# Update of Human Health Ambient Water Quality Criteria: Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3 Office of Water Office of Science and Technology EPA 820 -R-15-047 June 2015EPA 820 -R-15-047 June 2015



# Update of Human Health Ambient Water Quality Criteria: Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3

Office of Science and Technology Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3

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 Water 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

................................................................................................ . 14 7 Criteria Derivation: Analysis

.................................................................................................. 14 7.1 AWQC for Noncarcinogenic Toxicological Effects

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

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

......................................................................................................... 15 8 Criteria Characterization

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

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

............................................................................................................................. 18

1Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3

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 wil l 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 infor mation 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, recreational use, industrial use). EPA’s recommended water quality cr iteria 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 defensibl e 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 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 criter ia for heptachlor epoxide 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 t reatment in a manner similar to a state under CWA s ection 518 for the purposes of s ection 303(c) water quality standards

.

2Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3

I t is important for s tates and authorized t ribes to consider any new or updated section 304(a) recommended criteria as part of their triennial review process to ensure that state or tribal water quality standards reflect current science and protect applicable designated uses. These final 2015 updated sec tion 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 increas ing the transparency of the effects assessment. The structure of this criteria document is intended to be consistent with general 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)

. Th e 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 t oxicity is considered a linear or threshold effect. 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
ex hibit a threshold of exposure before deleterious effects occur, as is the case for noncarcinogens and nonlinear carcinogens, EPA applies a n 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, exp osure to a particular pollutant from ocean fish or 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) . I n 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 conce ntration that is expected 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 population (USEPA 2 000a)

. The 2000 Methodology 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 are 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

3Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3
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)

.

4Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3

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: A WQC = 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 k g 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 f rom milligrams to micrograms. d 10 -6 or 1 in 1,000,000 risk level for the general population.

5Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3

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 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 2011, section 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 percen tile 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 F CR 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 y ears 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 che micals. 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
a ccounts for predatory fish (USEPA 2000 a)

. 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 indir ect 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 ).

6Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3

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
Seve ral 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 persisten t 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 updated AWQC using EPA’s 2000 Methodology (USE PA 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 alt ernative 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 bioac cumulation 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 AWQ C 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:

7Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3

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

- measured BAFs were normalized by adjusting for the water

- dis solved 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 normali zed 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, a nd 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, 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 compilations of these data

— EPA’s Biota

- Sedime nt 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 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 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 carbon 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 chai n 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 (USEP A 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 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) the BAF and BCF methods did not produce BAF esti mates for all three TL s.

8Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3
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 averag ing 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 national B AFs. 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 o f 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 me thod 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

- sp ecific BAFs EPA selected national BAF values of 4,000 L/kg (TL2), 28,000 L/kg (TL3), and 35,000 L/kg (TL4) for heptachlor epoxide

. 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 heptachlor epoxide . Based on the characteristics of this chemical, EPA selected Procedure 1 for deriving a national BAF value. Heptachlor epox ide has the following characteristics:

• Nonionic organic chemical (USDHHS 2010)

• Moderate

- high hydrophobicity (log K ow ≥ 4); log K ow = 5.40 (ATSDR 2007)

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

- reviewed, field

- measured BAFs, BSAFs, or lab

- meas ured BCFs for TL s 2, 3, and 4. Therefore, EPA used the K ow method to derive the national BAF values for this chemical:
T L2 = 4,000 L/kg TL 3 = 28,000 L/kg TL4 = 35,000 L/kg

9Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3

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 heptachlor epoxide. As described in the 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a) , where data are available EPA derives AWQC for both noncarcinogenic and carcin ogenic 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. An RfD is an estimate (with u ncertainty 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 anim al 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 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 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 Integrated Risk Inf ormation System (IRIS) program (USEPA 2015b)

. EPA also systematically searched for toxicological assessments from the following EPA program o ffices, 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, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (USEPA 2015f)

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

• Health Canada (HC 2015)

• Cal ifornia Environmental 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:

10Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3

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 a nd 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 1.3 × 10 –5 mg/kg

- d (0.000013 mg/kg

- d) for heptachlor epoxide based on a 1986 EPA IRIS assessment (USEPA 1986a) . EPA’s IRIS program identified a study by Dow Chemical Co. (Dow 1958) as the critical study and increased liver

- to

- BW ratio as the critical effect in both sexes of dogs orally exposed to heptachlor ep oxide (USEPA 1986a) . The chronic study had a lowest observed effect level (LOEL) of 0.0125 mg/kg

- d, the lowest dose tested. In deriving the RfD, EPA’s IRIS program applied an uncertainty factor of 1000 to account for interspecies extrapolation (10), intraspecies variation (10), and use of a LOAEL instead of a NOAEL (10) (USEPA 1986a)

.

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

.

11Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3
In 2003, EPA’s IRIS program conducted a screening

- level review of the more recent toxicology literature pertinent to the RfD for h eptachlor epoxide and did not identify any critical n ew studies.
EPA identified three other potential RfD source s through the systematic search described in section 5: a 1992 EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) (USEPA 1992) , a 1999 California EPA assessment ( CalEPA 1999) , and a 2007 ATSDR assessment (ATSDR 2007)

. B ased on the selection process described in section 5, the 1986 IRIS RfD is preferred for use in AWQC development at this time

. The OPP and CalEPA toxicity values are based on the same study as the IRIS assessment (Dow 1958) and are numerically the same as the IRIS RfD. The ATSDR assessment does not include the relevant (chronic oral) toxicity endpoint.
5.2.2 Cancer Slope Factor Under the 1986 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (USEPA 1986b) , heptachlor epoxide is classified as Group B2, “probable human carcinogen” (USEPA 1987)

. EPA selected a CSF of 5.5 per mg /kg

- d for heptachlor epoxide based on a 1999 CalEPA assessment (CalEPA 1999)

. CalEPA derived the CSF using four data sets from two strains of mice (Davis 1965; IRDC 1973) based on developm ent of hepatocellular carcinoma in both sexes of mice orally exposed to heptachlor epoxide (CalEPA 1999)

. EPA identified two other CSF source s through the systematic search described in section 5: a 1987 IRIS assessment (USEPA 1987) and a 1992 EPA OPP RED (USEPA 1992)

. Based on the selection process described in section 5, the 1999 CalEPA CSF is preferred for use in AWQC development at this time . T he 1999 CalEPA assessment evaluated the same principal studies considered in the IRIS assessment (Davis 1965; IRDC 1973) , but applied more current guidance and modeling approaches . Specifically, the LED 10 (the l ower 95 percent confidence limit on the
e stimated d ose associated with 10 percent extra risk) was selected by CalEPA as the point of departure for derivation of the slope factor in place of a linear multistage (LMS) slope factor

. Additionally, the CalEPA CSF uses a cross

- species scaling approach based on BW 3/4 , which is consistent with current EPA practice (USEPA 2005)

. The 1992 OPP RED does not include the relevant oral CSF

. 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 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 thres hold level. Exposures

12Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3
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 spe cific to the chemical (e.g., air quality standards, food tolerance levels) . The ATSDR “Toxicological Profiles” (ATSDR 201 5) 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 Toxicological 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 2009a; USEPA 2009b)

. • FDA Total Di et Study (USFDA 2015)

. • FDA Everything Added t o 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)

. • 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 likeli hood 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 charact erization 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

13Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3
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 comparative purposes only , a default RSC of 20 percent was applied for AWQC derivation for noncarcinogenic effects (USEPA 2000a)

. 7 Criteria D erivation : Analysis Table 1 summarizes the model inputs used to derive the 2015 updated human health AWQC that are protective of exposure to heptachlor epoxide 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 ; sect ion 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 Heptachlor Epoxide Input Parameter Value RfD 0.000013 mg/kg

- d CSF 5.5 per mg/ kg

- d RSC 0.20 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 4,000 L/kg TL3 28,000 L/kg TL4 35,000 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

= 0.000013 mg/kg

- d × 0.20 × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

2.4 L/d + ((0.00 76 kg/d × 4,000 L/kg) + (0.00 86 kg/d × 28,000 L/kg) + (0.00 51 kg/d × 35,000 L/kg))

= 0.0004601 μg/L

= 0.00046 μg/L (rounded)

14Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3
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

= 0.000013 mg/kg

- d × 0.20 × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

(0.0076 kg/d × 4,000 L/kg) + (0.00 86 kg/d × 28,000 L/kg) + (0.00 51 kg/d × 35,000 L/kg)

= 0.0004625 μg/L

= 0.00046 μg/L (rounded)
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 / 5.5) mg/ kg

- d × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

2.4 L/d + (( 0.0076 kg/d × 4,000 L/kg) + ( 0.0086 kg/d × 28,000 L/kg) + ( 0.00 51 kg/d × 35,000 L/kg))

= 0.00003217 μg /L

= 0.000032 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 / 5.5) mg/ kg

- d × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

( 0.0076 kg/d × 4,000 L/kg) + ( 0.0086 kg/d × 28,000 L/kg) + ( 0.00 51 kg/d × 35,000 L/kg)

= 0.00003234 μg /L

= 0.000032 μg/L (rounded)
7.3 AWQC Summary
EPA derived the AWQC for heptachlor epoxide using both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic toxicity endpoints. The updated human health AWQC for noncarcin ogenic effects for heptachlor epoxide are 0.00046 μg/L for consumption of water and organisms and 0.00046 μg/L for consumption of organisms only. The updated human health AWQC for carcinogenic effects (at a 10 -6 cancer risk level) for heptachlor epoxide are 0.000032 μg/L for consumption of water and organisms and 0.000032 μg/L for consumption of organisms only. EPA recommends the lower AWQC, based on the carcinogenic effects of heptachlor epoxide , as the updated human health AWQC (Table 2). These updated criteria replace EPA’s previously published values (USEPA 2002b)

.

15Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3

Table 2. Summary of EPA’s Previously Recommended (2002 ) and U pdated ( 2015 ) H uman H ealth AWQC for Heptachlor Epoxide 2002 Human Health AWQC 2015 Human Health AWQC Water and Organism 0.000039 μg/L 0.000032 μg/L Organism Only 0.000039 μg/L 0.000032 μg/L

Th ese AWQC are intended to be protective of the general adult population from an increased cancer risk due to exposure to heptachlor epoxide 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 the particular pollutant by no more than one 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 heptachlor epoxide 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 o f each of the revised inputs and exposure assumptions on the overall change in value. Body W eight 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. popula tion. The updated BW assumption of 80.0 kg, based on recent survey data from the 1999−2006 NHANES 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 calculation s (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 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 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 near shore 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

16Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3
contaminant in water at or below which negative health effects are not anticipated from a lifetime of exposure de creases. Bioaccumulation Factor The national lower (TL2), mid (TL3), and upper (TL4) TL BAFs used in the updated AWQC (Eqs. 1 and 2 above) are 4,000, 28,000, and 35,000 L/kg wet

- weight, respectively. These BAFs were derived using EPA’s 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a) and its Technical Sup port Document, Volume 2 (USEPA 2003a) . These national TL BAFs replace EPA’s previously recommended BCF of 11,200 L/kg. As an additional line of evidence, EPA used model

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

- me asured 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, gr owth dilution , and metabolic biotransformation. Other processes included in the calculations 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 metabolic biotransformation rate constant as input parameters to predict BAF values. The EPI Suite model estimates are as follows :
TL 2 = 11,850 L/kg TL 3 = 19,230 L/kg TL 4 = 55,830 L/kg
Assuming all other input parameters remain constant, higher BAFs or BCF s 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 whi ch negative health effects are not anticipated from a lifetime of exposure 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 o rganism’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 shellfi sh 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 selected an RfD of 0.000013 mg/kg

- d for heptachlor epoxide based on a 1986 EPA IRIS assessment (USEPA 19 86a) . EPA used the RfD of 0.000013 mg/kg

- d to derive AWQC for

17Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3
noncarcinogenic effects. EPA did not derive AWQC for noncarcinogenic effects of heptachlor epoxide in its previous criteria update (USEPA 2002c). Cancer Slope Factor EPA selected a CSF of 5.5 per mg/kg

- d for heptachlor epoxide based on a 1999 CalEPA assessment (CalEPA 1999). This CSF replaces the previous value of 9.1 per mg/kg

- d (USEPA 2002c) . EPA used the CSF of 5.5 per mg/kg

- d to deri ve AWQC for carcinogenic effects. Assuming all other input parameters remain constant, a decrease in the CSF in the AWQC calculations (Eqs

. 1 and 2) results in higher AWQC.
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 therefore, an RSC was not included

. 9 Chemical Name and Synonyms

• Heptachlor epoxide (CAS Number 1024

- 57

- 3)

• ENT 25,584

• Epoxyhepta chlor

• HCE

• 1,4,5,6,7,8,8

- heptachloro

- 2,3

- epoxy - 2,3,3a,4,7,7a

- hexahydro

- 4,7

- methanoindene

• 1,4,5,6,7,8,8

- heptachloro

- 2,3

- epoxy - 3a,4,7,7a

- tetrahydro

- 4,7

- methanoindan

• 2,3,4,5,6,7,7

- heptachloro

- 1a,1b,5,5a,6,6a

- hexahydro

- 2,5

- methano

- 2h

- indeno(1,2

- b)oxirene

• Hiptachlor epoxide

• 4,7

- methanoindan, 1,4,5,6,7,8,8

- heptachloro

- 2,3

- epoxy - 3a,4,7,7a

- tetrahydro -
• 2,5

- methano

- 2h

- oxireno(a)indene, 2,3,4,5,6,7,7

- heptachloro

- 1a,1b,5,5a,6,6a

hexahydro -
• Velsicol 53

- CS

- 17

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.

18Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3

ATSDR. 2007. Toxicological Profile for Heptachlor a nd Heptachlor Epoxide . Prepared for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry by Syracuse Research Corporation, North Syracuse, NY. Accessed February 2015. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp12.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, Atla nta, GA. Accessed February 2015. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/index.asp

. CalEPA. 1999. Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking Water

. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Accessed March 2015. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/hepandox.pdf

. 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

. Davis, K. 1965. Pathology Report on Mice Fed Aldrin, Dieldrin, Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide for Two Years . Internal memorandum from K. Davis, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, to Dr. A.J. Lehman, July 19, 1965. Dow Chemical Company. 1958. MRID No. 00061912. Available from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC. 20460.
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

. HC. 2015. Health Can ada . 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 D ecember, 2012) . International Bottled Water Association, Alexandria, VA. Accessed January 2015.
IRDC. 1973. Eighteen Month Oral Carcinogenic Study in Mice . Unpublished report. Prepared for Velsicol Chemical Corporation by International Research and Development Corporation, Mattawan, MI.
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#

.

19Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3

USACE. 2015. Biota

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

. USDHHS. 2010. Heptachlor Epoxide (CASRN: 1024

- 57

- 3) . Hazardous Substances Data Bank, a TOXNET database. Retrieved February 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/cgi

- bin/sis/search2/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+6182

. USDHHS. 2015. TOXNET . Home page. Hazard ous Substances Data Bank, a TOXNET database. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Heal th, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD. Accessed January 2015. h ttp://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/newtoxnet/hsdb.htm

. USEPA. 1986a. Heptachlor Epoxide (CASRN 1024

- 57

- 3) . Integrated Risk Information System. Oral RfD assessment verification date September 16, 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Deve lopment, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0160.htm

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

- 630 -R00

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

. USEPA. 1987. Heptachlor Epoxide (CASRN 1024

- 57

- 3) . Integrated Risk Information System. Carcinogenicity assessment verification date April 1, 1987. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington , DC. Accessed February 2015. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0160.htm

. USEPA. 1992. Registration Eligibility Document: Heptachlor List A Case 0175 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. Accessed May 2015. http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/red_PC

044801_1

- Mar

- 92.pdf

. US EPA. 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, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015

. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2005_05_06_criteria_hum anhealth_method_complete.pdf

.

20Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3

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, Office of Science and Technolog y, 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, Washington, DC. Accessed Fe bruary 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

- 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 Bioaccum ulation 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

. 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 Fe bruary 2015. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2003

- 12

- 31/html/03

- 32211.htm

. USEPA. 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment . EPA

- 630 -P- 03

- 001F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013

- 09/documents/cancer_guidelines_final_3

- 25

- 05. pdf

.

21Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3

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. 2009b. 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 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. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition . EPA

- 600 -R- 09

- 052F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washingto n, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://www.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

final

- 2014.pdf

. 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

.

22Heptachlor Epoxide 1024

- 57 -3

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 Information 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. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=chem icalsearch:1

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

. 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 fo r 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 . (2013 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&st ate=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. Depa rtment 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

.

23