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

- Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) 72

- 55 -9 Office of Water Office of Science and Technology EPA 820 -R- 15

- 09 4 June 2015EPA 820 -R- 15

- 09 4 June 2015



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

- Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) 72

- 55 -9

Office of Science and Technology Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460DDE 72

- 55 -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 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

1DDE 72

- 55 -9

1 Introduction: Background and Scope of Updat e 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 30 4(a) are based solely on data and scientific judgments on the relationship between pollutant concentrations and environmental and human health effects. Section 304(a) criteria do not reflect consideration of economic impacts or the technological feasibility of meeting pollutant concentrations in ambient water. EPA’s recommended section 304(a) criteria provide technical information for states and authorized tribes a to consider and use in adopting water quality standards that ultimately provide the basis for assessing water body health and controlling discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States. Under the CWA and its implementing regulations, states and authorized tribes are required to adopt water quality criteria to protect the designated uses of waters (e.g., public water supply, aquatic life, 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 impos e 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 document are n ational 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 r eferences to national AWQC recommendations for human health. In this 2015 update, EPA has revised the human health criteria for p,p′

- Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) to reflect the latest scientific information, including updated exposure fa ctors (bo dy 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 d raft 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

.

2DDE 72

- 55 -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 state 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 F ormulation 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 t o 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)

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

- water exposure pathways to de rive 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 effect. Water sources of exposure include both consuming drinkin g 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 nonlin ear 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 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) . In these situations, AWQC are deri ved 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 expected to incr ease 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 2000a)

. The 2000 Methodology re commends 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 carcin ogenic, 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

3DDE 72

- 55 -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 designated 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 harvesting), 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 following two primary pathways of huma n 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 applying organism

- only AWQ C (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 consu mption) (USEPA 2000a)

. EPA recommen ds 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 w aters, 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 burden 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)

.

4DDE 72

- 55 -9

The equations for deriving the criteria values are as follows (USEPA 2000a) : For consumption of water and organisms: AWQC (μg/L) = t oxicity 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: 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 leas t precise parameter as described in the 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a , s ection 2.7.3).
4 Exposure Factors
4.1 Body Weight EPA updated the default BW assumption to 80 .0 kg based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1999 to 2006 as reported in Table 8.1 of EPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 2011) . The updated BW represents the mean weight for adults ages 21 and older. EPA’s previously recommended BW assumption for adults was 70 kg, which was based on the mean BW of adults from the NHANES III database (1988

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

.

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

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

5DDE 72

- 55 -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 2011 , Table 3

- 23)

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

- scale assessment such as CWA section 304(a) national human health criteria development (USEPA 2011, section 3.2.1 ).
EPA’s updated DI of 2.4 L/ d is consistent wit h the 2000 Methodology . In that document, E PA 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 default FCR was based on USDA’s CSFII 1994

– 1996 da ta (USEPA 2002a)

. As recommended in the 2000 Methodology, EPA updated the AWQC to reflect trophic level - (TL -) specific FCRs to b etter represent human dietary consumption of fish. An organism’s trophic position in the aquatic food web can have an important effect on the magnitude of bioaccumulation of certain chemicals. The TL

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

. EPA used the following TL

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

. Each TL

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

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

6DDE 72

- 55 -9
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 F CR of 22.0 g/d. EPA recommends using the TL

- specific FCRs when deriving AWQC; however, the overall FCR rate (22.0 g/d) may be used if a simplified approach is preferred.
4.4 Bioaccumulation Factor
4.4.1 Approach Several attributes of the bioaccumulation process are important to understand when deriving national BAFs for use in developing national recommended section 304(a) AWQC. First, the term bioaccumulation refers to the uptake and retention of a chemical by an aquatic organism from all surrounding media, such as water, food, and sediment. The term bioconcentration refers to the uptake and retention of a chemical by an aquatic organism from water only. For some chemicals (particularly those that are highly persistent and hydrophobic), the magnitude of bioaccumulati on 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 (USEPA 2000a) and its Technical Support Document, Volume 2: Development of National Bioaccumulation Factors (Technical Support Document, Volume 2) (USEPA 2003a) . Specifically, these documents provide a framework for identifying alternative procedures to derive national TL

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

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

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

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

. EPA followed the approach described in Figure 3

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

- revi ewed, 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:

7DDE 72

- 55 -9

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

- measured BAFs were normalized by adjusting for the water

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

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

- octanol

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

- level default values, as described in section 6.3 of the Technical Support Document, 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

- Sediment Accumulation Factor Data Set, Versio n 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 labora tory

- 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 fo r 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 c hain 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 (U SEPA 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 estima tes 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 estimates for all three TL s.

8DDE 72

- 55 -9
In cases where the procedure called for the BAF method but there were fewer than three TL estimates and the K ow method did not apply (i.e., Procedures 2, 4, 5, and 6), EPA used the BAF method estimate for the reported TL s b y 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, E PA 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 BAFs. If field

- measured BAFs and laboratory

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

- reviewed sources (i.e., Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] preferentially, followed by U.S. Department of He alth 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 Chemical

- specific BAFs EPA selected national BAF values of 270,000 L/kg (TL2), 1,100,000 L/kg (TL3), and 3,100,000 L/kg (TL4) for DDE

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

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

• Non ionic organic chemical (USDHHS 2010)

• Moderate

- high hydrophobicity (log K ow ≥ 4); log K ow = 6.5 1 (ATSDR 2002)

• Low/unknown metabolism

EPA was able to locate peer - reviewed , field

- measured BAFs for TL s 2, 3, and 4 (USEPA 2003a; Arnot and Gobas 2006). Therefore , EPA used the Field BAF method to derive the national BAF values for this chemical :
TL 2 = 270,000 L/kg TL 3 = 1,100,000 L/kg TL 4 = 3,100,000 L/kg

9DDE 72

- 55 -9

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 DDE . As described in the 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a) , where data are available EPA derives AWQC for both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects and recommends the more protective value for the AWQC. (S ee section 7, Criteria Derivation: Analysis .) For noncarcinogenic toxicological effects, EPA uses a chronic

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

- observed

- adverse

- effect level (NOAEL), lowest

ob served

- 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, approximati ng 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 Information System (IRIS) program (USEPA 2015b)

. EPA also systematically searched for toxicological assessments from the following EPA program offices, other national and international pro grams, 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)

• California 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:

10DDE 72

- 55 -9

1. EPA’s IRIS toxicological assessment was the only available s ource 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 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 In place of an RfD for DDE , EPA selected an RfD of 5 × 10 –4 mg/kg

- d (0.0005 mg/kg

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

. The DDT RfD is an appropriate surrogate for DDE because DDE is the principal persistent metabolite o f DDT and both compounds have a number of similar effects (USEPA 2008)

. EPA’s IRIS program derived the RfD using a principal study by Laug et al. ( 1950) based on liver lesions in rats orally exposed to DDT (USE PA 1985) . The dietary subchronic study had a NOAEL of 0.05 mg/kg

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

- to

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

.

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

.

11DDE 72

- 55 -9

EPA identified one other potential RfD source through the systematic search described in section 5: a 2002 ATSDR assessment (ATSDR 2002) (also for the parent compound DDT). B ased on the selection process described in section 5, the 1985 EPA IRIS assessment is preferred for use in AWQC development at this time

. The ATSDR assessment does not include the r elevant (chronic oral) toxicity value.
5.2.2 Cancer Slope Factor Under the 1986 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (USEPA 1986) , DDE is c lassified as Group B2 , “ probabl e human carcinogen ” (USEPA 1987)

. Under the 2005 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (USEPA 2005) , DDE is “ likely to be carcinogenic to humans ” (USEPA 2008)

. EPA selected a CS F of 1.67 × 10 –1 per mg/kg

- d (0.167 per mg/kg

- d) for DDE based on a 2008 EPA O ffice of W ater (OW) assessment ( USEPA 2008)

. EPA OW derived the CSF using principal stud ies by the National Cancer Institute (NCI 1978) , Tomatis et al. ( 1974) , and Rossi et al. ( 1983) based on increases in the incidence of liver tumors, including carcinomas, in two strains of mice and in hamsters after dietary exposure to DDE (USEPA 2008)

. EPA identified one other CSF source through the systematic search described in section 5: a 1987 EPA IRIS assessment (for DDE ) (USEPA 1987)

. Based on the selection process described in section 5, the 2008 EPA OW CSF is preferred for use in AWQC development at th is time . T he 2008 EPA OW assessment evaluated the same principal studies as the IRIS assessment (NCI 1978; Tomatis et al. 1974; Rossi et al. 1983) 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 OW as the point of departure for derivation of the slope factor in place of a linear multi stage (LMS) slope factor. Additionally, the OW CSF uses a cross

- species scaling approach based on BW 3/4 , which is consistent with current EPA practice (USEPA 2 005; USEPA 2008)

. 6 Relative Source Contribution
6.1 Approach The 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 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, vegetable s, grains, meats, poultry), dermal exposure, and respiratory exposure.

12DDE 72

- 55 -9

EPA derived an RSC for each chemical included in this 2015 update by using the Exposure Decision Tree approach described in the 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a)

. To u s e th at approach, EPA compiled information for each chemical on its uses, chemical and physical properties, occurrences in other potential sources (e.g., air, food), and releases to the environment, as well as regulatory restrictions on other sources that are specific to the chemical (e.g., air quality standards, food tolerance levels) . The ATSDR “Toxicological Profiles” (ATSDR 2015) were the primary sources for this informati on. EPA used t he Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB) (USDHHS 2015) from the National Library of Medicine’s Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET) as the primary source for chemicals without ATSDR Toxicological Profiles. Both sources are peer

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

• EPA ’s Six

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

. • FDA Total Diet Study (USFDA 2015)

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

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

. • EPA Toxic Releas e 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 likelihood of exposure to relevant sources

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

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

.

13DDE 72

- 55 -9

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 Derivation : Analysis Table 1 summarizes the model inputs used to derive the 2015 updated human health AWQC that are protective of exposure to DDE from c onsuming 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 . ( Se e 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 DDE Input Parameter Value RfD 0.0005 mg/kg

- d CSF 0.167 per mg/kg

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

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

BAF TL2 270,0 00 L/kg TL3 1,100,000 L/kg TL4 3,100,000 L/kg

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

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

= 0.0005 mg/kg

- d × 0.20 × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

2.4 L/d + ((0.0076 kg/d × 270,000 L/kg) + (0.0086 kg/d × 1,100,000 L/kg) + (0.0051 kg/d × 3,100,000 L/kg))

= 0.000293 μg/L

= 0.0003 μg/L (rounded)

14DDE 72

- 55 -9
For consumption of organisms only: AWQC (μg/L) = toxicity value (RfD [mg/kg

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

4 i=2

= 0.0005 mg/kg

- d × 0.20 × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

(0.0076 kg/d × 270,000 L/kg) + ( 0.0086 kg/d × 1,100,000 L/kg) + (0.00 51 kg/d × 3,100,000 L/kg)

= 0.000293 μg/L

= 0.0003 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 / 0.167) mg/ kg

- d × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

2.4 L/d + (( 0.0076 kg/d × 270,000 L/kg) + ( 0.0086 kg/d × 1,100,000 L/kg) + ( 0.00 51 kg/d × 3,100,000 L/kg))

= 0.00001753 μg/L

= 0 .0 00018 μg/L (rounded) For consumption of organisms only: AWQC (μg/L) = toxicity value (1 0 -6 / CSF ) [mg/kg

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

4 i=2

= (1 0 -6 / 0.167) mg/ kg

- d × 80.0 kg × 1 , 000 μg/mg

( 0.0076 kg/d × 270,000 L/kg) + ( 0.0086 kg/d × 1,100,000 L/kg) + ( 0.00 51 kg/d × 3,100,000 L/kg)

= 0.00001753 μg/L

= 0.000018 μg/L (rounded)
7.3 AWQC Summary
EPA derived the AWQC for DDE using both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic toxicity endpoints. The updated human health AWQC for noncarcinogenic effects for DDE are 0.0003 μg/L for consumption of water and organisms and 0.0003 μg/L for consumption of organisms only. The updated human h ealth AWQC for carcinogenic effects (at a 10 -6 cancer risk level) for DDE are 0.000018 μg/L for consumption of water and organisms and 0.000018 μg/L for consumption of organisms only. EPA recommends the lower AWQC, based on the carcinogenic effects of DDE , as the updated human health AWQC (Table 2). These updated criteria replace EPA’s previously published values (USEPA 2002b)

.

15DDE 72

- 55 -9

Table 2. Summary of EPA’s Previously Recommended (2002 ) and U pdated ( 2015 ) H uman H ealth AWQC for DDE 2002 Human Health AWQC 201 5 Human Health AWQC Water and Organism 0.00022 μg/L 0.000018 μg/L Organism Only 0.00022 μg/L 0.000018 μg/L

Thes e AWQC are intended to be protective of the general adult population from an increased cancer risk due to exposure to DDE 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 th at 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 substan ce from other sources.
8 Criteria Characterization The updated 2015 human health AWQC for DDE take into account current data on health effects and exposure input parameters, consistent with the 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000a)

. The following paragraphs describe the individual influence of each of the revised inputs and exposure assumptions on the overall change in value. Body W 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. population. 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 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 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 nearshore wate rs 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

16DDE 72

- 55 -9
contaminant in water at or below which negative health effects are not anticipated from a lifetime of exposure decreases.
B ioaccumulation Factor The national lower (TL2), mid (TL3), and upper (TL4) TL BAFs used in the updated AWQC (Eqs. 1 and 2 above) are 270,000, 1,100,000, and 3,100,000 L/kg wet

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

- measure d or predicted BAFs developed using the four methods described above. The BCFBAF program within EPI Suite estimates fish BAFs by using K ow and biotransformation data from a model designed by Arnot and Gobas ( 2003)

. The model includes 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 calculations are bioavailability in the water column (only the freely dissolved fraction can bioconcentrate) and absorption efficiencies at the gill and in the gastrointestinal tra ct. 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 = 463,100 L/kg TL 3 = 573,300 L/kg TL 4 = 775,200 L/kg
Assuming all o ther in put parameters r emain c onstant, highe r BAFs o r BCF s r esult in lower AWQC. T hat is , as bioaccumulation o r bioconcentration o f a contaminant i n f ish a nd shellfish in crease s, the le vel of a contaminant i n water at or be low w hic h negative he alth effects are n ot a nticipated f rom a lif etime o f e xposure decreases.
The utilization of a national

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

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

- d to

17DDE 72

- 55 -9
derive AWQC for noncarcinogenic effects. EPA did not derive AWQC for noncarcinogenic effects of DDE in its previous criteria update (USEPA 2002c)

. Cancer Slope Factor EPA selected a CSF of 0.167 per mg/kg

- d for DDE based on a 2008 EPA OW assessment (USEPA 2008)

. This CSF re places the previous value of 0.34 per mg/kg

- d (USEPA 2002c) . EPA used the CSF of 0.167 pe r mg/kg

- d to derive 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 com parative purposes to calculate AWQC for noncarcinogenic effects. P reviously , the recommended AWQC were derived for carci n ogenic effects only, and therefore, an RSC was not included

. 9 Chemical Name and Synonyms

• 4,4′

- DDE (CAS Number 72

- 55

- 9)

• 2,2

- Bis(4

- chloro phenyl)

- 1,1

- dichloroethene

• 2,2

- Bis(p

- chlorophenyl)

- 1,1

- dichloroethylene

• DDE

• p,p ′

- DDE

• DDT dehydrochloride

• 1,1

- Dichloro

- 2,2

- bis(p

- chlorophenyl)ethylene

• Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene

• Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, p,p ′ - • 1,1 ′

- Dichlroethenylidene)bis(4

- chlorobenzene)

• Ethylene, 1,1

- dichloro

- 2,2

- bis(p

- chlorophenyl) - • NCI

- C00555

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

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

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

.

18DDE 72

- 55 -9

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

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

- assessment/theoecdqsartoolbox.htm

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

– 705.
HC. 2015. Health Canada . 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 December, 2012) . International Bottled Water Association, Alexandria, VA. Accessed January 2015. Laug, E.P., A.A. Nelson, O.G. Fitzhugh, and F.M. Kunze. 1950. Liver cell alternation and DDT storage in the fat of the rat induced by dietary levels of 1 to 50 ppm DDT. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 98(3):268

– 273.
NCI. 1978. Bioassay of DDT, TDE and p,pʹ

- DD E for Possible Carcinogenicity (CAS No’s. 50

- 29

- 3, 72

- 54

- 8 and 72

- 55

- 9) . DHEW publication no. (NIH) 78

- 1386. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U.S. Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, M D. Accessed February 2015. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr131.pdf

. NOAA. 2014. National Centers for Ocean and Coastal Science, National Status and Trends Data Portal (NCCO S 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#

. Rossi, L., O. Barbieri, M. Sanguineti, J.R.P. Cabral, P. Bruzzi, and L. Santi. 1983. Carcinogenicity study with technical

- grade DDT and DDE in hamsters. Cancer Research 43:776

– 781. Tomatis, L., V. Turusov, R.T. Ch arles, and M. Boicchi. 1974. Effect of long

- term exposure to 1,1

- dichloro

- 2,2

- bis(p

- chlorophenyl)ethylene, to 1,1

- dichloro

- 2,2

- bis(p

- chlorophenyl)

- ethane, and to the two chemicals combined on CF

- 1 mice. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 52(3):883

– 891.

19DDE 72

- 55 -9

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.ar my.mil/bsafnew/BSAF.html

. USDHHS. 2010. DDE (CASRN: 72

- 55

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

- bin/sis/search2/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+1625

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

. USEPA. 1985. p,pʹ

- Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) (CASRN 50

- 29

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

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

- 630 -R00

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

. USEPA. 1987. p,pʹ

- Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) (CASRN 72

- 55

- 9) . Integrated Risk Information System. Carcinogenicity assessment verifi cation date June 24, 1987. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0328.htm

. USEPA. 2000a. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protecti on 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 Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Healt h (2000), Technical Support Document. Vol. 1, Risk Assessment . EPA

- 822 -B00

- 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_criteria_humanhealth_method_supportdoc.pdf

.

20DDE 72

- 55 -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

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

- 2002.pdf

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

- 822 -R- 02

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

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

- 822 -R- 03

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

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

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

- 2003

- 12

- 31/html/03

- 32211.htm

. USEPA. 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

. USEPA. 2008. Health Effects Support Document for 1,1

- Di chloro

- 2,2

- bis(p

- chlorophenyl)ethylene (DDE) . EPA

- 822 -R- 08

- 003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Accessed March 2015. http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/ccl/pdfs/reg_determine2/healtheffects_ccl2

- reg2_dde.pdf

. 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

.

21DDE 72

- 55 -9

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, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2015. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/efh/pdfs/efh

- complete.pdf

. USEPA. 2012. Estimation Progr ams 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

- Selec ted

- Subpopulations

NHANES

- 2003

- 2010.pdf

. USEPA. 2015a. Biota

- Sediment Accumulation Factor Data Set, Version 1.0 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and 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/

.

22DDE 72

- 55 -9

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

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

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

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

.

23