# Update of Human Health Ambient Water Quality Criteria: b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65 -9 Office of Water Office of Science and Technology EPA 820 -R- 15 -016 June 2015EP A 820 -R- 15

- 01 6 J une 2015



# Update of Human Health Ambient Water Quality Criteria: b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65 -9

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

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65 -9

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

- spe cific RSC

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

.................................................................................................. 15 7.1 AWQC for Noncarcinogenic Toxicological Effects

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

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

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

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

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

............................................................................................................................. 19

1b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65 -9

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 section 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 des ignated uses of waters (e.g., public water supply, aquatic life, recreational 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 tribes 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 d ocument are national AWQC recommendations for human health issued under CWA section 304(a). Unless expressly indicated otherwise, all references to “criteria,” “water quality criteria,” “ambient water quality criteria recommendations,” or similar variants thereof are references to national AWQC recommendations for human health. In this 2015 update, EPA has revised the human health criteria for beta

- endosulfan 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 Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health , which is referred to as the “2000 Methodology” in this document (USEPA 2000a) . EPA accepted written scientific views from the public on the draft updated human health criteria for this chemical (and 93 others) from May t hrough August 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

.
2b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65 -9

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 st ate or tribal water quality standards reflect current science and protect applicable designated uses. These final 2015 updated section 304(a) human health criteria recommendations supersede EPA’s previous recommendations.
2 Problem 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 gene ral concepts of effects assessments as described in EPA’s Framework for Human Health Risk Assessment to Inform Decision Making (USEPA 2014a)

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

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

- water exposure pathways to derive human health AWQC depending on the toxicological endpoint of concern, the toxicological effect (non carcinogenic or carcinogenic ), and whether toxicity is considered a linear or threshold 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 utilize

3b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65 -9
the value obtained from the cancer analysis if it is less protective than that derived from the noncancer endpoint

. 3 Criteria Formulas : Analysis Plan Human health AWQC for toxic pollutants are necessary to protect any 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)

.

4b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65 -9

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 Wh ere: AWQC = 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 200 6 as reported in Table 8.1 of EPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 2011a) . The updated BW represents the mean weight for adult s 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 Nat ional 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.

5b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65 -9

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 2011a , 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 updated DI because it represents the average daily dose estimates ; that is , it includes both people who drank water during the survey period and those who did not , which is appropriate for a national

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

– 1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) analysis (USEPA 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 default FCR of 17.5 g/d, which represented an estimate of the 90 th percentile per capita consumption rate of fish from inland and nearshore waters for U.S. adults ages 21 years and older. That de fault 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 f ish (USEPA 2000a)

. EPA used the fol lowing 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 FC R represent s the 90 th percentile per capita consumption rate of fish and shellfish from inland and nearshore waters from that particular TL for U.S. adult s ages 21 years and older (USEPA 2014b ,

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

6b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65

- 9
Tables 16a, 17a, and 18a ) . The sum of these three TL

- specific FCRs is 21.3 g/d, which is within the 95 perce nt 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 Bio accumul ation Factor 4.4.1 Approach Several attributes of the bioacc umulation 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 surro unding 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 persistent and hydrophobic), the magn itude 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. Accordingl y, 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 updated AWQC using EPA’s 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a) and its Technical Support Document, Volume 2: Development of National Bioaccumulation Factors (Technical Support Document, Volume 2) (USEPA 2003a) . Specifically, these documents pro vide 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 re presents the long

- term average bioaccumulation 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 D ocument, 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:

7b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65

- 9

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

- measured BAFs were norma lized 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 u sing 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 p articulate 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 Tec hnical Support Document, Volume 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 compilati ons of these data

— EPA’s Biota

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

— have not been peer

- reviewed.

• BCF Method. This method uses BAFs estimated from laboratory

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

- measured BCFs are normalized with the lipid fr action 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 comput e baseline BAFs. The national

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

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

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

– TL4) in the following priority:
1. BAF e stimates 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) the BAF and BCF methods did no t produce BAF estimates for all three TL s.

8b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65

- 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 repo rted TL s by averaging the estimates using a geometric mean when there were two BAFs and us ing the single estimate when only one was available. EPA did not mix values from the BAF and BCF methods. If the BAF method did not have sufficient reliable data for any TL s, EPA used the BCF method estimates in the same manner. If none of the four methods provided sufficient data, or if none were appropriate for the procedure, EPA used the BCF from the previously recommended 2002/2003 criteria (USEPA 2002b; USEPA 2003b)

. EPA primarily used field

- measured BAFs and laboratory

- measured BCFs available from peer

reviewed, publicly available databases (Arnot and Gobas 2006; Environment Canada 2006) to develop nati onal 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. Depart ment of Health and Human Services ’ Hazardous Substances Data Bank ) for use in calculating national BAFs using the K ow method described in EPA’s Technical Support Document, Volume 2 (USEPA 2003a) . For those chemicals for which the K ow method was not applicable based on the Technical Support 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 Chemi cal
- specific BAFs EPA selected national BAF values of 80 L/kg (TL2), 110 L/kg (TL3), and 130 L/kg (TL4) for beta

endosulfan

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

- 1 of the Technical Support Document, Vol ume 2 (USEPA 2003a) to select a procedure for estimating national BAFs for beta

- endosulfan. Based on the characteristics of this chemical, EPA selected Procedure 3 for deriving a national BAF value. Beta

- endosulfan has the followi ng characteristics:

• Nonionic organic chemical (USDHHS 2010)

• Low hydrophobicity (log K ow < 4); log K ow = 3.62 (USDHHS 2010)

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

- reviewed, field

- measured BAFs or lab

- measured BCFs for TLs 2, 3, and 4. Therefore, EPA used the K ow method to derive the national BAF values for this chemical: TL2 = 80 L/kg T L 3 = 110 L/kg TL 4 = 130 L/kg

9b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65

- 9

5 Hazard Identificatio n 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 beta

- endosulfan . 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 typi cally derived from a laboratory animal dosing study in which a no

- observed

- adverse

- effect level (NOAEL), lowest

observed

- adverse

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

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

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

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

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

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

• EPA, Office of Water (USEPA 2015e)

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

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services , Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 2015)

• Health Canada (HC 2015)

• Ca lifornia Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (CalEPA 2014) After identifying and documenting all available toxic ity 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:

10b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65

- 9

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. 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 E PA 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 asses sment 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 6 × 10 – 3 mg/kg

- d (0.006 mg/kg

- d) for beta

- endosulfan based on a 2002 EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for endosulfan , a current

- use pesticide g (USEPA 2002c) . Technical grade endosulfan is a mixture of two biologically active isomers, alpha

- endosulfan and beta

- end osulfan (USEPA 2002c) . EPA OPP identified a study by Ruckman et al. (1989) as the critical study and reduced BW gain and increased incidence of marked progressive glomerulonephrosis and blood vessel aneurysms as critical effects in male rats orally exposed to endosulfan (USEPA 2002c) . The combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study had a NOAEL of 0.6 mg/kg

- d. In deriving the RfD, EPA OPP app lied a composite uncertainty factor of 100 to account for interspecies extrapolation (10) and intraspecies variation (10) (USEPA 2002c)

.

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

. g This pesticide has been cancelled; the remaining end

- use products have an effective cancellation date of July 31, 2016 (USEPA 2010)

.
11b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65

- 9

E PA identified two other RfD sources through the systematic search described in section 5: a 1993 EPA IRIS assessment (USEPA 1993) and a 2013 draft ATSDR assessment (ATSDR 2013)

. Based on the selection process described in section 5, the 2002 OPP RfD is preferred for use in AWQC development at this time. The OPP RfD was selected to derive t he updated AWQC because this chemical is a current

- use pesticide.
5.2.2 Cancer Slope Factor According to EPA OPP, endosulfan (mixture of alpha

- and beta

- ) is neither mutagenic nor carcinogenic (USEPA 2002c) . EPA’s IRIS program has not developed a carcinogenicity assessment for endosulfan (USEPA 1993)

. EPA identified no 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 of ambient water and fish and shellfish from inland and nearshore waters when there are other po tential 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 a n RSC for each chemical included in this 2015 update by using the Exposure Decision Tree app roach 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, a s well as regulatory restriction s on other sources that are specific to the chemical (e.g., air quality standards, food tolerance levels) . The ATSDR “Toxicological Profiles” (ATSDR 2015) were the primary sources for this information. EPA used t he Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB) (USDHHS 2015) from the National Library of Medicine’s Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET) as the primary source for chemicals without ATSDR Toxicolo gical Profiles. Both sources are peer

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

• EPA ’s Six

- Year Review s (drinking water data) (USEPA 200 9a; USEPA 2009b)

. • FDA Total Diet Study (USFDA 2015)

. • FD A Everything Added t o Food in the United States (USFDA 2013)

.

12b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65 -9

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

. • EPA Toxic Release Inventory (USEPA 2015g)

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

. • 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 pathw ay
. • 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 w aters)

. • 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 Endosulfan is an organochlorine insecticide made up of two isomers, alpha

- endosulfan and beta

- endosulfan. Endosulfan has been used on a variety of crops and ornamental plants in the United States

. It is currently registered as a pesticide by EPA, but is undergoing a phaseout of registered uses. The phaseout of endosulfan uses in the United States was announced in November 2010 and began in 2012 . A ll uses will be phased out by July 2016 (USEP A 2010)

. Occupational exposure to endosulfan may occur through inhalation and dermal contact at the workplace. Because of its use on various crops across the United States and internationally , ingestion via food is a potentially significant source of beta

- endosulfan exposure (USDHHS 2010) . Ingestion of fish and shellfish and drinking water are also potentially significant sources. Monitoring d ata i ndicate tha t the g eneral population coul d be exposed to be ta

- endosulfan primarily v ia ingestion o f

fo od (USDHHS 2 010)

. A 1 984 study showed that beta

- endosulfan was det ected i n 2 40 c omposite food samples (USDHHS 201 0)

. The 20 04

– 2005 FDA T otal Di et Study detected tr ace a mounts o f beta

- endosulfan in food samples i ncluding s pinach and s trawberries (USFDA 2005)

. I n the P esticide Data Program in 2013, beta -e ndosulfan was de tected in vegetables —c elery ( 0.6 percent o f s amples), g reen beans ( 0.5 percent o f sa mples), p eaches

13b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65 -9

(0.4 percent of samples), a nd w inter s quash (0.5 pe rcent o f s amples) (USDA 2 014)

. The Global MRL Database r eports max imum residual l evels of e ndosulfan in numerous food commodities (Bryant Christie I nc. 2 015)

. E PA s ets a 4 0 CF R pa rt 180 pesticide tolerance fo r e ndosulfan i n food a n d feed commodities (USGPO 201 5)

. T hus, based on beta -e ndosulfan’s prevalence in sampled f oods, ingestion o f n on -f is h food is a p otentially s ignificant s ource o f e xposure to the chemical

. Beta

- endosulfan has a log K ow of 3.62 (USDHHS 2010)

. The national

- level BAF estimates for beta

- endosulfan range from 80 L/kg (TL2) to 130 L/kg (TL4), which indicates that it has a low

- to

moderate potential for bioaccumulation (USEPA 2011b) . Beta

- endosulfan has been detected in nearshore and ocean fish and shellfish in NOAA’s Mussel Watch Survey (NOAA 2014) . Total endosulfan was detected in some fish samples (from 1 to 5 percent of the sampling locations) collect ed for EPA’ s National Lake Fish Tissue Study (USEPA 2009c) . Thus, based on beta

endosulfan ’s potential to bioaccumulate and presence in sampled fish and shellfish, ingestion of fish and shellfish is a potentially significant source of exposure to the chemical

. Be ta

- e ndosulfan transforms into endosulfan diol in water fairly rapidly, and therefore, drinking water is not expected to be a major source of exposure (USDHHS 2010) . Beta

- endosulfan is not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (USEPA 2014c) , and it is not listed as a chemical of concern in EPA’s Six

- Year Reviews (USEPA 2009a; USEPA 2009b)

. No Standard of Quality for bottled water has been established for beta

- endosulfan (IBWA 2012) . Thus, based on beta

endosulfan ’s physical properties, exposure to the chemical from ingestion of surface water and drinking water is not considered likely. The physical properties of beta

- endosulfan indicate that volatilization is likely to occu r when endosulfan is not adsorbed to sediment or suspended solids. The chemical was detected in ambient air samples collected in urban areas of 14 states in 1970 and 16 states in 1971

– 72 (mean concentration of 22.0 nanograms per cubic meter among samples with measurable amounts of beta

- endosulfan) prior to the phase out (USDHHS 2010)

. More recent ambient air monitoring data for beta

- endosulfan could not be identified. It is not listed by EPA as a hazardous air pollutant (USEPA 2013) , and EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory did not report release data for beta

- endosulfan in 2013 (USEPA 2015g) . Thus, based on its physical properties and available exposure information, the potential for exposure to be ta

- endosulfan from air is possible

. In summary, based on the physical properties and available exposure information for beta

endosulfan, non

- fish food and fish and shellfish are potentially significant sources of beta

endosulfan exposure. Following the Exp osure Decision Tree in EPA’s 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a) , significant potential sources other than fish and shellfish from inland and nearshore waters and water ingestion might exist (Box 8B in the Decision Tree) ; however, information is not available to quantitatively characterize expos ure from th o se different sources . Therefore, EPA recommends an RSC of 2 0 percent (0. 2 0) for beta

- endosulfan.

14b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65 -9

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 beta

- endosulfan from consuming drinking water and eating fish and shellfish (organisms) from inland and nearshore waters

. The c riteria calculations are presented below. These updated criteria recommendations are based on the 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 be ta

- Endosulfan Input Parameter Value RfD 0.006 mg/kg

- d CSF No data 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 80 L/kg TL3 110 L/kg TL4 130 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) × B W (kg) × 1 , 000 ( μg/mg) DI (L/d) + ∑ (FCR i (kg/d) × BAF i (L/kg)) 4 i=2

= 0.006 mg/kg

- d × 0.2 0 × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

2.4 L/d + ((0.00 76 kg/d × 80 L/kg) + (0.00 86 kg/d × 1 10 L/kg) + (0.00 51 kg/d × 130 L/kg))

= 20.8 μg/L

= 20 μg/L (rounded)

15b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65 -9
For consumption of organisms only: AWQC (μg/L) = toxicity value (RfD [mg/kg

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

4 i=2

= 0.006 mg/kg

- d × 0.2 0 × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

(0.0076 kg/d × 80 L/kg) + (0.00 86 kg/d × 1 10 L/kg) + (0.00 51 kg/d × 130 L/kg)

= 43.3 μg/L

= 40 μg/L (rounded)
7.2 AWQC for C arcinogenic Toxicological E ffects EPA identif ied no CSF sources through the systematic search described a bove. (See section 5, Hazard Identification and Dose Response .) Therefore, EPA was unable to derive AWQC for carcinogenic toxicological effects.
7.3 AWQC Summary EPA derive d the AWQC for beta

- endosulfan using a noncarcinogenic toxicity endpoint. The updated human health AWQC for beta

- endosulfan are 20 μg/L for consumption of water and organisms and 40 μg/L for consumption of organisms only (Table 2). These updated criteria replace EPA’s previously publis hed values (USEPA 2002b)

. Table 2. Summary of EPA’s Previously Recommended (2002 ) and U pdated ( 2015 ) Hum an H ealth AWQC for beta -E ndosulfan 2002 Human Health AWQC 201 5 Human Health AWQC

Water and Organism 62 μg/L 2 0 μg/L Organism Only 89 μg/L 4 0 μg/L

T hese AWQC are intended to be protective of the general adult population from noncarcinogenic effects due to chronic (up to a lifetime) e xposure to beta

- endosulfan from ingesting water and/or consuming fish and shellfish from inland and nearshore waters.
8 Criteria Characterization The updated 2015 human health AWQC for beta

- endosulfan take into account cur rent 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 Weight EPA’s updated AWQC assume a higher BW compared to the previously recommended 2002 criteria, reflecting a recent rise in average adult BW among the U.S. population. The updated BW assumption of 80.0 kg, based on recent survey data from the 1999−2006 NHANES data, is

16b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65

- 9
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 contaminant 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 previo usly 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 negative 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 incre ases, 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 80, 110, and 130 L/kg wet

- weight, respectively. These BAFs were derived using EPA’s 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a) and its Technical Support Document, Volume 2 (USEPA 2003a) . These national TL BAFs replace E PA’s previously recommended BCF of 270 L/kg. As an additional line of evidence, EPA used model

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

- measured or predicted BAFs developed using the four methods described above. The BCFBAF program within EPI Suite estimates fish BAF s by using K ow and biotransformation data from a model designed by Arnot and Gobas ( 2003) . The model includes mechanistic processes for bioaccumulation , such as chemical uptake from the water at the gill surface and from the diet, chemical elimination at the gill surface, fecal egestion, growth dilution , and metabolic biotransformation. Other processes included in the calcul ations 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 metab olic biotransformation rate constant as input parameters to predict BAF values. The EPI Suite model estimates are as follows : TL 2 = 178.9 L/kg TL 3 = 199.2 L/kg TL 4 = 281.1 L/kg

17b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65

- 9
Assuming all other input parameters remain constant, lower BAFs or BCFs result in higher AWQC. That is, as bioaccumulation or bioconcentration of a contaminant in fish and shellfish decreases, the level of a contaminant in water at or below which negative health effects are not anticipated from a lifetime of exposure increases.
The u tilization 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 s urrounding 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 consumed by a single value, allows for better exposure representation. Reference Dose EPA retained an RfD of 0.006 mg/kg

- d for beta

- endosulfan based on a 2002 EPA OPP RED for endosulfan (USEPA 2002c; USEPA 2002d)

. EPA used this RfD to derive AWQC for noncarcinogenic effects. Assuming all other input parameters remain constant, no change in the values used for the RfD in the AWQC calculations ( Eqs. 1 and 2) results in no change in AWQC. Cancer Slope Factor EPA did not select a CSF for beta

- end osulfan and therefore did not derive AWQC for carcinogenic effects. EPA did not derive AWQC for carcinogenic effects of beta

- endosulfan in its previous criteria update (USEPA 2002d)

. Relative Source Contribution An RSC of 20 percent is included in the AWQC calculation. Previously, the AWQC did not include an RSC (or, in other words, the RSC was 100 percent) (USEPA 2002d) . Assuming all other input parameters remain constant, a lower RSC in the AWQC calculations (Eqs. 1 and 2) results in lower AWQC.
9 Chemical Name and Synonyms

• Beta

- endo sulfan (CAS Number 33213

- 65

- 9)

• Endosulfan 2

• Endosulfan b

• b

- endosulfan

• 'LGC' (1120)

• beta

- thiodan

• Endosulfan II

• alpha

- thionex

• beta

- benzoepin

• beta

- endosulfan

18b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65

- 9

• endosulfan

- beta

• 6,9

- methano

- 2,4, 3

- benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10

- hexachloro

- 1, 5,5a,6,9,9a

hexahyd ro - , 3

- oxide, (3

- alpha, 5a

- alpha, 6

- beta, 9

- beta, 9a

- alpha)

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. 2013. Draft Toxicological Profile for Endosulfan

. 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/toxprof iles/tp41.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

. Bryant Christie Inc. 2015. Global MRL Database TM . Home page. Bryant Christie Inc., Seattle, WA. Accessed March 2015. https://www.globalmrl.com/db#query

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

. 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 D evelopment, Paris, France. http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk

- assessment/theoecdqsartoolbox.htm

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

- sc.gc.ca/index

- eng.php

. IBWA. 2012. International Bottled Water Association Bottled Water Code of Practice (Revised December, 2012) . International Bottled Water Association, Alexandria, VA. Accessed January 2015.
NOAA. 2014. National Centers for Ocean and Coastal Science, National Status and Trends Data Portal (NCCOS NS&T Data Portal) . U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Ocean and Coastal Science, Silver Spring, MD. Accessed March 2015. http://egisws02.nos.noaa.gov/nsandt/index.html#

.

19b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65

- 9
Ruckman, S., L. Waterson, D. Crook, C. Gopinath, S. Maje ed, A. Anderson, and D. Chanter. 1989. Endosulfan

-- Substance Technical: Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Study: 104

- Week Feeding in Rats . MRID no. 410995

- 02. Project ID HST 289/881076. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Celanese Corporation, No rth Somerville, NJ.
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

. USDA. 2014. Pesticide Data Program

— Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2013 . U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5110007

. USDHHS. 2010. Endosulfan (CASRN: 115

- 29

- 7) . Hazardous Substances Data Bank, a TOXNET database. Retrieved Februa ry 16, 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/c gi

- bin/sis/search2/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+390

. 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. 1993. Endosulfan (CASRN 115

- 29

- 7) . Integrated Risk Information System. Oral RfD assessment verification date March 31 , 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0235.htm

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

- 822

- B

- 00

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

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

- 822

- B

00

- 005. 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/criteria/health/methodology/uplo ad/2005_05_06_criteri a_humanhealth_method_supportdoc.pdf

.

20b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65

- 9

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

- 821

- C

- 02

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

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

- 822

- R

- 02

- 0 47. 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. Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Endosulfan . EPA 738

- R

- 02

- 013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/RE Ds/endosulfan_red.pdf

. USEPA. 2002d. 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 Ambi ent 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 Techno logy, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2008/october/methodology.pdf

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

– 75515. Accessed February 2015. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pk g/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, Offi ce of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://water.epa.gov/law sregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants/sixyearreview/second _review/upload/6YearCategory1Report.pdf

.

21b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65

- 9

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

- Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulati ons . EPA

- 815

- B

- 09

- 011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants/sixyearreview/second _review/upload/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, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/fishstudies/upload/2009_9_28_fish_study_ data_finalreport.pdf

. USEPA. 2010. Endosulfan: Final Product Cancellation Order. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register, November 10, 2010, 75(217):69065

– 69069. Accessed March 2015. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2010

- 11

- 10/html/2010

- 28138.htm

. USEPA. 2011a. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Editi on . EPA

- 600

- R

- 09

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

- complete.pdf

. U SEPA. 2011b. Design for the Environment Program Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazard Evaluation. Version 2.0 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014

- 01/documents/aa_criteria_v2.pdf

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

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

. USEPA. 2013. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 List of Hazardous Air Pollutants . Air toxics web site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Washington, DC. Accessed January 2015. http://www.epa.gov/airtoxics/orig189.html

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

. EPA

- 100

- R

- 14

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

- 12/documents/hhra

- framework

final

- 2014.pdf

.

22b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65

- 9

USEPA. 2014b. Estimated Fis h 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

- f or - the

- U

- S

- Population

- and

- Selected

- Subpopulations

NHANES

- 2003

- 2010.pdf

. USEPA. 2014c. Drinking Water Contaminants. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water , Washington, DC. Accessed January 2015. http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm

. USEPA. 2015a. Biota

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

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

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

. USEPA. 2015d. Existing Che micals . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention 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

.

23b eta

- Endosulfan 33213

- 65

- 9

USFDA. 2005. Total Diet Study

– Market Baskets 2004

- 1 through 2005

- 4 . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Office of Food Sa fety, College Park, MD. Accessed March 2015. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodScienceResearch/TotalDietStudy/UCM29168 5.pdf

. 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. De partment of Health and Human Services, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD. Accessed March 2015. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/TotalDietSt udy/default.htm

. USGPO. 2015. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: 40 CFR 180 . U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. htt p://www.ecfr.gov/cgi

- bin/text

- idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr180_main_02.tpl

.

24