home edit2 whole TSD November 2002 PDF format - OEHHA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chemical Exposure Route Study Type Unit Risk Slope Factor Animal Unit Animal Slope (µg/m 3 ) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 Risk Factor (µg/m 3 ) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 5-Methylchrysene BaP (inhalation) 1.1 E-3 3.9 E+0 (oral) 1.2 E+1 4, 4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (MOCA) O A 4.3 E-4 1.5 E+0 Methylene chloride I A 1.0 E-6 3.5 E-3 4,4'-Methylenedianiline DW A 4.6 E-4 1.6 E+0 Michler's ketone D A 2.5 E-4 8.6 E-1 Nickel compounds I H 2.6 E-4 9.1 E-1 3.8 E-3 (C) 5-Nitroacenaphthene BaP 3.7 E-5 1.3 E-1 6-Nitrochrysene BaP (inhalation) 1.1 E-2 3.9 E+1 (oral) 1.2 E+2 2-Nitrofluorene BaP (inhalation) 1.1 E-5 3.9 E-2 (oral) 1.3 E-1 1-Nitropyrene BaP (inhalation) 1.1 E-4 3.9 E-1 (oral) 1.2 E+0 4-Nitropyrene BaP (inhalation) 1.1 E-4 3.9 E-1 (oral) 1.2 E+0 N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine DW A 1.1 E-1 3.1 E-3 N-Nitroso-N-methylethylamine DW A 6.3 E-3 2.2 E+1 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine G A 2.0 E-3 7.0 E+0 N-Nitrosodiethylamine DW A 1.0 E-2 3.6 E+1 N-Nitrosodimethylamine DW A 4.6 E-3 1.6 E+1 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine D, G A 2.6 E-6 9.0 E-3 p-Nitrosodiphenylamine D A 6.3 E-6 2.2 E-2 N-Nitrosomorpholine DW A 1.9 E-3 6.7 E+0 N-Nitrosopiperidine DW A 2.7 E-3 9.4 E+0 N-Nitrosopyrrolidine DW A 6.0 E-4 2.1 E+0 Pentachlorophenol D A 5.1 E-6 1.8 E-2 Perchloroethylene (inhalation) G A 5.9 E-6 2.1 E-2 (oral) G A 5.1 E-2 Footnotes # [100 PCM fibers/m 3 ] -1 ; see Appendix D * can be calculated using PEF factors contained in the benzo[a]pyrene TAC document A see Appendix A BaP see benzo[a]pyrene TAC document; calculated from unit risk/cancer potency factors for BaP using PEF factors D Listed by ARB as “Particulate Matter from Diesel-Fueled Engines”; Scientific Review Panel unit risk “reasonable estimate” = 3.0 E-4 (µg/m 3 ) -1 . Range of unit risks in TAC document was 1.3 E-4 – 2.4 E-3 (µg/m 3 ) -1 . P See chemical summary for risk categorization Exposure Routes D = diet; DW = drinking water; G = gavage; I = inhalation; O = other oral route Study Type A = animal; H = human Document Source bold type = TAC document Animal Unit Risk, Slope Factors C = obtained from Cal/EPA or CDHS risk assessment; I = obtained from US EPA IRIS listing 593
Chemical Exposure Route Study Type Unit Risk Slope Factor Animal Unit Animal Slope (µg/m 3 ) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 Risk Factor (µg/m 3 ) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (high risk) P D A 5.7 E-4 2.0 E+0 (low risk) P D A 1.1 E-4 4.0E-1 (lowest risk) P D A 2.0 E-5 7.0 E-2 Potassium bromate DW A 1.4 E-4 4.9 E-1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane G A 5.8 E-5 2.0 E-1 Thioacetamide D A 1.7 E-3 6.1 E+0 2,4-Toluene diisocyanate G A 1.1 E-5 3.9 E-2 2,6-Toluene diisocyanate G A 1.1 E-5 3.9 E-2 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (vinyl trichloride) G A 1.6 E-5 5.7 E-2 Trichloroethylene (inhalation) I A 2.0 E-6 7.0 E-3 (oral) G A 1.5 E-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol D, G A 2.0 E-5 7.0 E-2 Urethane D, DW, A 2.9 E-4 1.0 E+0 G Vinyl chloride I A 7.8 E-5 2.7 E-1 Footnotes # [100 PCM fibers/m 3 ] -1 ; see Appendix D * can be calculated using PEF factors contained in the benzo[a]pyrene TAC document A see Appendix A BaP see benzo[a]pyrene TAC document; calculated from unit risk/cancer potency factors for BaP using PEF factors D Listed by ARB as “Particulate Matter from Diesel-Fueled Engines”; Scientific Review Panel unit risk “reasonable estimate” = 3.0 E-4 (µg/m 3 ) -1 . Range of unit risks in TAC document was 1.3 E-4 – 2.4 E-3 (µg/m 3 ) -1 . P See chemical summary for risk categorization Exposure Routes D = diet; DW = drinking water; G = gavage; I = inhalation; O = other oral route Study Type A = animal; H = human Document Source bold type = TAC document Animal Unit Risk, Slope Factors C = obtained from Cal/EPA or CDHS risk assessment; I = obtained from US EPA IRIS listing 594
Page 1 and 2:
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk A
Page 3 and 4:
Prepared by: John D. Budroe, Ph.D.
Page 5 and 6:
This document is one of five docume
Page 7 and 8:
TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE i INTRODU
Page 9 and 10:
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 401 N-Nitros
Page 11 and 12:
Hot Spots Unit Risk and Cancer Pote
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Additional ATES and PETS documents
Page 19 and 20:
data. If several data sets (dose an
Page 21 and 22:
US EPA Calculation of Carcinogenic
Page 23 and 24:
exposure to a concentration of 1 µ
Page 25 and 26:
incidences for each of the dose lev
Page 27 and 28:
computes the surface area of a sphe
Page 29 and 30:
Comparison of Hot Spots Cancer Unit
Page 31 and 32:
Gold, L., de Veciana, M., Backman,
Page 33 and 34:
Animal Studies Rats Woutersen et al
Page 35 and 36:
ased on sufficient evidence of carc
Page 37 and 38:
ACETAMIDE CAS No: 60-35-5 I. PHYSIC
Page 39 and 40:
Methodology Expedited Proposition 6
Page 41 and 42:
cancer mortality. However, US EPA (
Page 43 and 44:
Table 2. Lung adenoma incidence in
Page 45 and 46:
Table 3 (continued). Acrylamide-ind
Page 47 and 48:
Robinson M, Bull RJ, Knutsen GL, Sh
Page 49 and 50:
Also, a trend was observed correlat
Page 51 and 52:
eported. Cause-specific expected de
Page 53 and 54:
Bio/Dynamics Inc. conducted a study
Page 55 and 56:
examination. Interim sacrifices wer
Page 57 and 58:
Table 8. Tumor incidence in male an
Page 59 and 60:
Gaffey WR and Strauss ME. 1981. A m
Page 61 and 62:
(technical grade; 98% pure) by gava
Page 63 and 64:
International Agency for Research o
Page 65 and 66:
still alive in the low-dose control
Page 67 and 68:
ANILINE CAS No: 62-53-3 I. PHYSICAL
Page 69 and 70:
fibrosarcomas, stromal sarcomas, ca
Page 71 and 72:
ARSENIC (INORGANIC) CAS No: 7440-38
Page 73 and 74:
elationship between arsenic exposur
Page 75 and 76:
al. (1988) did not induce lung tumo
Page 77 and 78:
A risk assessment was also conducte
Page 79 and 80:
Chen C, Chuang Y, You S, Lin T and
Page 81 and 82:
Schrauzer G, White D, McGinness J,
Page 83 and 84:
Table 1: Summary of epidemiologic s
Page 85 and 86:
had at least one animal demonstrati
Page 87 and 88:
mesothelioma, recommended lifetime
Page 89 and 90:
National Institute for Occupational
Page 91 and 92:
BENZENE CAS No: 71-43-2 I. PHYSICAL
Page 93 and 94:
Animal Studies Available experiment
Page 95 and 96:
Table 3: Summary of NTP bioassay re
Page 97 and 98:
Table 4: Summary of benzene low-dos
Page 99 and 100:
Maltoni C, Conti B and Cotti G. 198
Page 101 and 102:
a benign tumor of the kidney. No ba
Page 103 and 104:
al. (1968) found no tumors in lifet
Page 105 and 106:
following relationship, where C(t 1
Page 107 and 108:
Miakawa M. and Yoshida O. 1975. Pro
Page 109 and 110:
human population and that BPDE-DNA
Page 111 and 112:
demonstrated the tumor initiating a
Page 113 and 114:
Table 4: Bronchoalveolar tumors fro
Page 115 and 116:
Table 5: IARC groupings of PAHs, mi
Page 117 and 118:
Table 6 (continued): IARC Group 3 P
Page 119 and 120:
Potency Equivalency Factors (PEF) f
Page 121 and 122:
This was rounded to a PEF of 0.1. 1
Page 123 and 124:
experiment (Takayama et al., 1985)
Page 125 and 126:
Deutsch-Wenzel RP, Brune H, Grimmer
Page 127 and 128:
Krewski D, Thorslund T and Withey J
Page 129 and 130:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc
Page 131 and 132:
Sorahan et al. (1983) studied cance
Page 133 and 134:
Lijinsky W. 1986. Chronic bioassay
Page 135 and 136:
the drinking water (Schroeder and M
Page 137 and 138:
Table II. Effective dose, upper-bou
Page 139 and 140:
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER CAS No: 111
Page 141 and 142:
IV. DERIVATION OF CANCER POTENCY Ba
Page 143 and 144:
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL)ETHER CAS No: 542-
Page 145 and 146:
Table 1. Bis(chloromethyl)ether-ind
Page 147 and 148:
Drew RT, Laskin S, Kuschner M and N
Page 149 and 150:
ates for the 1968 U.S. male populat
Page 151 and 152:
Table 1: Incidence of primary tumor
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
National Institute of Occupational
Page 157 and 158:
was less than 0.05 when controlling
Page 159 and 160:
up period. The final cohort include
Page 161 and 162:
If the cadmium-exposed workers incl
Page 163 and 164:
on personnel records (20%); (3) eva
Page 165 and 166:
were exposed to a continuous (23.5
Page 167 and 168:
procedure (NLIN), the parameters we
Page 169 and 170:
International Agency for Research o
Page 171 and 172:
Two reports were published on cance
Page 173 and 174:
Mendel rats, respectively), and sub
Page 175 and 176:
Eschenbrenner A and Miller E. 1946.
Page 177 and 178:
III. CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS Human Stu
Page 179 and 180:
cancers, were less than expected. T
Page 181 and 182:
and no cases of cancer (although cl
Page 183 and 184:
There was a statistically significa
Page 185 and 186:
NTP (1982a) also conducted an carci
Page 187 and 188:
Several pathologists have independe
Page 189 and 190:
hepatocellular adenoma/carcinoma tu
Page 191 and 192:
carcinogenic potency may decline in
Page 193 and 194:
Cochrane W, Singh J and Miles W. 19
Page 195 and 196:
North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
Page 197 and 198:
CHLORINATED PARAFFINS (average chai
Page 199 and 200:
ased on dose-response data for beni
Page 201 and 202:
chloroform in drinking water with k
Page 203 and 204:
Overall, the present epidemiologica
Page 205 and 206:
female dogs received toothpaste bas
Page 207 and 208:
Calculated q 1 * values from the ab
Page 209 and 210:
Hogan MD, Chi Py, Hoel DG and Mitch
Page 211 and 212:
Table 1. Study design summary for N
Page 213 and 214:
V. REFERENCES California Environmen
Page 215 and 216:
toluidine. Followup of this subcoho
Page 217 and 218:
feeding studies on by NCI (1979) us
Page 219 and 220:
CHROMIUM (HEXAVALENT) CAS No: 18540
Page 221 and 222:
expected rate may be inflated becau
Page 223 and 224:
Oral Borneff et al. (1968) exposed
Page 225 and 226:
CREOSOTE (COAL TAR-DERIVED) CAS No:
Page 227 and 228:
from an inhalation exposure study (
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Table 1. Study design summary for N
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Table 1. Experimental design for ca
Page 237 and 238:
Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB
Page 239 and 240:
Table 1: Tumor induction in Fischer
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Table 1. Experimental design of 2,4
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Additional analysis of these data b
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Jackson RJ, Greene CJ, Thomas JT, M
Page 253 and 254:
Table 1. Tumor incidence in rats ex
Page 255 and 256:
Girard R, Tolot F, Martin P and Bou
Page 257 and 258:
exposed more than 16 years before t
Page 259 and 260:
interpretation of dose extrapolatio
Page 261 and 262:
1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE CAS No: 75-34-3
Page 263 and 264:
Table 1b. Study design for carcinog
Page 265 and 266:
National Cancer Institute (NCI) 197
Page 267 and 268:
mice, hepatocellular carcinoma inci
Page 269 and 270:
V. REFERENCES California Department
Page 271 and 272:
DAB/day by gavage for the life of t
Page 273 and 274:
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE CAS No: 121-14-2
Page 275 and 276:
Ellis et al.(1979) (also reported b
Page 277 and 278:
Final Statement of Reasons for OAL,
Page 279 and 280:
to the small sample size and short
Page 281 and 282:
In an inhalation study, Torkelson e
Page 283 and 284:
V. REFERENCES American Conference o
Page 285 and 286:
EPICHLOROHYDRIN CAS No: 106-89-8 I.
Page 287 and 288:
espiratory tumors were noted in the
Page 289 and 290:
Table 4. Epichlorohydrin-induced fo
Page 291 and 292:
Konishi Y, Kawabata A, Denda A, Ike
Page 293 and 294:
exposed to arsenicals for 20 months
Page 295 and 296:
espectively (all statistically sign
Page 297 and 298:
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE CAS No: 107-06-
Page 299 and 300:
Several factors have been suggested
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
myelogenous leukemias (4 and 8 year
Page 305 and 306:
statistically significant. CDHS not
Page 307 and 308:
combined with the incidence in the
Page 309 and 310:
incidence of primary brain tumors.
Page 311 and 312:
Table 6 (continued): Organ/Sex Mali
Page 313 and 314:
An Upper 95% Confidence Limit (UCL)
Page 315 and 316:
ETHYLENE THIOUREA (ETU) CAS No: 96-
Page 317 and 318:
male and female rats. Tumor inciden
Page 319 and 320:
FORMALDEHYDE CAS No: 50-00-0 I. PHY
Page 321 and 322:
presented an extension of a previou
Page 323 and 324:
Methodology In developing a spectru
Page 325 and 326:
Casanova M, Morgan KT, Steinhagen W
Page 327 and 328:
Tobe M, Kaneko T, Uchida Y, Kamata
Page 329 and 330:
Table 1. Hexachlorobenzene-induced
Page 331 and 332:
50 pups (F 1 ) of each sex were ran
Page 333 and 334:
Ertürk E, Lambrecht RW, Peters HA,
Page 335 and 336:
Table 1. Liver hepatoma incidence i
Page 337 and 338:
1988). An airborne unit risk factor
Page 339 and 340:
HYDRAZINE CAS No: 302-01-2 I. PHYSI
Page 341 and 342:
Methodology Inhalation A linearized
Page 343 and 344:
LEAD AND LEAD COMPOUNDS (INORGANIC)
Page 345 and 346:
and other occupational carcinogens
Page 347 and 348:
y inhalation is similar for rats an
Page 349 and 350:
Goyer RA. 1992. Nephrotoxicity and
Page 351 and 352:
LINDANE (g-Hexachlorocyclohexane) C
Page 353 and 354:
Using these relationships, a human
Page 355 and 356:
METHYL TERT-BUTYL ETHER (MTBE) CAS
Page 357 and 358:
Tumor incidences according to the r
Page 359 and 360:
kidney changes indicative of chroni
Page 361 and 362:
Interspecies scaling for oral doses
Page 363 and 364:
Table 4 (continued): Dose Response
Page 365 and 366:
Experimental Pathology Laboratories
Page 367 and 368:
Animal Studies Male and female HaM/
Page 369 and 370:
Gold L, Sawyer C, Magaw R, Backman
Page 371 and 372:
Using the statistical tests (one-ta
Page 373 and 374:
Table 1: Methylene chloride-induced
Page 375 and 376:
Significant treatment-related incre
Page 377 and 378:
National Toxicology Program (NTP) 1
Page 379 and 380:
noted; however, the study duration
Page 381 and 382:
Crump KS, Howe RB, Van Landingham C
Page 383 and 384:
Table 1. Michler’s ketone-induced
Page 385 and 386:
NICKEL AND NICKEL COMPOUNDS CAS No:
Page 387 and 388:
the high exposure group was 14.0. A
Page 389 and 390:
male and 121 female rats, was expos
Page 391 and 392:
2.1 - 2.6 × 10 -4 (µg/m 3 ) -1 .
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
The increased incidence of bladder
Page 397 and 398:
A linearized multistage procedure w
Page 399 and 400:
N-NITROSO-N-METHYLETHYLAMINE CAS No
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
propylamine in drinking water at 0.
Page 405 and 406:
N-NITROSODIETHYLAMINE CAS No: 55-18
Page 407 and 408:
Table 2. Treatment groups, concentr
Page 409 and 410:
California Department of Health Ser
Page 411 and 412:
animals and the second generation t
Page 413 and 414:
ationale for selection of the OEHHA
Page 415 and 416:
A unit risk value based upon air co
Page 417 and 418:
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE CAS No: 86-3
Page 419 and 420:
Methodology Dosage estimates of NDP
Page 421 and 422:
Crump KS, Howe RB. 1984. The multis
Page 423 and 424:
Table 1. P-Nitrosodiphenylamine-ind
Page 425 and 426:
N-NITROSOMORPHOLINE CAS No: 59-89-2
Page 427 and 428:
Page 429 and 430:
N-NITROSOPIPERIDINE CAS No: 100-75-
Page 431 and 432:
Table 3. N-Nitrosopiperidine-induce
Page 433 and 434:
Crump KS, Howe RB, Van Landingham C
Page 435 and 436:
testicular tumors were noted in the
Page 437 and 438:
PARTICULATE MATTER FROM DIESEL-FUEL
Page 439 and 440:
etired railroad workers who had had
Page 441 and 442:
employment (χ 2 test for trend: p
Page 443 and 444:
elevated smoking-adjusted risk esti
Page 445 and 446:
Table 1 (continued): Reference Miln
Page 447 and 448:
Table 1 (continued): Reference Damb
Page 449 and 450:
Table 1 (continued): Reference Burn
Page 451 and 452:
Table 1 (continued): Reference Raff
Page 453 and 454:
Table 1 (continued): Epidemiologica
Page 455 and 456:
Table 1 (continued): Epidemiologica
Page 457 and 458:
Table 1 (continued): Reference Wegm
Page 459 and 460:
Animal Studies Section 6.1 (Animal
Page 461 and 462:
The variability, or heterogeneity,
Page 463 and 464:
estimate for those studies for whic
Page 465 and 466:
Figure 1: Estimates of Relative Ris
Page 467 and 468:
q 1 * = Excess relative risk × CA
Page 469 and 470:
Table 3: Number of Workers in the E
Page 471 and 472:
u nexposed workers at zero concentr
Page 473 and 474:
for each µg/m 3 of diesel exhaust
Page 475 and 476:
Table 4: Values from Unit Risk for
Page 477 and 478:
their findings that a reasonable es
Page 479 and 480:
Garshick E, Schenker M, Woskie S an
Page 481 and 482:
Lewis T, Green, FH MW, Burg J and L
Page 483 and 484:
Rothman K. 1986. Modern epidemiolog
Page 485 and 486:
PENTACHLOROPHENOL CAS No: 87-86-5 I
Page 487 and 488:
The default lifespan for mice is 10
Page 489 and 490:
documented. An excess risk from ski
Page 491 and 492:
B6C3F 1 mice and F344/N rats were e
Page 493 and 494:
This model, rather than a time depe
Page 495 and 496:
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) CA
Page 497 and 498:
several benign adenomatous lesions
Page 499 and 500:
Ito et al. (1973) exposed groups of
Page 501 and 502:
could not be characterized by chlor
Page 503 and 504:
exposure (all pathways and mixtures
Page 505 and 506:
National Toxicology Program 1993. T
Page 507 and 508:
Table 1. Potassium bromate-induced
Page 509 and 510:
1,3-PROPANE SULTONE CAS No: 1120-71
Page 511 and 512:
Page 513 and 514:
PROPYLENE OXIDE CAS No: 75-56-9 I.
Page 515 and 516:
oxide. In the NTP carcinogenicity s
Page 517 and 518:
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE CAS No: 7
Page 519 and 520:
assumed a body weight of 70 kg and
Page 521 and 522:
total); an untreated control group
Page 523 and 524:
TOLUENE DIISOCYANATE CAS No: 26471-
Page 525 and 526:
Animal Studies The National Toxicol
Page 527 and 528:
Mortillaro PT and Schiavon M. 1982.
Page 529 and 530:
male or female rats. Increases in h
Page 531 and 532:
TRICHLOROETHYLENE CAS No: 79-01-6 I
Page 533 and 534:
A mortality analysis of a cohort of
Page 535 and 536:
elative to that of the controls whi
Page 537 and 538:
applied or metabolized. The range o
Page 539 and 540:
Katz RM and Jowett D. 1981. Female
Page 541 and 542:
10,000 ppm 2,4,6-trichlorophenol in
Page 543 and 544:
Page 545 and 546:
Bionetics Research Laboratories. 19
Page 547 and 548:
control; females: 6/10 exposed, 0/1
Page 549 and 550:
over controls (p < 0.04). Other tum
Page 551 and 552: was increased (100/314 exposed vs.
Page 553 and 554: Table 3. Cancer potency estimates f
Page 555 and 556: Crouch E. 1983. Uncertainties in in
Page 557 and 558: VINYL CHLORIDE CAS No: 75-01-4 I. P
Page 559 and 560: Table 1 (continued): A Summary of E
Page 561 and 562: al., 1983). Histopathology of all o
Page 563 and 564: Table 3: Tumor incidences in 100 pp
Page 565 and 566: experiment, animals were exposed to
Page 567 and 568: Experiment BT1 Most previous risk a
Page 569 and 570: No statistical analyses of mortalit
Page 571 and 572: Table 11 gives unit risk estimates
Page 573 and 574: Bertazzi PA, Villa A, Foa V, Saia B
Page 575 and 576: Nicholson WJ, Hammond EC, Seidman H
Page 577 and 578: immunotoxicity, reproductive toxici
Page 579 and 580: scheme. TEFs for two major noncance
Page 581 and 582: NATO/CCMS (1988a) Pilot Study on In
Page 583 and 584: Table 2 Toxicity Equivalency Factor
Page 585 and 586: Table 4 A Comparison of CTEF- and I
Page 587 and 588: Office of Environmental Health Haza
Page 589 and 590: Group 4: The agent is probably not
Page 591 and 592: TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR DESC
Page 593 and 594: US EPA IRIS Inhalation Unit Risk an
Page 595 and 596: TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR DESC
Page 597 and 598: as appropriate, and revise IRIS fil
Page 599 and 600: Chemical Exposure Route Study Type
Page 601: Chemical Exposure Route Study Type
Page 605 and 606: Methyl tert-butyl ether p. 5: Added
show all

home edit2 whole TSD November 2002 PDF format - OEHHA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?