# Update of Human Health Ambient Water Quality Criteria: p,p′

- Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) 50

- 29 -3 O ffice of Water Office of Science and Technology EPA 820 -R- 15

- 09 5 June 2015EPA 820 -R-15- 09 5 June 2015



# Update of Human Health Ambient Water Quality Criteria: p,p′

- Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) 50

- 29 -3

Office of Science and Technology Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460DDT 50

- 29 -3

1 Table of Contents
1 Introduction: Background and Scope of Update

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

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

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

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

.................................................................................................................. 5 4.2 Drinking W ater Intake

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

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

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

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

- specific BAFs

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

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

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

- specific Toxicity Value

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

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

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

................................................................................................ . 12 6.1 Approach

..................................................................................................................... 12 6.2 Chemical

- specific RSC

................................................................................................ . 13 7 Criteria Derivation: Analysis

.................................................................................................. 13 7.1 AWQC for Noncarcinogenic Toxicological Effects

...................................................... 14 7.2 AWQC for Carcinogenic Toxicological Effects

............................................................. 15 7.3 AWQC Summary

......................................................................................................... 15 8 Criteria C haracterization

........................................................................................................ 16 9 Chemical Name and Synonyms

............................................................................................. 18 10 References

............................................................................................................................. 20DDT 50

- 29 -3

2 1 Introduction: Background and Scope of Update EPA’s recommended ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) for human health are scientifically derived numeric values that EPA has determined will adequately protect human health from the adverse effects of pollutants in ambient water. Section 304(a)(1 ) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to develop and publish, and from time to time revise, recommended criteria for the protection of water quality that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge. Water quality criteria developed under secti on 304(a) are based solely on data and scientific judgments on the relationship between pollutant concentrations and environmental and human health effects. Section 304(a) criteria do not reflect consideration of economic impacts or the technological feasibility of meeting pollutant concentrations in ambient water. EPA’s recommended section 304(a) criteria provide technical information for states and authorized tribes a to consider and use in adopting water quality standards that ultimately provide the basis for assessing water body health and controlling discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States. Under the CWA and its implementing regulations, states and authorized tribes are required to adopt water quality criteria to protect the designated uses of waters (e.g., public water supply, aquatic life, recre ational use, industrial use). EPA’s recommended water quality criteria do not substitute for the CWA or regulations, nor are they regulations themselves. Thus, EPA’s recommended criteria do not impose legally binding requirements. States and authorized tri bes may adopt, where appropriate, other scientifically defensible water quality criteria that differ from these recommendations. The water quality criteria that are the subject of this document are national AWQC recommendations for human health issued unde r CWA section 304(a). Unless expressly indicated otherwise, all references to “criteria,” “water quality criteria,” “ambient water quality criteria recommendations,” or similar variants thereof are references to national AWQC recommendations for human heal th. In this 2015 update, EPA has revised the human health criteria for p,p′ -d ichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) to reflect the latest scientific information, including updated exposure factors (body weight [BW], drinking water intake [DI] rate, and fish consumption rate [FCR]), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs), and human health toxicity value s ( reference dose [RfD] multiplied by relative source contribution [RSC] or 10 -6 divided by cancer slope factor [CSF]). Th e criteria continue to be based on EPA’s Metho dology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health , which is referred to as the “2000 Methodology” in this document (USEPA 2000a) . EPA accepted written scientific views from the public on the draft updated human health criteria for this chemical (and 93 others) from May t hrough August 2014.

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

.DDT 50

- 29 -3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. Where sufficient data are available, EPA derives AWQC using both c arcinogenic and noncarcinogenic toxicity endpoints and recommends the lower value fo r the AWQC. The AWQC might not utilizeDDT 50

- 29 -3

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

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

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

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

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

- potable estuarine waters that support fish or shellfish for human consumption) (USEPA 20 00a)

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

.DDT 50

- 29 -3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

c 1,000 μg/mg is used to convert the units of mass from milligrams to m icrograms. d 10 -6 or 1 in 1,000,000 risk level for the general population.DDT 50

- 29 -3

6 4.2 Drinking Water Intake EPA updated the default DI to 2.4 L/d, rounded from 2.414 L/d, based on NHANES data from 2003 to 2006 as reported in EPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 2011 , Table 3

- 23)

. This rate represents the per capita estimate of combined direct and indirect community water e ingestion at the 90 th percentile for adults ages 21 and older. EPA selected the per capita rate for the updat ed DI because it represents the average daily dose estimates; that is, it includes both people who drank water during the survey period and those who did not, which is appropriate for a national

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

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

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

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

– 1996 data (USEPA 2002a)

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

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

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

. EPA used the following TL

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

. Each TL

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

e Community water includes direct and indirect use of tap water for household uses and excludes bottled water and other sources (USEPA 2011, section 3.3.1.2 ). Direct ingestion is defined as direct consumption of water as a beverage, while indirect ingestion includes water added during food preparation (e.g., cooking, rehydration of beverages) but not water intrinsic to purchased foods (USEPA 2011, section 3.1 ).DDT 50

- 29 -3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. EPA followed the approach described in Figure 3

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

- reviewed, publicly available information to classify each chemical using this framework to derive the most appropriate BAFs according to EPA’s 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a) . The framework provides six alternatives, or procedures, resulting in up to four possible methods for each chemical, based on the chemical’s properties. These four methods follow:DDT 50

- 29 -3

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

- measured BAFs were normalized by adjusting for the water

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

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

- octanol

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

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

. • BSAF Method. This method uses biota

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

— EPA’s Bio ta

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

— have not been peer

- reviewed.

• BCF Met hod. This method uses BAFs estimated from laboratory

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

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

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

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

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

. Following the decision framework presented in Figure 3

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

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

– TL4) in t he following priority:

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

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

- level BAF estimates for all three TL s. 3. BAF estimates using the K ow method if (a) Procedure 1 or 3 was applicable (see Figure 3- 1 of the Technical Support Document, Volume 2 [ USEPA 2003a ] ) and (b) th e BAF and BCF methods did not produce BAF estimates for all three TL s.DDT 50

- 29 -3

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

. EPA primarily used field

- me asured BAFs and laboratory

- measured BCFs available from peer

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

- measured BAFs and laboratory

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

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

- reviewed journal articles to find field

- measured BAFs or laboratory

- measured BCFs.
4.4.2 Chemical

- specific BAFs EPA selected national BAF values of 35,000 L/kg (TL2), 240,000 L/kg (TL3), and 1,100,000 L/kg (TL4) for DDT

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

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

• Nonionic organic chemical (USDHHS 2010)

• Moderate

- high hydrophobicity (log K ow ≥ 4) ; log K ow = 6. 91 (ATSDR 2002)

• Low/unknown metabolism

EPA was able to locate peer
- reviewed , field

- me asured BAFs for TL s 2, 3, and 4 (USEPA 2003a; Arnot and Gobas 2006)

. Therefore , EPA used the Field BAF method to derive the national BAF values for this chemical :
TL 2 = 35,000 L/kg TL 3 = 240,000 L/kg TL 4 = 1,100,000 L/kgDDT 50

- 29 -3

10 5 Hazard Identification and Dose Response
5.1 Approach EPA considered all available toxicity values for both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic toxicological effects to develop this updated AWQC for DDT . As described in the 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a) , where data are available , EPA derives AWQC for both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects and recommends the more protective value for the AWQC. (S ee section 7, Criteria Derivation: Analysis .) For noncarcinogenic toxicological effects, EPA uses a chronic

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

- observed

- adverse

- effect level (NOAEL), lowest

observed

- adverse

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

. For carcinogenic toxicological effects, EPA uses an oral CSF to derive human health AWQC . The oral CSF is an upper bound, approximating a 95 percent confidence limit, on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime or al exposure to a stressor. For this update, EPA conducted a systematic search of eight peer
- reviewed, publicly available sources to obtain the toxicity value (RfD or CSF) for use in developing AWQC

. EPA’s primary source of toxicity values for developing hu man health AWQC is its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program (USEPA 2015b)

. EPA also systematically searched for toxicological assessments from the following EPA program offices, other national and international programs, and state programs:

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

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

• EPA, Office of Water (USEPA 2015e)

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

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

• Health Canada (HC 2015)

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

1. EPA’s IRIS toxicological assessment was the only available source of a toxicity value. 2. EPA’s IRIS toxicological assessment was the most current source of a toxicity value.DDT 50

- 29 -3

11 3. EPA’s IRIS program was reassessing the chemical in question and had published the draft Toxicological Review for public review and comment, discussion at a public meeting, and subsequent expert peer review

. f 4. The toxicity value from a more current toxicological assessment from a source other than EPA IRIS was based on the same principal study and was numerically the same as
an older EPA IRIS toxicity value

. 5. A more current toxicological assessment from a source other than EPA IRIS was available, but it did not include the relevant toxicity value (chronic

- duration oral RfD or CSF)

. 6. A more current toxicological assessment from a source other than EPA IRIS was available, but it did not introduce new science (e.g., the toxicity value was not based on a newer principal study) or use a more current modeling approach compared to an older EPA IRIS toxicological assessment.

EPA selected the toxicity value from a peer
- reviewed, publicly available source other than EPA IRIS to derive the upd a ted AWQC if any of the following conditions were met:

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

- making

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

.
5.2 Chemical

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

- d (0.0005 mg/kg

- d) for DDT based on a 1985 EPA IRIS assessment (USEPA 1985)

. EPA’s IRIS program identified a study by Laug et al. ( 1950) as the critical study and liver lesions as the critical effect in rats orally exposed to DDT (USEPA 1985)

. The su bchronic study had a NOAEL of 0.05 mg/kg

- d. In deriving the RfD, EPA’s IRIS program applied a composite uncertainty factor of 100 to account for interspecies extrapolation (10) and intraspecies variation (10); a n uncertainty factor for subchronic

- to

- chronic conversion was not included because of a corroborating chronic study in the database (Fitzhugh 1948)

. In 2002, EPA’s IRIS program conducted a screening

- level review of the more recent toxicology literature pertinent to the RfD for DDT and identified one or more significant new studies; however, EPA’s IRIS program has not reassessed this chemical.

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

.DDT 50

- 29 -3

12 EPA identified one other potential RfD source t hrough the systematic search described in section 5 : a 2002 ATSDR assessment (ATSDR 2002)

. B ased on the selection process described in section 5, the 1985 EPA IRIS RfD is preferred for use in AWQC development at this time. The ATSDR assessment does not include the relevant (chronic oral) toxicity value.

5.2.2 Cancer Slope Factor
Under the 1986 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (USEPA 1986) , DD T is classified
as G roup B2, “probabl e human carcinogen ” (USEPA 1987)

. EPA selected a CSF of 3.4 × 10 –1 per mg/kg

- d (0.34 per mg/kg

- d) for DDT based on a 1987 EPA IRIS assessment (USEPA 1987) . EPA’s IRIS program derived the CSF using the principal stud ies by Turusov et al. ( 1973) , Terracini et al. ( 1973) , Thorpe and Walker ( 1973 ) , Tomatis and Turusov ( 1975) , Cabral et al. ( 1982) , and Rossi et al. ( 1977) based on the development of benign and malignant liver tumors in mice and rats orally exposed to DDT (USEPA 1987)

. In 2002, EPA’s IRIS program conducted a screening

- level review of the more recent toxicology literature pertinent to the cancer assessment for DDT and identified one or more significant new studies; however, EPA’s IRIS program has not reassessed this che mical. EPA identified no other CSF sources through the systematic search described in section 5.
6 Relative Source Contribution
6.1 Approach
Th e RSC component of the AWQC calculation allows a percentage of the RfD’s exposure to be attributed to the consumption o f ambient water and fish and shellfish from inland and nearshore waters when there are other potential exposure sources. The RSC describes the portion of the RfD available for AWQC

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

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

. To u s e th at approach, EPA compiled information for each chemical on its uses, chemical and physical properties, occurrences in other potential sources (e.g., air, food), and releases to the environment, as well as regulatory restrictions on other sources that are specific to the chemical (e.g., air quality standards, food tolerance levels) . The ATSDR “Toxicological Profiles” (ATSDR 2015) were the primary sources for this informati on. EPA used t he Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB) (USDHHS 2015) from the National Library of Medicine’s ToxicologyDDT 50

- 29 -3

13 Data Network (TOXNET) as the primary source for chemicals without ATSDR Toxicological Profiles. Both sources are peer

- reviewed compilations of chemical informatio n.
EPA used a dditional references , including the following, to obtain specific types of information and to supplement the information from ATSDR and the HSDB :

• EPA ’s Six

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

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

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

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

. • EPA Toxic Release Inventory (USEPA 2015g)

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

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

. • A dditional sources as needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

. 6.2 Chemical

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

. 7 Criteria Derivation : Analysis
Table 1 summarizes the model inputs used to derive the 2015 updated human health AWQC that are protective of exposure to DDT from consuming d rinking water and eating fish andDDT 50

- 29 -3

14 shellfish (organisms) from inland and nearshore waters

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

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

- d CSF 0.34 per mg/kg

- d RSC 0.2 0 BW 80 .0 kg DI 2.4 L/d

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

BAF TL2 35 ,000 L/kg TL3 240 ,000 L/kg TL4 1,100 ,000 L/kg

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

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

= 0.0005 mg/kg

- d × 0.20 × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

2.4 L/d + ((0.0076 kg/d × 35,000 L/kg) + (0.0086 kg/d × 240,000 L/kg) + (0.0051 kg/d × 1,100,000 L/kg))

= 0.00101 μg/L

= 0.001 μg/L (rounded) For consumption of organisms only: AWQC (μg/L) = toxicity value (RfD [mg/kg

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

4 i=2

= 0.0005 mg/kg

- d × 0.20 × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

(0.0076 kg/d × 35,000 L/kg) + (0.00 86 kg/d × 240,000 L/kg) + (0.00 51 kg/d × 1,100,000 L/kg)

= 0.00101 μg/L

= 0.001 μg/L (rounded)DDT 50

- 29 -3

15 7.2 AWQC for C arcinogenic Toxicological E ffects For consumption of water and organisms: AWQC (μg /L) = toxicity value (1 0 -6 / CSF ) [mg/kg

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

= (1 0 -6 / 0.34) mg/ kg

- d × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

2.4 L/d + (( 0.0076 kg/d × 35,000 L/kg) + ( 0.0086 kg/d × 240,000 L/kg) + ( 0.00 51 kg/d × 1,100,000 L/kg))

= 0.00002963 μg /L

= 0.000030 μg/L (rounded) For consumption of organisms only: AWQC (μg/L) = toxicity value (1 0 -6 / CSF ) [mg/kg

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

4 i=2

= (1 0 -6 / 0.34) mg/ kg

- d × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

( 0.0076 kg/d × 35,000 L/kg) + ( 0.0086 kg/d × 240,000 L/kg) + ( 0.00 51 kg/d × 1,100,000 L/kg)

= 0.00002963 μg /L

= 0.000030 μg/L (rounded)
7.3 AWQC Summary
EPA derived the AWQC for DDT using both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic toxicity endpoints. The updated human h ealth AWQC for noncarcinogenic effects for DDT are 0.001 μg/L for consumption of water and organisms and 0.001 μg/L for consumption of organisms only. The updated human health AWQC for carcinogenic effects (at a 10 -6 cancer risk level) for DDT are 0.000030 μg/L for consumption of water and organisms and 0.000030 μg/L for consumption of organisms only. EPA recommends the lower AWQC, based on the carcinogenic effects of DDT , as the updated human health AWQC (Table 2). These updated criteria replace EPA’s prev iously published values (USEPA 2002b)

.
Table 2. Summary of EPA’s Previously Recommended (2002 ) and U pdat ed ( 2015 ) H uman H ealth AWQC for DDT 2002 Human Health AWQC 201 5 Human Health AWQC Water and Organism 0.00022 μg/L 0.000030 μg/L Organism Only 0.00022 μg/L 0.000030 μg/L

These AWQC are intended to be protective of the general adult population from an increased cancer risk due to exposure to DDT a t a 10 -6 , o r one in one million, risk level. The 10 -6 risk level associated with the AWQC represents the concentration that would be exp e cted to increase an individual’s lifetime cancer risk from exposure to th e particular pollutant by no more than oneDDT 50

- 29 -3

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

. The following paragraphs describe the individual influence of each of the revised inputs and exposure assumptions on the overall change in value. Body W eig ht EPA’s updated AWQC assume a higher BW compared to the previously recommended 2002 criteria, reflecting a recent rise in average adult BW among the U.S. population. The updated BW assumption of 80.0 kg, based on recent survey data from the 1999−2006 NHAN ES data, is 10 kg greater than the previous assumption of 70 kg. Assuming all other input parameters remain constant, a higher average BW in the AWQC calculations (Eq s . 1 and 2 above) results in higher AWQC. That is, as BW increases, the level of a contami nant in water at or below which negative health effects are not anticipated from a lifetime of exposure also increases. Drinking Water Intake The updated DI assumption is 2.4 L/d , which is higher than the previously recommended rate of 2 L/d

. Assuming all other input parameters remain constant, a higher DI assumption in the AWQC calculations (Eq s . 1 and 2 above) results in lower AWQC. That is, as DI increases, and thus overall exposure increases, the level of a contaminant in water at or below which negativ e health effects are not anticipated from a lifetime of exposure decreases

. Fish Consumption Rate The updated FCR for fish and shellfish from inland and nearshore waters is 22.0 g/d; the TL

- specific FCRs are 7.6 g/d, 8.6 g/d, and 5.1 g/d for TLs 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The previously recommended FCR was 17.5 g/d. Assuming all other input parameters remain constant, a higher FCR assumption in the AWQC calculations (Eqs. 1 and 2 above) results in lower AWQC. That is, as fish consumption increases, and thus overall exposure increases, the level of a contaminant in water at or below which negative health effects are not anticipated from a lifetime of exposure decreases.
Bioaccumulation Factor The national lower (TL2), mid (TL3), and upper (TL4) TL BAFs used in the updated AWQC (Eqs. 1 and 2 above) are 35,000, 240,000, and 1,100,000 L/kg wet

- weight, respectively. These BAFs were derived using EPA’s 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a) and its Technical Support Document, Volume 2 (USEPA 2003a) . These national TL BA Fs replace EPA’s previously recommended BCF of 53,600 L/kg.DDT 50

- 29 -3

17 As an additional line of evidence, EPA used model

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

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

- body meta bolic biotransformation rate constant as input parameters to predict BAF values. The EPI Suite model estimates are as follows :
TL 2 = 1,022,000 L/kg TL 3 = 1,446,000 L/kg TL 4 = 2,315,000 L/kg
Assuming all other input parameters remain constant, higher BAFs or BCFs result in lower AWQC. That is, as bioaccumulation or bioconcentration of a contaminant in fish and shellfish increases, the level of a contaminant in water at or below which negative health effects are not anticipated from a lifetime of exposu re decreases.
The utilization of a national

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

- d for DDT based on a 1985 EPA IRIS assessment (USEPA 1985) . EPA used the RfD of 0.0005 mg/kg

- d to derive AWQC for nonc arcinogenic effects. EPA did not derive AWQC for noncarcinogenic effects of DDT in its previous criteria update (USEPA 2002c)

. Cancer Slope F actor EPA retained a CSF of 0.34 per mg/kg

- d for DDT based on a 1987 EPA IRIS assessment (USEPA 1987; USEPA 2002c) . EPA used th is CSF to derive AWQC for carcinogenic effects. Assuming all other input parameters remain constant, no change in the values used for the CSF in the AWQC calculations (Eqs

. 1 and 2) results in no change in AWQC.DDT 50

- 29 -3

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

. 9 Chemical Name and Synonyms

• 4,4′

- DDT (CAS Number 50

- 29

- 3)

• Agritan

• Anofex

• Arkotine

• Azotox

• Benzene, 1,1 ′

- (2,2,2

- trichloroethylidene)bis(4

- chloro -)

• Alpha,alpha

- bis(p

- chlorophenyl)

- beta,beta,beta

- trichlorethane

• 1,1

- bis

- (p

- chlorophenyl)

- 2,2,2

- trichloroethane

• 2,2

- bis(p

- chlorophenyl)

- 1,1,1

- trichloroethane

• Bosan supra

• Bovidermol

• Chlorophenothan

• Chlorophenothane

• Chlorophenotoxum

• Citox

• Clofenotane

• DDT

• p,p ′

- DDT

• Dedelo

• Deoval

• Detox

• Detoxan

• Dibovan

• Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

• 4,4 ′

- dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

• Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, p,p ′ -
• Dicophane

• Didigam

• Didimac

• Diphenyltrichloroethane

• Dodat

• Dykol

• ENT 1,506

• Estonate

• Ethane, 1,1,1

- trichloro

- 2,2

- bis(p

- chlorophenyl) -DDT 50

- 29 -3

19 • Genitox

• Gesafid

• Gesapon

• Gesarex

• Gesarol

• Guesapon

• Guesarol

• Gyron

• Havero

- extra

• Hildit

• Ivoran

• Ixodex

• Kopsol

• Micro DDT 75

• Mutoxin

• NA 2761

• NCI

- C00464

• Neocid

• Parachlorocidum

• Peb1

• Pentachlorin

• Pentech

• Ppzeidan

• R50

• RCRA waste number u061

• Rukseam

• Santobane

• Tech DDT

• 1,1,1

- trichloor

- 2,2

- bis(4

- chloor fenyl)

- ethaan

• 1,1,1

- trichlor

- 2,2

- bis(4

- chlor

- phenyl)

- aethan

• 1,1,1

- trichloro

- 2,2

- bis(p

- chlorophenyl)ethane

• Trichlorobis(4

- chlorophenyl)ethane

• 1,1,1

- trichloro

- 2,2

- di(4

- chlorophenyl)

- ethane

• 1,1,1

- tricloro

- 2,2

- bis(4

- cloro

- fenil)

- etano

• Zeidane

• ZerdaneDDT 50

- 29 -3

20 10 References Arnot, J.A., and A.P.C. Gobas. 2003. A Generic QSAR for Assessing the Bioaccumulation Potential of Organic Chemicals in Aquatic Food Webs. QSAR & Combinatorial Science 22:337

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

– 297.
ATSDR. 2002. Toxicological Profile for DDT, DDE, and DDD . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA. Accessed February 2015. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35.pdf

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

. Cabral, J.R., R.K. Hall, L. Rossi, S.A. Bronczyk, and P. Shubik. 1982. Effects of long

- term intake of DDT on rats. Tumori 68(1):11

– 17.
CalEPA. 2014. All Public Health Goals . California E nvironmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Accessed February 2015. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/allphgs.html

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

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

- assessment/theoecdqsartoolbox.htm

. Fitzhugh, O.G. 1948. Use of DDT insecticides on food products. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 40(4):704

– 705.
HC. 2015. Health Canad a . Home page. Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Accessed February 2015. http://www.hc

- sc.gc.ca/index

- eng.php

. IBWA. 2012. International Bottled Water Association Bottled Water Code of Practice (Revised Dec ember, 2012) . International Bottled Water Association, Alexandria, VA. Accessed January 2015. Laug, E.P., A.A. Nelson, O.G. Fitzhugh, and F.M. Kunze. 1950. Liver cell alternation and DDT storage in the fat of the rat induced by dietary levels of 1 to 50 pp m DDT. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 98(3):268

– 273.DDT 50

- 29 -3

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

. Rossi, L., M. Ravera, G. Repetti, and L. Santi. 1977. Long

- term administration of DDT or phenobarbital

- Na in Wistar rats. International Journal of Cancer 19(2):179

– 185. Terracini, B., M.C. Testa, J.R. Cabral, and N. Day. 1973. The effects of long

- term feeding of DDT to BALB/c mice. Intern ational Journal of Cancer 11(3):747

– 764. Thorpe, E., and A.I.T. Walker. 1973. The toxicology of dieldrin (HEOD). II. Comparative long

- term oral toxicity studies in mice with dieldrin, DDT, phenobarbitone, beta

- BHC and gamma BHC. Food and Cosmetics Toxicol ogy 11:433

– 442. Tomatis, L., and V. Turusov. 1975. Studies on the carcinogenicity of DDT. Gann Monograph on Cancer Research 17:219

– 241. Turusov, V.S., N.E. Day, L. Tomatis, E. Gati, and R.T. Charles. 1973. Tumors in CF

- 1 mice exposed for six consecutive ge nerations to DDT. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 51(3):983

– 997.
USACE. 2015. Biota

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

. USDHHS. 2010. DDT (CASRN: 50

- 29

- 3) . Hazardous Substances Data Bank, a TOXNET database. Retrieved February 23, 2015. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi

- bin/sis/search2/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+200

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

. USEPA. 1985. p,pʹ

- Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) (CASRN 50

- 29

- 3) . Integrated Risk Information System. Oral RfD assessment verificati on date December 18, 1985. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0147.htm

. USEPA. 1986. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum . EPA

- 630 -R00

- 004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. Acces sed February 2015. http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=439779

.DDT 50

- 29 -3

22 USEPA. 1987. p,pʹ

- Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) (CASRN 50

- 29

- 3) . Integrated Risk I nformation System. Carcinogenicity assessment verifi cation date June 24, 1987. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://www. epa.gov/iris/subst/0147.htm

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

- 822 -B- 00

- 004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washing ton, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2005_05_06_criteria_hum anhealth_method_co mplete.pdf

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

- 822 -B00

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

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

- 821 -C- 02

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

. USEPA. 2 002b. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002 . EPA

- 822 -R- 02

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

- 2002.pdf

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

- 822 -R- 02

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

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

- 822 -R- 03

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

.DDT 50

- 29 -3

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

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

- 2003

- 12

- 31/html/03

- 32211.htm

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

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

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

. USEPA. 20 09b. Contaminant Occurrence Support Document for Category 2 Contaminants for the Second Six

- Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations . EPA

- 815 -B- 09

- 011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drin king Water, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants /sixyearreview/second _review/upload/6YearCategory2Report_final.pdf

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

- 823 -R- 09

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

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

- 600 -R- 09

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

- complete.pdf

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

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

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

. EPA

- 100 -R- 14

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

- 12/documents/hhra

- framework

f inal

- 2014.pdf

.DDT 50

- 29 -3

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

- 2010) . EPA

- 820 -R- 14

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

- Fish

- Consumption

- Rates

- for

- the -U-S- Population

- and

- Selected

- Subpopulations

NHANES

- 2003

- 2010.pdf

. USEPA. 2015a. Biota

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. USEPA. 2015g. TRI Explorer . (201 3 Dataset [released March 2015]) (Internet database) Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer , March 13, 2015. http://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/release_chem?p_view=USCH&trilib=TRIQ1&sort=_VIE W_&sort_fmt=1&state=All+states&county=All+counties&chemical=All+chemicals&indus try=ALL&year=2013&tab_rpt=1&fld=RELLBY&fld=TSFDSP

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

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

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

.