt to produce an updated Version 3 of the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS), we've reviewed all of the toxicity reference data in the current version of DRAS
for outdated or errant values. To do so, we downloaded the 2004 version of the Region 9
Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) and compared the toxicity reference values to those in
DRAS. We also reviewed IRIS for any other changes which may have occurred after the 2004
PRG table was prepared.
Some of the updates were straightforward such as an unambiguous revision to IRIS. Other
discrepancies required the review of a toxicologist. Dr. Mario Mangino reviewed the information
and, based on his observations, we submit the following recommendations for your consideration.
Our goal is to achieve as great a degree of consensus on these values so that the default
references loaded into DRAS represent the majority of EPA users. This will hopefully limit the
need for region-specific changes and promote consistency. The comparison was carried out
within Excel and was further subdivided into several tables defined by various categories (excel
file attached). The Excel spreadsheet is attached. Please note that we followed the
Memorandum from Michael B. Cook, Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation (OSRTI) to Superfund National Policy Managers, Regions 1 - 10, OSWER Directive
9285.7-53, December 2003
pertaining to toxicity data hierarchy as did Region 9 in developing the
2004 PRG list.
Evaluation and Recommendations on the Attachments:
Table 1 - Where DRAS v2 and R9 data match and the toxicity data is based on IRIS, PPRTV,
HEAST, or NCEA, the values will be kept in DRAS. These instances are summarized in Table 1 -
Constituents with No Change
Evaluation and Recommendations: No toxicology review is necessary.
Table
2 -
Where DRAS v2 differed from R9 and the R9 data was based on IRIS, PPRTV, HEAST,
or NCEA, U.S. EPA will update DRAS v2 accordingly. These instances are summarized in Table
2 -
Updates to DRAS based on IRIS, PPRTV, NCEA, and HEAST.
Evaluation and Recommendations: No toxicology review is necessary.
Table 3 - Many R9 toxicity values are based on route-to-route extrapolation. These may or may
not be appropriate for a screening scenario like DRAS where constituents may have been
detected in waste, but not in the environment. These instances are referred to U.S. EPA
toxicologists for review and are summarized in Table 3 - R9 Route to Route Extrapolations.
1
Evaluation and Recommendations:
To get a handle on this rather complicated issue, we first reviewed several e-mail responses from
other Agency personnel to inquiries on this subject (memos attached).
Based on the responses from Becky Cuthbertson (OSW) and Dr. Rob Dewoskin (RTP), it is
apparent that there is no EPA policy recommending that this practice should never be used. It
looks like the Agency has used the procedure in some analyses that were performed to support
regulatory determinations for specific constituents. In those cases, the Agency apparently
evaluated chemical-specific factors which would justify using the practice.
As mentioned by Dr. Dewoskin, the only formal Agency guidance which appears to directly
address this issue is a document titled: "Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference
Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry" (ORD 1994). This document has a
section titled: "Route-to-Route Extrapolation." It explains that route-to-route extrapolation is often
conducted when the database for toxicity of a chemical by inhalation is inadequate, but significant
data from another pathway (usually the oral route) are available. But there are often so many
uncertainties involved in making a valid comparison of a chemical's fate and action by the two of
routes that the practice is not justified. Toxicity data from the oral route are the most common
data available to use as a surrogate to derive inhalation parameters. The guidance document
states that oral route data should not be employed for route-to-route extrapolation in the following
cases:
Oral toxicity data are the most common data available
,
as alternatives to inhalation data.
Oral data should not be used for Dente-to-route extrapolation in the following instance=
(1) when groups of chemicals are expected to have differ ern. toxicity by the two
routes; for example, metals, irritants, and sensitizers;
f2) when a first-pass effect by the respiratory tract is expected;
4-5
(3)
when a futpass effect by the livio
atpeut4
(4)
when a respiratory tract effect is established, but dosimetty compriso►
cannot he clearly established between the two routes;
(5)
when the respiratory tract was not adequately studied in the oral studies;
and
(6)
when short-ten inhalation studios, dermal irritation, in vitro studios, or
characteristics of the chemical indicate potential for portakkeatry effects at
the
respiratory tract, but studies themselves am not adequate for an Rfc
development
From the above caveats, we believe the easiest to evaluate for a large group of chemicals are
probably # (1) and # (6). These criteria involve the likelihood that a chemical acts on the lung or
respiratory tissue because it is an irritant or sensitizer, or because it enters the lung as a
2
particulate (many metals and metal compounds); or the chemical exhibits significant acute
toxicity by inhalation.
Dr. Mangino evaluated all of the chemicals in Table 3 for evidence that one or more of the
characteristics described in caveats #(1) and #(6) above would apply. In particular, he looked for
information on which chemicals possessed acute inhalation exposure criteria or "short-term"
emergency exposure criteria in ambient air which would identify them as respiratory irritants,
sensitizers, debilitaters, or as acute toxins.
He used the following databases for the evaluation:
(a) EPA's database for chemicals determined to be extremely hazardous substances after
release to ambient air. These include chemicals assigned an EPA Level of Concern (LOC) as
found in the document: "Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis: Emergency Planning for
Extremely Hazardous Substances" (OSWER; 1987).
(b) Emergency Planning Response Guideline (ERPG) values for protection of the general public
from the acute toxic and/or debilitating effects of chemicals in ambient air. ERPGs are developed
by the American Industrial Hygiene Association
(http://www.orau.qov/emi/scapa/erpqdefinitions.htm)
(c)
U.S. DOE Temporary Emergency Exposure Limit (TEEL) values for protection of Federal
workers and contractors at DOE facilities from the acute toxic and/or debilitating effects of
chemicals in ambient air. TEELs are developed by methodologies similar to the ERPGs but
include more chemicals (http://www.orau.gov/emi/scapa/teels.htm)
(d) NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) values for work place exposure. This would
encompass chemicals that have been assigned a specific time-concentration exposure limit in
ambient air because they are documented to be respiratory irritants (even for a healthy worker) in
ambient air in the absence of exposure protection. (<www.cdc.gov
/niosh
/92-100.html>)
Table 3 chemicals found in (a):
Acrylamide; Aldrin; Benzyl Chloride; o-Cresol; Endosulfan; Endrin; Disulfoton; Furan; N-
Nitrosodimethylamine; Parathion; Pentachlorophenol; Phenylmercuric acetate; Phorate;
Table 3 chemicals found in (b):
Allyl chloride; Benzyl Chloride; Carbon tetrachloride; Methanol; Phenol; Trichloroethane (-1,1,1
and -1,1,2); Hexachlorobutadiene
Table 3 chemicals found in (c):
Acrylamide; allyl chloride; aniline; benzo[a]pyrene; 2,4-dinitrophenol; dibenzo[a,h]anthracene;
strychnine; hexachloroethane; hexachlorophene; chloromethane; tribromomethane; methanol;
heptachlor; 1,2-dichloropropane; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane; 1,1,1,2-
tetrachloroethane; pentachloronitrobenzene; diethylphthalate; dibutylphthalate;
pentachlorophenol; 2-chloronaphthalene; 3,3'-dichlorobenzidene; o-cresol; p-cresol; m-cresol;
o-toluidene; 2-chlorophenol; 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene; 2,4,5-trichlorophenol; 1,3,5-
trinitrobenzene; 1,3-dinitrobenzene; p-chloroaniline; pyridine; hexachlorobenzene;
hexachlorobutadiene; 3,3'-dimethoxybenzidine; 2,4-dichlorophenol; pentachlorobenzene; DDE;
Table 3 chemicals found in (d):
Acetone - nose and throat irritant
Acetonitrile - nose and throat irritant
3
Bromoform - respiratory irritant
Dichlorobenzenes (all isomers) - upper respiratory irritants
Dichloroethylenes (all isomers) - mucous membrane irritants; narcosis;
Dimethylphthalate - upper respiratory irritant
Ethyl acetate - respiratory and eye irritant
Methyl acetate - upper respiratory irritant
Pentachlorophenol - upper respiratory irritant
Phenylenediamine - bronchial irritant and asthma inducer
Strychnine - convulsions
Trichloropropane - mucous membrane irritant; narcosis;
Consequently, for the above chemical constituents, we recommended against using route-to-
route extrapolation from oral route data to derive inhalation toxicity factors.
For the remainder of the chemicals in Table 3, the use of the route-to-route extrapolation in DRAS
could be adopted on the basis that direct exposure effects of the remaining chemicals on the lung
or respiratory system (of humans or animals) could not be identified. However, there could still
be some significant uncertainties in the reliability of inhalation toxicity factors derived in this way.
The primary uncertainty would probably be due to the rate of metabolism of a given chemical in
the liver or lung and how that factor affects the ultimate level of absorption and transport to target
organs. In the event that one of these route-to-route values becomes the basis for potentially
denying a delisting petition, Region 5 recommends that the reference value be further
investigated to reduce this uncertainty. In order to carry on the evaluation further, published
literature studies on the metabolism or pharmacology of the individual chemicals would need to
be located and reviewed.
The discussion above covers the concept of using route-to-route extrapolation from oral route
data to derive inhalation toxicity factors. In Table 3, there are also some instances where DRAS
lists oral toxicity factors that were apparently derived from IRIS verified inhalation toxicity factors.
The use of this extrapolation procedure would also be subject to uncertainty. But, for the
purposes of making an expedited screening level evaluation, we propose the following caveat:
the route-to-route extrapolation from inhalation to oral should only be used when there is well
documented evidence that exposure via the inhalation route results in adverse effects at organs
or organ systems that are distant from the lung and respiratory tract (e.g., liver, kidney, thyroid,
sex organs). The evaluation based on applying the above caveat is shown below:
RfDo for Acetonitrile: IRIS reports health effects distant from the lung, therefore the route-to-
route extrapolation is satisfactory.
RfDo for Benzyl chloride: R9 lists an RfC referenced to NCEA. Until we are able to verify the
health effects reported in this reference, we recommend not using the route to route
extrapolation.
RfDo for Chiorodifluoromethane: IRIS reports health effects distant from the lung, therefore the
route-to-route extrapolation is satisfactory.
RfDo for Chloromethane: Because IRIS states that exposure to chloromethane can essentially
occur only through the vapor phase, derivation of an oral toxicity factor is not necessary.
RfDo for 3-Chloropropene (Allyl chloride): IRIS reports peripheral neurological effects in humans
and liver and kidney degenerative effects in lab animals; under the assumption that oral
exposure could occur to Allyl Chloride, the route-to-route extrapolation is satisfactory;
RfDo for 1,2-Dichloropropane: IRIS reports that the observed adverse effects were seen only in
the nasal tissue and respiratory epithelium; therefore, route-to-route extrapolation should not be
used;
4
RfDo for 2-Nitropropane: IRIS reports development of focal hepatocellular nodules and focal liver
necrosis in lab animals with no significant effects on the respiratory tract; under the assumption
that oral exposure could occur to Nitropropane, the route-to-route extrapolation is satisfactory;
Table 4 - Approximately 26 potential waste constituents have provisional toxicity data, multiple
CAS identification numbers, valence states, or toxicity data based on a mixture of compounds
and are submitted to U.S. EPA toxicologists for review. These constituents are summarized in
Table 4 - Constituents Requiring Toxicologist Review.
Evaluation and Recommendations:
The following acronyms and conversion algorithms are used in the evaluation:
CSFo - Oral Cancer Slope Factor
CSFi - Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor
IUR – Inhalation Unit Risk (cancer)
RfDo – Oral Reference Dose
RfDi – Inhalation Reference Dose
RfC – Inhalation Reference Concentration
Cal EPA – California EPA
Conversion of RfC to RfDi :
RfDi (mg/kg-day) = RfC (mg/m3 ) x (20 m3/day) x (1/70 kg)
Conversion of IUR to CSFi :
CSFi ='
?(ug/m3 ) x (1 day/20 m
3) x (70 kg) x (1000 ug/mg)
Acrvlohitrile
1)
There is a single listed CAS number – therefore no problem
2)
The listed DRAS CSFo is found in IRIS – therefore retain
3) An IUR value of 6.8E-05 (ug/m 3) -1
is found in IRIS – should use this value to calculate
CSFi;
Then calculated CSFi is 0.238 (mg/kg-day) ; same as listed DRAS value – therefore retain
4)
An RfC value of 0.002 mg/m
3 is found in IRIS – should use this value to calculate RfDi;
Then calculated RfDi is 0.00057 mg/kg-day; therefore change listed DRAS value;
Arsenic
1)
The listed DRAS values for CSFo and RfDo are correct values based on IRIS;
2) An IUR value of 4.3E-03 (ug/m
3) -1 is found in IRIS – should use this value to calculate
CSFi. Then calculated CSFi is 15.05 (mg/kg-day) -1
;
same as listed DRAS value – therefore
retain;
5
3) Note: IRIS has only one set of toxicity factors for Arsenic; these should be applied to
analytical data for Ar(III), Ar (V), or "Total" Arsenic. For purposes of evaluating arsenic
risk, EPA generally evaluates arsenic risk as "Total arsenic" unless a specific regulation
spells out how arsenic should be analyzed and reported. If the DRAS program directs
Responsible Parties to report results for Ar(III) and Ar (V), there is still only one set of
toxicity factors available.
4)
Don't need to use CaIEPA values.
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1) The listed DRAS CSFo value of 0.073 (mg/kg-day) -1 is correct based on use of the TEF
factor approach based on the CSFo for Benzo(a)pyrene.
2)
The listed DRAS CSFi of 0.031 (mg/kg-day) -1 is the result of applying the TEF factor
approach based on the EPA-Region 4 finding of a published inhalation exposure study
for Benzo(a)pyrene in hamsters as reported by NCEA. This approach is more specific
than just assuming route-to-route extrapolation from oral-to-inhalation exposure and
therefore acceptable. This approach may be superseded when the Agency publishes a
new IRIS file for PAHs (if ever).
Benzo(a)anthracene
The currently listed DRAS values are correct. [The listed CSFi of 0.31 (mg/kg-day) -1 is
acceptable based on the same rationale used above for Benzo(k)fluoranthene.]
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
The currently listed DRAS values are correct. [The listed CSFi of 0.31 (mg/kg-day) -1 is
acceptable based on the same rationale used above for Benzo(k)fluoranthene.]
Benzo(a)pyrene
The currently listed DRAS values are correct. [The listed CSFi of 3.1 (mg/kg-day) is acceptable
based on the same rationale used above for Benzo(k)fluoranthene.]
Chlordane
1) The listed DRAS CSFo and CSFi values are the same as IRIS values – therefore retain;
2) An RfC value of 0.0007 mg/m 3 is found in IRIS – should use this value to calculate RfDi;
Then calculated RfDi is 0.0002 mg/kg-day; therefore change listed DRAS value;
3) IRIS states that the toxicology studies used to derive the toxicity factors were performed
by administering "Technical grade" Chlordane to animals for both the oral and inhalation
exposure routes. IRIS gives a definition of Technical grade Chlordane. Therefore, if the
Responsible Party performs an analysis for Technical grade Chlordane or some other
form of Chlordane, there is only one set of toxicity factors.
Chloroethane (Ethyl Chloride)
1) An RfC value of 10 mg/m
3 is found in IRIS – should use this value to calculate RfDi;
6
Then calculated RfDi is 2.86 mg/kg-day; therefore change listed DRAS value;
2) The other listed DRAS toxicity values are correct.
3)
The oral cancer slope factor could not be verified and a superseded document from
NCEA did not match with R9's estimates of the inhalation slope factor, therefore we do not
recommend that the carcinogenic toxicity factors be left blank at this time.
Chloroform
1) When the IRIS file for chloroform was revised (Oct. 2001), EPA made a significant change in
its interpretation of the toxicological evidence. In particular, IRIS determined that ingested
chloroform acts by non-linear Mode of Action - chloroform must induce cytotoxicity as a
prerequisite for the induction of tumors in rodents. In addition, at dose levels below the oral RfD,
chloroform does not induce the level of cytotoxicity and regenerative hyperplasia needed to
induce the tumorigenic response. Therefore, the RfD was determined to be an adequate dose
benchmark for cancer prevention. The following is the explanation found in the IRIS file:
In the case of chloroform, the mode of action of carcinogenicity is reasonably well understood. Available
data indicate that chloroform is not strongly mutagenic and chloroform is not expected to produce rodent
tumors via a mutagenic mode of action (ILSI, 1997). Rather, there is good evidence that carcinogenic
responses observed in animals are associated with regenerative hyperplasia that occurs in response to
cytolethality (ILSI, 1997; U.S. EPA, 1998a,b). Because cytolethality occurs only at exposure levels above
some critical dose level, a nonlinear approach is considered the most appropriate method for characterizing
the cancer risk from chloroform.
The Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1996) state that when the mode-of-
action analysis based on available data indicates that "the carcinogenic response is secondary to another
toxicity that has a threshold, the margin-of-exposure analysis performed for toxicity is the same as is done
for a noncancer endpoint, and an RfD for that toxicity may be considered in the cancer assessment." For
chloroform, available evidence indicates that chloroform-induced carcinogenicity is secondary to cytotoxicity
and regenerative hyperplasia; hence, the Agency relies on a nonlinear dose-response approach and the use
of a margin-of-exposure analysis for cancer risk. The Agency has also chosen not to rely on a mathematical
model to estimate a point of departure for cancer risk estimate, because the mode of action indicates that
cytotoxicity is the critical effect and the reference dose value is considered protective for this effect.
For more discussion of margin of exposure (MOE), see the Toxicological Review for Chloroform. Based on
the kidney tumor of the drinking water study (Jorgenson et al., 1985), a point of departure (Pdp or LED10) of
23 mg/kg/day can be calculated using quantitative modeling of tumor dose-response data. Comparing the
Pdp to the RfD of 0.01 mg/kg/day leads to a MOE of 2,000, which is considered large. Thus, in this case, the
RfD for noncancer effect is also considered adequately protective of public health for cancer effects by the
oral route, on the basis of the nonlinear dose response for chloroform and the mode of action for both
cancer and noncancer effects having a common link through cytotoxicity.
Conclusion: DRAS should delete the existing CSFo for chloroform; and the Cal EPA cancer
slope factor should not be adopted.
2)
The listed DRAS CSFi value should be rounded off to 0.081 (mg/kg-day) -1.
3) The listed DRAS RfDo value from IRIS is acceptable to use.
4)
Since the NCEA value for the RfC is 0.049 mg/m
3
, the RfDi should be listed as 0.014
mg/kg-day.
Chromium
7
1)
For Cr(III), IRIS states that the following factors cannot be developed: RfC (RfDi), CSFo,
and IUR (CSFi); therefore delete those values from DRAS; for Cr(III), DRAS should list
only an RfDo of 1.5 mg/kg-day.
2)
For Cr (VI), the listed DRAS RfDo is correct;
3) Since the IRIS RfC is 8E-06 mg/m3
, the DRAS RfDi should be 2.3E-06 mg/kg-day; This
RfDi would be for Cr(VI) mists and aerosols (e.g., chromium plating operations). If the
potential exposure is more likely to be from Cr(VI) particulates, IRIS suggests that an RfC
of 1 E-04 mg/m3
should be used, and the corresponding RfDi is 2.9E-05 mg/kg-day.
4) For Cr (VI), the IRIS IUR is 1.2E-02 (ug/m
3 ) -1 ;
then the calculated CSFi is 42 (mg/kg-
day)
-1
;
As stated in IRIS, industrial worker exposure was known to be from Cr(VI)-Cr(III)
mixtures, so there is some uncertainty in the actual slope factor that would be due to
Cr(VI) alone; the Cr(VI):Cr(III) ratio was assumed to be at least 1:6 for development of
the slope factor; therefore, the highest possible CSFi would be: 7 x 42 = 294 (mg/kg-
day)-1
; Therefore, DRAS can use this latter value if exposure needs to be modeled as
due to Cr(VI) alone; if the suspected exposure would be due to a mixture of valences, we
suggest using the 42 (mg/kg-day)
-1 value.
Chrysene
The currently listed DRAS values are correct. [The listed CSFi of 0.0031 (mg/kg-day)
-1 is
acceptable based on the same rationale used above for Benzo(k)fluoranthene.]
Cumene
1)
The listed DRAS RfDo is correct.
2)
Since the IRIS RfC is 0.385 mg/m 3
, the calculated RfDi should be 0.11 mg/kg-day
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
The currently listed DRAS values are correct. [The listed CSFi of 3.1 (mg/kg-day)
-1
is acceptable
based on the same rationale used above for Benzo(k)fluoranthene]
1,2-Dibrorno-3-chloropropane
1)
Since the IRIS RfC value is 0.0002 mg/m
3 , the calculated DRAS RfDi should be 5.71 E-05
mg/kg-day;
2)
In this case, we feel it is reasonable to use route-to-route extrapolation to adopt an RfDo
value of 5.71 E-05 mg/kg-day from the RfDi. This is because multiple studies of inhalation
exposure to lab animals showed toxic effects and/or morphological alterations at sites
distant from the lung (mainly in testis and kidney).
3)
In this case, we feel it is reasonable to adopt the CaIEPA cancer slope factors to replace
the HEAST factor. In particular, CaIEPA used the data from a Hazelton Lab study of diet
exposure to CD-1 mice to derive a CSFo of 6.6 (mg/kg-day)
-1 . Then CaIEPA used
route-to-route extrapolation to adopt the CSFi of 6.6 (mg/kg-day)
-1 .
The extrapolation is
reasonable because CaIEPA found other studies (i.e., U.S. NTP) showing that this
chemical caused cancer in lab animals at sites distant from the lung after exposure by the
inhalation route.
8
1,1-Dichloroethane
1)
The listed HEAST RfC value of 0.5 mg/m
3
is correct and is the only provisional toxicity
factor available until the IRIS file is revised. Therefore, the calculated RfDi value should
be 0.143 mg/kg-day in DRAS;
2)
We could not find adequate information to support the conclusion that this chemical
would cause systemic toxicity distant from the lung and respiratory system after
inhalation exposure; using a route-to-route extrapolation to assume that an RfDo value
should be derived from the RfDi value is not valid; so delete the listed DRAS RfDo of 0.1
mg/kg-day that is attributed to HEAST.
3)
There are no acceptable cancer slope factors available for this chemical; We suggest not
using the CaIEPA listed slope factors that were derived from an NCI 1977 study in rats.
The EPA IRIS program re-evaluated this study and determined that it contained too many
confounding results to use for deriving a CSFo value.
Dichloropropane (cis-, trans-, mixture)
1)
In the "mixture" heading, all of the listed DRAS values are correct except for the RfDi;
since the IRIS RfC value is 0.02 mg/m
3 , the calculated DRAS RfDi should be 0.00571
mg/kg-day;
2)
For the cis- and trans- isomers, DRAS has an additional value of 0.175 (mg/kg-day) "
1
for
the CSFo; We could not determine where it came from and do not think it should be
used;
Dintrotoluene (2,4-; 2,6-; mixture)
2,4-DNT: The current DRAS RfDo is correct; It should be acceptable to use the CSFo listed for
the "mixture" since it is found on IRIS; we could not determine the origin of the values listed for
RfDi and RfC – so we suggest not using;
2,6-DNT: The CSFo value listed for the mixture is the only available toxicity factor that we believe
is appropriate; The HEAST RfDo should not be used because the IRIS file is more recent and it
does not derive an RfDo value for this isomer. We could not determine the origin of the values
listed for RfDi and RfC – so suggest not using;
Mixture-DNT: The CSFo value listed for the mixture is the only available toxicity factor that we
think is appropriate to use.
Epichlorohydrin
1)
The current listed DRAS CSFo value of 0.0099 (mg/kg-day) "
1 is correct;
2)
Since the listed IRIS IUR value is 1.2E-06 (ug/m
3
) , the calculated DRAS CSFi should
be 0.0042 (and the "h" designation can be changed to an "i" );
3) Since the IRIS RfC is 0.001 mg/m
3
, the calculated DRAS RfDi should be 0.00029 mg/kg-
day;
9
4) IRIS has withdrawn the original RfDo value; the IRIS evaluation should have taken into
account the data used by HEAST; since the HEAST value pre-dates the 1992 IRIS file,
the HEAST RfDo should longer be used;
HCH and Lindane
1)
The currently listed DRAS values appear to be correct;
2)
For the missing DRAS RfDo value under "beta-" and "alpha-" – use the NCEA provisional
values shown under the PRG column;
3)
For "gamma-" use a CSFi value of 1.3 (mg/kg-day)
-1
[because IRIS used a route-to-route
extrapolation for alpha- and beta- to derive a CSFi from the CSFo]
4) For the RfDi, assume that route-to-route extrapolation from oral exposure is valid, and
use the values listed in the PRG column as the values to adopt for DRAS.
Hexahydro-trinitro-triazene (RDX)
1)
The listed DRAS values for CSFo and RfDo are correct;
2)
We recommend using the CSFi value and RfDi value obtained from route-to-route
extrapolation (Reason - we were not able to find information showing that RDX is a
sensitizer, irritant, or is acutely toxic by the inhalation route.)
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
The currently listed DRAS values are correct. [The listed CSFi of 0.31 (mg/kg-day) -1
is
acceptable based on the same rationale used above for Benzo(k)fluoranthene.]
Lead
There are no IRIS cancer slope factors or Reference Doses for lead. EPA basis the protective
media concentration on an uptake-absorption model in children up to 7 years old in the child
model; and for a pregnant woman in the adult model (to provide protection to the adult and the
unborn child).
The general cleanup program policies are: lead releases to residential soil should not cause total
soil lead concentration to exceed 400 mg/kg; lead releases to industrial/commercial use soil (i.e.,
adult only exposure) should not cause total soil concentration to exceed 800 mg/kg;
Therefore, the maximum predicted increase to soil lead concentration from the contaminated
source should be added to the background soil lead concentration. Default background soil lead
concentrations can be used. We need to confirm whether DRAS is currently calculating total
lead delisting levels based on an additional 400 mg/kg of lead in soils or if a background soil lead
concentration was used to start.
Mercury
1) the CASRN of 7439-97-6 means Hg(0) or elemental mercury; the listed DRAS RfDi value
and RfC value are correct; but there is no RfDo value for Hg(0); so it is not appropriate
to use the value from methyl mercury
10
2)
Mercury and compounds – this for the inorganic Hg valence states above zero, including
Hg(II), such as HgC1
2
and HgO; The only available toxicity factor is the RfDo of 0.0003
mg/kg-day.
3)
Methylmercury – this is for organic mercury that has accumulated and bioconcentrated in
organic tissues (e.g., fish, wildlife). The only available toxicity factor is the RfDo of
0.0001 mg/kg-day. This constituent is not easy to measure accurately in tissues. So the
default assumption is that all mercury detectable in organic tissues is methylmercury.
4)
DRAS currently uses the RfDo for methyl mercury because the fish ingestion endpoint is
always the limiting pathway. Thus, even though other elemental mercury ingestion pathways
are incorrectly using the methyl mercury RfDo, fish ingestion is always limiting. DRAS
converts from elemental to methyl mercury by using an altered BAF for elemental mercury. It
is the methyl mercury BAF multiplied by 15% to account for the maximum water column
mercury that could become methylated. We also do not generally assume mercury could be
present in the oxidized state (mercuric chloride for example). We are seeking suggestions for
revising the approach to mercury. One option is to delete the mercury RfDo for elemental
and carrying out the methyl mercury manually by instructing users to enter 15% of the total
mercury concentration in a special methyl mercury COC entry which will only calculate the
fish ingestion pathway.
Naphthalene
1)
The listed DRAS RfDo is correct; since the IRIS RfC is 0.003 mg/m
3 , the DRAS RfDi
should be 8.6E-04 mg/kg-day;
2)
Should DRAS use a provisional Cancer Slope Factor for Naphthalene? In this case, we
recommend that we do, even though the final decision has not yet been published in
IRIS. The peer review draft of the Toxicological Review document (2004) states EPA's
finding that Naphthalene should be regarded as a probable human carcinogen by the
s inhalation route. The proposed IUR is 1 E-04 (ug/m 3
) ; then the calculated provisional
CSFi would be 0.35 (mg/kg-day) -1
3)
It would not be appropriate to use route-to-route extrapolation to derive a CSFo from the
provisional CSFi; the document mentioned in #2) above specifically states that the data
on oral exposure were inadequate to support derivation of a CSFo.
Nickel
1)
The CASRN of 7440-02-0 is for nickel salts or nickel compounds; the listed DRAS RfDo
of 0.02 mg/kg-day should be used for ingestion of all forms of nickel except #3) below.
2) Use the listed R9 CSFi of 0.84 (mg/kg-day)
-1 for inhalation of all forms of nickel except
#3) below; do not assume route-to-route extrapolation to derive a CSFo value;
3)
Nickel Subsulfide – if this actually needs to be retained as a DRAS constituent because
of a specific industrial process, then you can use the listed R9 CSFi value of 1.7 (mg/kg-
day) -1
as the DRAS value for CSFi; do not assume route-to-route extrapolation to derive
a CSFo value;
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (Aroclors)
In most PCB analyses performed by the historical EPA method, the results are presented as an
amount of total Aroclors and/or amounts of specific Aroclors (1254, 1260, 1248, etc.). This gives
very little information about the actual level of chlorination in the mixture. So when Aroclor
11
analysis is performed, assume that the mixture is highly chlorinated and use the "high risk" slope
factors: CSFo = 2 (mg/kg-day) -1
;
and CSFi = 2 (mg/kg-day) -1
For non-cancer hazard, assume that the mixture is composed of the most hazardous Aroclor
(1254) and use the RfDo = 0.00002 mg/kg-day. In this case, it is acceptable to use route-to-route
extrapolation and apply an RfDi value of 0.00002 mg/kg-day (because of evidence that inhalation
exposure of PCBs can result in adverse effects at distant sites from the lung).
To apply the "low risk" toxicity factors, the Responsible Party needs to perform a more refined
sample analysis. For example: to obtain evidence for a low risk mixture, GC-MS analysis needs
to be performed to accomplish an isomer group analysis that will report the results as mono-
through deca- PCB homologs. This will yield more specific data about the chlorine content of the
mixture. Then IRIS states that the mixture should be assumed to be low risk only if: "congener or
isomer analyses verify that congeners with more than 4 chlorines comprise < 0.5% of the total
PCBs." And by analogy, only apply the highest RfDo of 0.00007 mg/kg-day if analysis shows
that the chlorine content is very low or if the mixture can be verified to be composed of only
Aroclor 1016.
TCDD – 2,3,7,8
The listed DRAS CSFo and CSFi are correct. (The only available source of toxicity factors is
HEAST until the EPA finalizes the Dioxin Reassessment.)
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
The CaIEPA values are acceptable as the most recent data from an approved tertiary source of
reference data according to the Cook memo.
The CaIEPA provisional toxicity factors are: CSFo = 0.54 (mg/kg-day) -1 ;
CSFi = 0.021 (mg/kg-day) -1 [based on an IUR of 5.9E-06 (ug/m3) -1]
Chronic Inhalation REL = 35 µg/m3
thus, RfC = 0.035 mg/m3, RfDi is 0.035 times 20 m3/day divided by 70 kg = 0.01 mg/kg-day
The listed IRIS RfDo is 0.01 mg/kg-day; in this case, it is acceptable to apply route-to-route
extrapolation since studies of inhalation exposure in mice showed that exposure by this route
resulted in liver toxicity and liver tumors. Then the RfDi is 0.01 mg/kg-day;
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
There is a recent EPA risk assessment which received external peer review
(Trichloroethylene
Health Risk Assessment: Synthesis and Characterization;
ORD 2001). This document
recommended some toxicity factors, in particular, a new cancer slope factor. However, EPA
decided not to move ahead and finalize the RA document or the new IRIS file because of internal
and external disagreement over some of the data analysis in the RA document. EPA has since
initiated a consultation with the National Academy of Science to review parts of the RA document.
When the review is complete, EPA will finalize the RA document and the IRIS file. But this will
take some time – probably into 2006 or longer. Meanwhile, NCEA has been reluctant to support
the proposed new cancer slope factor or recommend using it as the provisional value.
Therefore, as with PCE, the CaIEPA values are acceptable as the most recent data from an
approved tertiary source of reference data according to the Cook memo.
The CaIEPA provisional toxicity values are:
12
CSFo = 0.013 (mg/kg-day) -1
CSFi = 0.007 (mg/kg-day) -1
Chronic Inhalation REL = 600 pg/m3
thus, RfC = 0.600 mg/m3, RfDi is 0.600 times 20 m3/day divided by 70
kg = 0.17 mg/kg-day
The only existing RfDo is 0.006 mg/kg-day originally provided by NCEA. The 2001 document
with the new CSF also includes a new RfDo which is also under review. We specifically request
comment on whether we should use the really old value, despite its age, the new value, or not
specify an RfDo.
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
1)
DRAS should use the listed IRIS values for CSFo and CSFi [CSFo = 0.011 (nng/kg-day)-1
and CSFi = 0.011 (mg/kg-day)-1]
2)
DRAS should use the NCEA provisional value for RfDo; also use route-to-route
extrapolation of the NCEA RfDo to obtain the RfDi (because IRIS used route-to-route
extrapolation to obtain the IUR from the CSFo)
Vinyl Chloride
DRAS should use all the listed IRIS toxicity factors which are:
CSFo = 1.4 (mg/kg-day) -1
CSFi = 0.031 (mg/kg-day) -1
[based on IUR = 8.8E-06 (ug/m3) -/]
RfDo = 0.003 mg/kg-day
RfDi = 0.0286 mg/kg-day [based on RfC = 0.1 mg/m3]
Table 5 - A small number of constituents have toxicological data in DRAS v2, but no values in the
2004 R9 PRG table. These instances will also require review by a toxicologist and are
summarized in Table 5 - Constituents without R9 PRG Data.
Evaluation and Recommendations:
Acetaldehyde
1) The listed IRIS RfC is 0.009 mg/m
3
; therefore, the RfDi should be 0.0026 mg/kg-day;
2) The listed IRIS IUR is 2.2E-06 (ug/m
3) -1 ;
therefore, the CSFi should be 0.0077 (mg/kg-
day) -1
3)
Do not use route-to-route extrapolation to derive a DRAS CSFo because this chemical could
have direct acute exposure effects in the lung or respiratory system;
Acetophenone
The listed IRIS RfDo is 0.1 mg/kg-day
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
The listed IRIS RfDo is 0.04 mg/kg-day;
13
We could not determine the origin of the listed DRAS cancer slope factors; do not use;
Bromophenyl phenylether
We could not verify any useable toxicity factors including from HEAST or CaIEPA; The original
source listed in DRAS as a reference, the 1997 Region 3 RBCs, no longer lists this COC. This
constituent should become "factorless"
Chloronnethane
IRIS gives an RfC from which an RfDi can also be calculated. No cancer data was given and oral
pathways were specifically discouraged by IRIS because chloromethane is primarily a gas.
Chlorophenyl phenylether
I could not verify any useable toxicity factors including from HEAST or CaIEPA; we think that this
constituent should become "factorless"
Dichloroethylene - 1,1
1)
IRIS withdrew the CSFo and the IUR because a formal review concluded that the existing
data do not support the development of cancer slope factors; this constituent should be
treated as a non-carcinogen.
2)
The RfDo should be 0.05 mg/kg-day;
3) Since the IRIS RfC is 0.2 mg/m 3
, the DRAS RfDi should be 0.057 mg/kg-day;
Dimethylbenzfa,hlanthracene
Because CaIEPA has developed an oral cancer slope, the CaIEPA value can be used in place of
the HEAST value.
The CaIEPA CSFo is 250 (mg/kg-day) -1
Ethyl methanesulfonate
It would be acceptable to use the listed HEAST value; however, we could not find this value in
the 1997 HEAST table; perhaps this would be a constituent to cross-check in that Oak Ridge
database.
3-Methylcholanthrene
Because CaIEPA has developed an oral cancer slope, the CaIEPA value can be used in place of
the HEAST value.
The CaIEPA CSFo is 22 (mg/kg-day) -I
4-Nitrophenol
14
I could not verify any useable toxicity factors including from HEAST or CaIEPA; ; The original
source listed in DRAS as a reference, the 1997 Region 3 RBCs, no longer lists this COC. This
constituent should become "factorless"
N-Nitrosopiperidine
I could not verify any toxicity factors in IRIS or HEAST;
Because CaIEPA has developed an oral cancer slope, the CaIEPA value can be used;
The CaIEPA CSFo is 9.4 (mg/kg-day) -1
Tris(dibromopropyl)phosphate
I could not verify any toxicity factors in IRIS or HEAST;
Because CaIEPA has developed an oral cancer slope, the CaIEPA value can be used;
The CaIEPA CSFo is 2.3 (mg/kg-day) "1
Table 6 - includes constituents with new IRIS data, subsequent to the R9 2004 annual review. A
toxicologist will also be consulted.
Evaluation and Recommendations:
Ethylene Dibromide CASRN 106-93-4
The toxicity factors currently available in IRIS are:
CSFo = -2 (mg/kg-day) "1
IUR = 0.006 (ug/m3)
Therefore, the DRAS CSFi should be 2.1 (mg/kg-day) "1
RfDo = 0.009 mg/kg-day
RfC = 0.009 mg/m3
Therefore, the DRAS RfDi should be 0.0026 mg/kg-day
Toluene CASRN 108-88-3
The revised toxicity factors currently available in IRIS are:
RfDo = 0.08 mg/kg-day
RfC = 5 mg/m3
Therefore, the DRAS RfDi should be 1.4286 mg/kg-day
Barium CASRN 7440-39-3
The revised toxicity factor currently available in IRIS is:
15
RfDo = 0.2 mg/kg-day
16
COCsWupdates0206_1.xls
TABLE 1 - Constituents with no change
Acenapthylene
CAS ID#
208-96-8
Oral Cancer Slope Facto' Inhalation Cancer Slope Facto Oral Reference Dose
1/(mg/kg-d)
?1/(mg/kg-d)
?
(mg/kg-d)
DRAS v2?
R9 PRG
?
DRAS v2?
R9 PRG?
DRAS v2
?
R9 PRG
Inhalation Reference Dose
(mg/kg-d)
DRAS v2?
R9 PRG
Inhalation
Reference
Concentration
(mg/m3)
Antimony
7440-36-0
0.0004
0.0004
Benzo (ghi) perylene
191-24-2
Bis (2-Chloroethoxy) methane
111-91-1
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
111-44-4
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Cadmium
7440-43-9
6.3
6.3
0.0005
0.0005
Chloro-1,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprer
126-99-8
0.02
0.02
0.002
0.002
0.007
Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-
59-50-7
Copper
7440-50-8
0.04
0.04
Cyanide
57-12-5
0.02
0.02
Dichlorophenol 2,6-
87-65-0
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
0.1
0.1
0.286
0.29
1.015
Formaldehyde
50-00-0
0.046
0.0455
0.15
0.15
Hexachloropropene
1888-71-7
Iron
7439-89-6
0.3
0.3
Methylene Chloride (Dichlorometha 75-09-2
0.0075
0.0075
0.00164
0.001645
0.06
0.06
0.857
0.85714
3
Methylnapthalene 2-
91-57-6
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
0.005
0.005
Naphthaquinone 1,4-
130-15-4
Naphthylamine, 2-
91-59-8
Nitrophenol 2-
88-75-5
Nitroquinoline-1-oxide 4-
56-67-5
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
55-18-5
150
150
150
150.5
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
924-16-3
5.4
5.4
5.6
5.6
Nitrosomorpholine N-
59-89-2
Pentachloroethane
76-01-7
Phenacetin
62-44-2
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
Picoline a-
109-06-8
SAFROLE
94-59-7
Selenium
7782-49-2
0.005
0.005
Silver
7440-22-4
0.005
0.005
Thionazin
297-97-2
Tin
7440-31-5
0.6
0.6
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphene:
8001-35-2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.12
Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro-ethane 1,1,:
76-13-1
30
30
8.57
8.57
29.995
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
75-69-4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.7
Triethylphosphorothiate o,o,o-
126-68-1
Zinc
7440-66-6
0.3
0.3
5?
7? 16?
5
?
33
Page 1
COCsWupdates02061 .xls
Page 2
0".003
0.0003
0.003
0.0005
check
reference
0.005714
?
r
?
0.02?
0,005714
0?
0.000008
0?
0.020000
O. 90930
0..00200
0.D01000
0.000105
0.00105
0.0035
0.002
0.02
0.000028
0.07
COCsWupciates0206_1.xls
TABLE 2 - Updates to DRAS based on IRIS, PPRTV, NCEA and HEAST
?
Inhalation
Reference
CHEMNAME
?
CAS ID# Oral Cancer Slope Factor?
Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor Oral Reference Dose
?
Inhalation Reference Dose
?
Concentration
1/(mg/kg-d)?
1/(mg/kg-d)
?
(mg/kg-d)
?
(mg/kg-d)
?
(mg/m3)
for DRAS v3
DRAS v2 R9 PRG Reference DRAS v2 R9 PRG Reference DRAS v2 R9 PRG Reference DRAS v2 R9 PRG Reference
Acetaldehyde (Ethanall?
75-07-0?
0.0077?
check reference
?
0.0077
?
I
?
0., -
2571
Acetone (2-propanone)
?67-64-1
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
?75-05-8?
O.
0
?0 1- 113 '
•
Acetophenone?
98-86-2
Acrolein
?
107-02-8
Acrylamide
?
79-06-1
?
4.5
?
4.5?
I?
4.5
Aniline (benzeneamine)
?
62-53-3
?
0.0057 0.0057
?
i?
0.0057
?
0.007?
0.007?
p
?
0. _,_!6
Barium?
7440-39-3
?
0. 07
?
0.07
?
I
?
0.0005?
O.. .., 13?
h
Benzene?
71-43-2
?
0 _._ ,?
0.029?C ._
?
1
?
0.001?
0.004
0.009
Benzyl chloride?
100-44-7
?
0.17
?
0.17
?
i? 0.17?
r? 0.0029
?
r?
0.0029 0
Beryllium?
7440-41-7
?
8.4?
8.4?
I?
0.002?
0.002 '?
i?
0.00002?0.0000 6
Bis(2-chlordsopropyflether?
39638-32-9 0.07
?
check referen 0.04?
check referee?
0.04?
check reference
Bromomethane?
74-83-9?
0.0014 0.0014
?
I
111M1111MMIMIENI
Bromophenyl-phenyl ether 4-?
101-55-3?
0.058?check reference
Butand n-?
71-36-3?
0.1?
0.1
?
I?
0.002600?
n
?
0.0091
Carbon disulfide? 75-15-0?
0.1
?
0.1?
I?
0.7?
0.200 00?
f
?
0.7
Chlorine
?
7782-50-5?
0.1?
0.1?
i?
0.0002?0.000 57?
n?
0.0001999
Chlorobenzene?
108-90-7?
0.02?
0.02?
i?
0.06?
0.017 00?
0?
0.0595
Chlorodifluoromethane?75-45-6?
14?
r?
;?
0.5?14 00 00?
i?
49
Chloral-ethane?
74-87-3
11M111111
?
0.026?
r?
,
0.3?
0.026000
?
i
?
0.091
Chlorophenyt-phenyl ether 4- ?
7005-72-3?
0.005?check reference
Chloropropene 3- (Ally! Chloride)
?
107-05-1?
0.05
?
0.000288
?
r?
0.001
?
6,9206
?
0.001
Cobalt
?
7440-48-4?
9•8?
0.06?
0.02
?p?
0.000006
?
p
?
1.995E-05
Dibenzofuran
?
132-64-9?
0.004?
0,002
?
n?
0.002000
?
r
?
0.007
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-? 95-50-1?
0 09?
0.09?
0
.
?
057143
0.2
Dichlorobenzene 1,3-?541-73-1
?
0.03
?n?
0.0002?0.030000
?
r
?
0.105
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
?
106-46-7
?
0.024?
0.024?
h?
0.024?
0.022?
n
? 0.03
?
0.8?
.230000
?
i?
0.805
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
?
75-71-8
?
0 2?
0 2?I?
0.2?
.057143
?
h?0.2
Dichloroethane 1,2-
?
107-06-2
?
0.091
?
0.091
?
i?
0.091?
0.091?
i?
0.02
?n?
.001400
?
n?
0.0049
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
? 75-35-4?
0.6?check referen 0.175?
check referee
o.00s,
?
0.05?
.057000
?
i
?
0.1995
Dichloropropane 1,2-?
78-87-5
?
0.068?
0.068?
h?
0.068?
r?
0.0011?
.001143? 0.004
Dichlorvos
?
62-73-7?
0/9?
0.29
?
i? 029?
r?
0.0005?
0 0005
?
;,,,113?
0.0005005
Dimethylbenz{a)anthracene 7,12-
?
57-97-6
?
25?
check reference
Dimethylbenzldine 3,3'-?119-93-7
?
2.3
Di-n-octyl phthalate
?
117-84-0?
0.02?
0.04?
0.14
Dlphenylhydrazine 1,2-?
122-66-7?
0.8?
0.8?
0.77?
0.8
Ethoxyethanol 2-?
110-80-5
Ethyl methanesulfonate
?
62-50-0?
293?check reference
Fluorine (soluble fluoride) (PRG only 16984-48-8
Formic add?
64-18-6?
2
?
h
?
0.00301
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene?
87-68-3?
0.078
?
0.078
?
I?
0.078
?
0.078
?
I
?
0
nnryAng
?
r?
0.00105
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
?
77-47-4?
e
0
?
-_,,_, '
7?
1
?
0.0001995
Kepone?
143-50-0
?
8
?
: 9792?
0_ 0
0.0007
Manganese
?
7439-96-5
?
0.14
..
0.
,,,, 1? 0.00005?0x;;314
.,;314?
0.000049
Methacrylonitrile?
126-98-7
?
0.0001
?
0.0001
?
i?
0.0007
?
0.33020?
0?
0.0007
Methyl ethyl ketone?
78-93-3
?
0.6?
0.6?
i?
1?
1.4,.'0
- U00
?
I?
4.9
Methyl isobutyl ketone?
108-10-1
?
0.08?
0.08?
h?
0.000000
?
3.01
Methyl methacrylate?
80-62-6?
lA?
14?
i
?
07?
0.20u...,1 0
?
I?7
0.009
0.1?
0.2 .
0.06
0.1?
check reference
0.02?C G 5
?
I?
0.00002
?0?
∎
6?
0.00002
0.001
0.0005
0.0301
0.01015
1.999E-05
0.005
0.057,743
0.2
Methylcholanthrene 3-?
56-49-5
?
26
?
check reference
nitroaniline 2-
?
88-74-4
Nltroaniline 3-
?
99-09-2 ,?
0.021
?
p
Nitroaniline 4-?
100-01-6
I
?
0.021?
p
Nitrobenzene?
98-95-3
Nitrophend 4-?
100-02-7
Nitropropane 2-?
79-46-9
?9.4
?
r?
9.4
?
9.4
Nitrosodimethylamine N-?
82-75-9
?
51
?
51?
i
?
49
?
49
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
?
86-30-6
?
0.0049 0.0049
?
I?
0.0049
NItrosoplperidine N-?
100-75-4
?
38
?'check reference
0.021
?
0.003
0.021 r 0.003
0.0005
0.062
0.300000
0.2
?
0.2
0.2?
0.2
0.01
?
0.01
WAR
0.006
?
0.006
1,9;1:14
?
(Ii(*(,t1q!.)
woliwrix
tsp..??
(9..6:45,0
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Phenol
Styrene
Thallium
Toluene
Trichlorobenzene
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Xylenes (total)
930-55-2
108-95-2
100-42-5
7440-28-0
108-88-3
120-82-1
71-55-6
96-18-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
1330-20-7
2.1
9.8
2.1
COCsWupdates0206_1
2
check reference
1.05
1.015
0.385
0.0035
2.205
0.0049
0.2
0.1015
I = IRIS
p = PPRTV
check reference = constituent did not have a R9 value or was not in the R9 PRG table
0.0007
10
10
0.049
Dinitrotoluene 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,6-
Dinitrotoluene mixture (PRG only-we use #1
Epichlorohydrin
Epichlorohydrin
0.002?
0.002
0,004 0,004
64407
04)035
0.0002
0.0003
0,0005
0.0007
0.00105
0.00175
0.0105
0.0105
0.003
0.003
COCsWupdates0206_1.xls
TABLE 4 - Constituents Requiring Toxicologist Review
Acrylonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Inhalation
Reference
Inhalation Cancer Slope Fact( Oral Reference Dose ?
Inhalation Reference Dose
?
Concentration
1/(mg/kg-d)?
(roflkl-d)
?
(mg/m3)
for DRAS v3
DRAS v2 R9 PRG Reference DRAS v2 R9 PRG Reference DRAS v2 R9 PRG Reference DRAS v2 R9 PRG Reference
107-13-1 107-13-1
?
0.54?
0.54?
1
?
0.238 wc
.
..
?
h,, 0402?
0.00057
107-13-1 107-13-1
?
1
?
r?
4-
CHEMNAME?
DRAS R9 PRG Oral Cancer Slope Factor
CAS ID# CAS ID# 1/(mg/kg-d)
(r>0-d)
Arsenic (III)
Arsenic (V)
Arsenic (PRG only)
Arsenic (CAL modified-PRG only)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
22569-72-8?
1.5
17428-41-0?1.5
7440-38-2
7440-38-2
207-08-9 207-08-9 0.073
?
0.073
207-08-9 207-08-9
?
1-2
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.031
?
0.
073
0,39
Chlordane (technical) (PRG only)
Chlordane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
Total Chromium (1:6 ratio Cr VI:Cr III - PRG only)
12789-03-6
57-74
-
9
75-00-3 75-00-3 0?
0:0029
75-00-3 75-00-3
?
04329
67-66-3 67-66-3 0-0064
67-66-3 67-66-3
16065-83-116065-83-1
18540-29-.C18540-29-9
7440-47-3
0.0005?
1
0.0005
0.4?
0.4
0.4
0.01?
0.01
1.5
0.003
?
0.003
0.081
0.35
tzt,
) 0002
2.85714
2.85714
0.014
218-01-9 218-01-9 0.0073
?
0.0073
?
n?
0.Q031 i 0
218-01-9 218-01-9
Chrysene
Chrysene
Curneno
Cunene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
98-82-8 98-82-8
98-82-8 98-82-8
96-12-8 96-12-8
?
0-0024
96-12-8 96-12-8?
7
75-34-3 75-34-3
75-34-3 75
-34-3
0.1
?
I
?
0.014?
0.014
5.7E-05?
0-0002 5.7E-05
4286
542-75-6 542-75-6
?
0.03?
0.03?
0.00571
0.1
10061-01-5
?
0.175
10061-02-6
?
0-1-7-5
0.385
0.0002
0.02
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
HCH-technical (PRG only)
121-14-2 121-14-2
?
0.68
606-20-2 606-20-2
?
0.68
25321-14-6
108-89-8 106-89-8 0.0099
?
0.0099
106-89-8 106-89-8?
0-08
319-85-7 319-85-7
?
1.8
?
1.8
? 1.
8
?1.8
?
I?
0.0002
58-89-9 58-89-9
?
1.3
?
1.3?
h?
1.3?
r?
0.0003 0.0003
319-84-6 319-84-6
?
6.3?
6.3?
I?
6.3?
6.3
?
i?
0.0005
608-73-1?-1-8
?
i
?
1.785
0.0042 0.004
?
0-002?
0.001?
0.00029?0.001
048
0.11
?
0.11
0.11
?
0.11
H exa hydro-1 ,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine
?
121-82-4 121-82-4
Hexahydio-1,3,5-trinitro-1.3,5-triazine
?
121-82-4 121-82-4
Lead?
7439-92-1 7439-92-13.gov/superfund/programsfleadfieubk.htrn
Lead?
7439-92-1 7439-92-t.ca.gov/SclenceTechnology/ledspred.htrni
Page 1
250
?
now a CaJEPA number
203
22
?
now a
CalEPA number
0.052
9.4
?
now a CaIEPA number
2.3?
now a CalEPA number
COCsWupdates0206_1.xls
Table 5 - Constituents w/DRAS v2 data and no R9 PRG data
CFIEMNAME
?
CHEMCAS
?
CSFO?
CSFI
?
ORDO?ORDI?
RfC
DRAS
?
1/(mg/kg-d) 1/(mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d)
?
(mg/kg-d)?
mg/m3
Acetaldehyde gthanalj
Acetophenone
Bls(2-chlorolsopropyl)ether
Bromophenyl-phenyl ether 4-
Chloromethane
Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 7,12.
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Nittophenol 4-
Nltrosoplperidlne N-
Tris(2,3-dIbromopropyl)phosphat
75-07-0?
0.0077
98-86-2
0.1
39638-32-9
007
004?604
101-55-3
0050
74-87-3
as
0,0063
57-97-6
62-50-0
56.49-5
100-02-7
100-75-4
126-72-7
Chlorophenyt-phenyl ether 4-?
7005-72-3
DIchloroethylene 1,1-
?
75-35-4
no change since then, but Oral is route to route extrapolation
no change
no change for RID, but slope factors NA in IRIS
not available in IRIS
Wastewater Treatment vet. 4.0 QAQPS RTP, May 1 not available in IRIS
not available in IRIS
0.005
?
not in IRIS
now NA, IRIS 2002
0.17-5
?
not in IRIS
not in IRIS
not in IRIS
not in IRIS
all inadequate in IRIS
not in IRIS
not in IRIS
IRIS - June-December 2001
IRIS - June-December 2001
IRIS - June-December 2001
R3 RBCs - June 1997
WATERS -Air Emissions Models
HEAST 1995
2.57E-02
?
9.00E-02
?
IRIS
IRIS - June-December 2001
HEAST 1997
HEAST 1997
HEAST 1995
HEAST 1997
R3 RBCs - June 1997
IRIS - June-December 2001
IRIS - June-December 2001
Page 1
COCsWupdates0206_1.xls
Inhalation
Reference
CAS ID# Oral Cancer Slope Factor
?
Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor ?
Oral Reference Dose?
Inhalation Reference Dose
?
Concentration
1/(mg/kg-d)
?
1/(mg/kg-d)
?
(mg/kg-d)
?
(mg/4-d)
?
(mg/m3)
for DRAS v3
DRAS v2?
R9 PRG
?
Reference?
DRAS v2
?
R9 PRG?
Reference?
DRAS v2?
R9 PRG?
Reference?
DRAS v2?
R9 PRG?
Reference
TABLE 6 - New IRIS data
CHEMNAME
Ethylene dibromide (12-Dibromoethane) 106-93-4
Toluene?
108-88-3
Barium
?
7440-39-3
Page 1
TABLE OF ALL CONSTITUENTS
IN ADDITION TO TABLES 1 — 6
ARE INCLUDED A MICROSOFT EXCEL FILE
AND IS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
Filename: COCsWupdates0206.xls
0409;
0.900405 no need, DRAS value is just the RfC version of the RfDi
i
i
no need, DRAS value is just the RfC version of the 12fDi
note: original DRAS 2
Inhalation CSF is from R6 screening
tables where it refers to NCEA - R4 RAGS bulletin
Region 4 uses a TEF approach from B(a)P
note: original DRAS 2 ft/halation CSF is from R6 screening tables where it refers to NCEA - R4 RAGS bulletin
note: original DRAS 2 Inhalation CSF is from R6 screening tables
where it refers to
NCEA - R4 RAGS bulletin
Cheek
0.06
0.06
i
4.5
i
0.0002
0.0002
i
17
17.15
i
0.00003 0.00003
i
0.3
0.3
i
0.025
0.02485
i
0.05
0.05
h
0.035
0.035
n
eaa
0.101
0.1
i
230
230
0.003
0.003
n
043
f
4
4
0.3
0.3
dieck ref 0.0063
?
ref
0.091
0.005?
0.005
0.001 0.05 was a BEAST number WITHDRAWN by NCEA
i
i
i
h
n
0.34
0.3395
0.05
0.05
0.005
0.05
0.0005
0.0009
0.004
0.01
0.02
0.003
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.005
0.05
0.0005
0.0009
0.002
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.003
0.01
h
i00005 00005
16?
16.1
? 0.00005 0.00005
0.8?
0.8
h
h
0.001 0.00029
3.15
0.02
0.02
02
0.001
0.0007
0.004
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.2
0.001
0.0007
0.004
0.02
0.02
11111111■11111=111111111
h
note: original ORAS 2 Inhalation CSF is from R6 screening tables where it refers to NCEA - R4 RAGS bulletin
0.105
?
DRAS reference says R6: R6 says 0.0023 (NCEA) not 0.0002: However, NCEA has no number
now
(according to RAIS)
i
0.0525
h
COCsWupdates0206_1.xls
TABLE 3 - R9 Route to Route Extrapdabons
CHEMNAME
?
CHEMCAS Oral Cancer Slope Factor Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor Oral Reference Dose
?
Inhalation Reference Dose
DRAS 1/(mg/kg-d)?
1/(ng/kg-d)
?
(mg/k9-d)
?
(819/kg-d)?
RfC
DRAS v2 R9 PROReference DRAS v2 Ft9 PRG Reference DRAS v2 R9 PRG Reference DRAS v2 R9 PRG Reference
Acenaphthene
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetondhle (methyl cyanide)
83-32-9
67-64-1
75-05-8
Aaylanide
79-06-1
4.5
4.5
Aldrin
309-00-2
17
17
Aniline (benzenearrine)
62-53-3
0.0057 0.0057
Anthracene
120-12-7
Aranite
140-57-8
0.025
0.025
Atrazine
1912-24-9
0.22
0.222
Benz(a)anthracene
56-55-3
0.731
0.73
Benzaldehyde
100-52-7
Benzidine
92-87-5
230
230
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
7.3
7.3
Benzo(b}fluoranthene
205-99-2
0.73
0.73
Benzoic add
65-85-0
Benzyl alcohol
100-51.6
Benzyl chloride
100-44-7
0.17
0.17
Bis(2-ethythexyl)phthalate
117-81-7
0.014
0.014
BrorrodicHoromethane
75-27-4
0.062
0.062
Buy benzyl phthalate
85-68-7
Butyl-46-dinitropheno12-sec-(Dinoseb)
88-85-7
Carbon tetrachloride
56-23-5
0.13
0.13
Chloroaniline p-
106-47-8
Chlorobenzilate
510-166
0.27
0.27
Chlorodbromomethane
124461
0.084
0.084
Chlorodifluoromethane
75-45-6
Chloromethane
74-87-3
0.013
chloronaphthalene 2-
9158-7
Chlorophenol 2-
95-57-8
Chloropropene 3- (Ally! Chloride)
107-05-1
Cresol m-
108-394
Cresol o-
9548-7
Cresol p-
106-44-5
Cydotetrarnethylene-tetranitranine
269141-0
DDD
72-54-8
0.24
0.24
DOE
72-55-9
0.34
0.34
DDT p,p'-
50-29-3
0.34
0.34
Diallate
2303-16-4 0.061
0.061
Diazinon
333-41-5
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
5370-1
7.3
7.3
Dibenzofuran
132-64-9
Dichlorobenzene 1,3-
541-73-1
Dichlastenzidine 3,1-
91-94-1
0.45
0.45
Dohloroethy1ene cis-1.2-
156-59-2
Dichtoroethlene trans-12-
156-60-5
Dichtorophenol 2,4-
120-83-2
Dithlorophenoxyacelic add 2,4-(2.4-0)
94-75-7
Dichloropropane
78-87.5
0.089
0.068
Dichlonts
62.73-7
029
029
Dieldrin
60-57-1
16
16
Diethyl phthalate
84-66-2
Diethylstilbestrol
56-534
4700
4700
Page 1
0.0003
p
0.00105
p
p
0.001
0.0035
0.02?
0.00571
0.02
0.000028
COCsWupdates0206_1.xls
0.0002
?
0.0002
?
i
10?
10
0.02?
0.02
0.1?
0.1
0.0001?
0.0001
0.0001
?
0.0001?
p
0.032?
0.002
0.02?
0.04
0.025?
0.025
0.00004 0.00004
0.006?
0.006
0.0003 0.0003
0.9
0.2
0.09
0.9
0.2
0.09
0.00008 0.00006
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.001
0.001
4.55
4.55
0.0005
0.0005
9.1
9.1
0.000013 1.3E-05
0.078
0.078
0.0002
0.0003
1.61
1.61
0.0008
0.0008
0.014
0.014
0.001
0.001
0.0003
0.0003
MIME
943
n
35
note: original DRAS 2 Inhalation CSF is from R6 screening tables where it refers to NCEA - R4 RAGS bulletin
0.3
0.3
0.2
02
0.0002
0.02
0.02
0.5
0.5
0.005
0.005
1
0.00025 0.00025
0.01
0.01
0.003
0.0003
0.003
0.003
9.4
9.4
49
49
8E-06
p
0.02
0.002?
0.002
0.006?
0.006
0.0008 0.0008
0.003?
0.003
0.03?
0.03
0.6?
0.3
0.00008 0.00008
?
i
0.006
?
0.006
0.0002 0.0002?
h
0.075?
0.075
0.03?
0.03
0.001 0.001
0.0003 0.0003
0.0003 0.0003
(404(36
0406
406
Dimethoate
60-51-5
Dimethoxybenzidine 3.3
r -
119-90-4
0.014
0.014
h
Dirrethyl phthalate
131.11-3
Dimethylbenndine 3,3
: -
119-93-7
92
2.3
Dimethylphenol, 2,4-
105-67-9
Din-butyl phthalate
84-74-2
Dinitrobenzene 12-
99-65-0
Dinitromethylphenol, 4,6-2-
534-52-1
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
51-28-5
0i-n-ociy1 phthalate
11764-o
Dioxane 1,4-
123-91.1
0.011
0.011
i
Diphenylamine
122-39-4
Disulfolco
298-044
Endosulfan (EndowKan I and Ilmixture)
115-29-7
Enddn
72-20-8
Ethyl acetate
141-78-6
Ethyl ether
60-29-7
Ethyl methacrylate
97-63-2
Ethylene thiourea
96-45-7
0.11
0.11
h
Flucranthene
206-44-0
Fluorene
86-73-7
Furan
110-00-9
Heptachlor
76-44-8
4.5
4.5
i
Heptachlor epoxide
1024-57-3
9.1
9.1
i
Hexachloro-1.3-butadiene
87-68-3
0.078
0.078
i
Hexachlorobenzene
118-74-1
1.6
1.6
i
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
8.014
0.014
i
Hexachlorophene
70-30-4
Indeno(1,2,3-oSpyrene
193-39-5
0.73
0.73
n
Isobutyl alcohol
78-e31
Isophorone
78-59-1 0.00095 0.001
i
Kepone
143-50-0
18
8
p
Malathion
121-75-5
Methanol
67-56-1
Methoxychlor
7243-5
Methyl acetate
79-20-9
Methyl parathion
298-00-0
Methylene bromide (Dibrornometnane)
74-95-3
Nitroaniline 3-
99-09-2
0.021
p
Nitroaniline 4-
100-01-6
0.021
p
Nitro-o-toluidine, 5-
99-55-8
0.033
0.033
h
Nitropropane 2-
7946-9
Nitrosodimethylanine N-
62-75-9
51
51
Nitrcoo-di-n-propylarrine N-
621-64-7
7
7
Nitrcoodiphenylanine N-
86-30-6
0.0049 0.0049
i
Nitrosomethylethylanine N-
10595-95-f
22
22
Octamethyl pyrophosphocarricle
152-16-9
Parathion (ethyl)
56-38-2
Pentachlorobenzene
608-93-5
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
82-68-8
0.26
0.26
h
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
0.12
0.12
Phenol
108-95-2
Phenyl mercuric acetate
62-384
Phenylenecharrine 1,3-
108-45-2
Phorate
298-02-2
Pronarride
23950-58-5
Pyrene
129-00-0
Pyridine
110-86-1
Strychnine and salts
57-24-9
Tetrachiorobenzene 1,2,4,5
9594-3
0.00385 0.00385
COCsWupdates0206_1
Ala
0.026?
0.0259?
i?
0.03?
0.03
0.2?
0203?
i?
0.06?
0.06
0.03
?
0.03
0.0005 0.0005
0.02?
0.02?
i
0.004 0.004 i
MEM
0.1?
0.1
0.008?
0.008?
i
0.01?
0.01
0.006?
0.006
?
i? 0.0014?
n?
0.0049
0.03?
0.03
0.0005 0.0005?
.111.11.6111a
0.056
?
0.056
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
1:30-20-6
0.026
0.026
i
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
79-34-5
0.2
02
i
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
58-90-2
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sutfotep)
3689-24-5
Toluenediarnine 2,4-
95-80-7
3.2
3.2
h
Toluidine o-
95-53-4
0.24
0.24
h
Toluidine p-
106-49-0
0.19
0.19
Tribrontrrethane (Brornaform)
75-25-2
0.0079 0.0079
Trichlacethane 1,1,2-
79-00-5
0.057
0.057
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
95-954
TrIchlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (SIN 93-72-1
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
93-76-5
Trichlectscopene 1,2,3-
96-18-4
7
2
Trinitrobenzene (Trinitrobenzene 1,3,5-) sym- 99-35-4
Trinitrotoluene 2.4.6-
118-96-7
0.03
0.03
i
i = IRIS
p= PPRTV
r = route to route extrapolation
check reference = constituent did not have a Ft9 value or was not in the R9 PRG table
77 changes
Page 3
