EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Health and Fc
Effects
Washington DC 20460
Research and Development
Human Population
Exposures to
Mi rex and Kepone
\EP 600/1
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U S Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields
The nine series are
1 Environmental Health Effects Research
2 Environmental Protection Technology
3 Ecological Research
4 Environmental Monitoring
5 Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6 Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8 'Special" Reports
9 Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH EFFECTS RE-
SEARCH series This series describes projects and studies relating to the toler-
ances of man for unhealthful substances or conditions This work is generally
assessed from a medical viewpoint including physiological or psychological
studies In addition to toxicology and other medical specialities, study areas in-
clude biomedical instrumentation and health research techniques utilizing ani-
mals — but always with intended application to human health measures
This document is available to the public through !he National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
EPA-600/1-78-045
July 1977
HUMAN POPULATION EXPOSURES TO MIREX
AND KEPONE
Prepared for:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Contract 68-01-4314
SRI Project 5794
CRESS No. 26
Prepared by:
Benjamin E. Suta
Senior Operations Analyst
Center for Resource and Environmental
Systems Studies
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Aooroval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the cooperation and guidance given
by Alan Carlin of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the pre-
paration of this report. Thanks are extended to Susan Mara of SRI who
showed great resourcefulness in assisting in the collection of input data
and to Mary Ann Steuwer of SRI who, by typing the various versions of the
report, almost overcame her fear of ants. A draft version of the Mirex/
Kepone KEEP document prepared under the direction of Robert Ewing of
Battelle proved to be a valuable information source. In addition, a
large debt of gratitude is owed to the many researchers throughout the
country who supplied input data.
111
-------
CONTENTS
II
III
IV
SUMMARY
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Overview
Mirex in Foods
Kepone in Foods
Atmosphere Exposures
Tobacco
Drinking Water
Mirex and Kepone in Human Bodies
SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION BY M1REX AND KEPONE
A.
B.
C.
General
Environmental Contamination from Manufacturers . . .
1. Mirex
2. Kepone
Products and Uses
1. Mirex Uses
2. Kepone Uses
3. Other Environmental Sources of Kepone
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES TO MIREX AND KEPONE
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
General
Mirex in the Atmosphere Near Manufacturing Facilities
Kepone in the Atmosphere Near Manufacturing Facilities
Human Atmospheric Exposure to Mirex from Produce Use
Human Atmospheric Exposure to Kepone from Product Use
1. Ant and Roach Traps and Baits
2. Potential Atmospheric Exposure from Kepone Ant
and Roach Traps
3. Potential Atmospheric Exposure from "Accessible"
Kepone Bait
4. Accidental Exposure to Kepone from Ant and Roach
Traps and Bait
5. At-Risk Populations for Atmospheric Mirex and
Kepone
2
2
4
9
12
14
14
15
16
16
17
17
20
23
23
29
30
32
32
32
33
34
35
35
35
37
38
38
IV
-------
V MIREX AND KEPONE IN DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES 40
A. General 40
B. Mirex in Water 40
C. Kepone in Water 42
D. Human Consumption of Mirex and Kepone from Drinking
Water 43
E. At-Risk Populations to Kepone in Drinking Water ... 43
VI POTENTIAL HUMAN MIREX EXPOSURES FROM SMOKING 45
VII MIREX AND KEPONE CONCENTRATIONS IN FOODS 47
A. Mirex in Foods 47
1. General 47
2. Mirex in Foods Grown in Southeastern United
States 51
3. Mirex in Hawaian Foods 58
4. Mirex in Spring Creek, Pennsylvania Fish .... 60
5. Mirex in Lake Ontario Fish 60
B. Kepone in Foods 75
1. General 75
2. Kepone in Foods from Southeastern United States 76
3. Kepone in Atlantic Ocean Fish 77
4. Kepone in Bananas 77
5. Chesapeake Bay and the James River 82
6. Kepone Concentrations in Spring Creek, Pennsyl-
vania Fish 93
7. Kepone in Chickens from Contaminated Fishmeal . 93
VIII HUMAN EXPOSURE TO MIREX AND KEPONE THROUGH FOOD CONSUMPTION 94
A. General 94
B. Human Food Consumption 94
C. Human Consumption of Mirex in Foods 97
1. Potential Mirex Exposure from Lake Ontario Fish 97
2. Mirex Exposure from St. Lawrence Fish 102
3. Mirex Exposure from Spring Creek, Pennsylvania
Fish 103
4. Mirex Exposure to Residents of the Southeastern
United States from Fish Consumption ...... 104
D. Kepone Exposure from Fish Consumption 108
1. Kepone Exposure from Chesapeake Bay and James
River Fish 108
2. Kepone Exposure from Atlantic Ocean Fish .... 119
3. Kepone Exposure from Eating Fish Taken from
Spring Creek. Pennsylvania 124
-------
E. Mirex and Kepone in Mother's Milk 125
F. Mirex Exposures from Foods Other than Seafood and
Mother's Milk 127
G. Kepone Exposure from Foods Other than Seafood and
Mother's Milk 130
IX MIREX AND KEPONE IN HUMAN BODIES 132
BIBLIOGRAPHY 133
VI
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
III-l Fire Ant Distribution, 1976 24
III-2 Map Showing the General Area of the Southeastern United
States Infested with the Imported Fire Ant as of 1971 . 25
VII-1 Mirex Concentrations in Lake Ontario Sediments, 1968 . 62
VII-2 Mirex Concentrations in Lake Ontario Sediments, 1976 . 63
VI1
-------
TABLES
II-l Human Population Exposures to Environmental Mirex ... 5
II-2 Human Population Exposures to Environmental Kepone . . 6
III-l Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Company Sales of Mirex
and Dechlorane (C Cl ) by Years 19
III-2 List of Registered Producers of Kepone Products (1976) 22
III-3 Use Pattern of the Insecticide Mirex in the United States
for Fire Ant Control 27
V-l New York Public Water Supply Systems in the Great Lakes
Basin Tested for Mirex 41
VII-1 Concentrations of Mirex Residues (ppm dry weight) De-
tected by GLC in Different Parts of 4-Week Old Crop
Seedlings Grown in Field Soil 49
VII-2 Concentrations of Mirex Residues (ppm dry weight) De-
tected by GLC in Different Parts of 4-Week Old Crop
Seedlings Grown in Loamy Sand 50
VII-3 Mirex in Southeastern U.S. Fish (ppm) 53
VII-4 Summary of FY77 Mirex Compliance Evaluation Program
for South Atlantic-Gulf Coast Fishery Products by Spe-
cies and State 54
VII-5 Mirex Residues in Human Food Chain from Pretreatment to
1 Year After Single Mirex Application 59
VII-6 Summary of Mirex Concentrations of Lake Ontario Fish
by Location (U.S. Data) 65
VII-7 Summary of Mirex Concentrations of Lake Ontario Fish
by Location (Canadian Data) 68
VII-8 Overall Summary of Mirex in Lake Ontario Fish (U.S. data
given in Table VII-6) 70
VII-9 Summary of Mirex Concentrations of St. Lawrence Fish by
Location 71
VII-10 Summary of Mirex Concentrations in Fish Taken from Lake
Ontario, Its Tributaries, and the St. Lawrence River. . 73
VII-11 Summary of Mirex Concentrations of Lake Erie Fish ... 75
VII-12 Summary of FY77 Kepone and Mirex Compliance Evaluation
Program for Atlantic Coast Bluefish 78
VII-13 Kepone Concentrations of Virginia Agricultural Products 79
VII-14 Kepone in James River Oyster Rocks 84
VII-15 Kepone in James River Fish 86
VII-16 Kepone in Chesapeake Bay Fish 87
VII-17 Summary of FY77 Kepone and Mirex Compliance Evaluation
Program for Maryland and Virginia Fishery Products . . 88
VII-18 Comparison of Kepone in Fishery Products from Maryland
and Virginia Taken Before and During the FDA Compliance
Evaluation Program (CEP) 91
VI11
-------
VII-19 Estimated Average Kepone Concentrations in James River
and Chesapeake Bay Fish (ppm) 92
VIII-1 U.S. Purchased Fish Consumption (g/day) 96
VIII-2 U.S. Per Capita Food Consumption (g/day) 98
VIII-3 Commercial Fisheries Landing for Lake Ontario (Ib in
1000s) 100
VIII-4 Proportion by Species in U.S. Commercial Catch for Lake
Ontario, 1974 101
VIII-5 Estimated Potential Daily Per Capita Intake of Mirex
for Consumers of Lake Ontario Fish 102
VIII-6 Estimated Daily Per Capita Intake of Mirex for Consumers
of St. Lawrence Fish 103
VIII-7 Mirex Consumption from Fish Eaten by Selected Residents
of Southeastern States (u g/day) 106
VIII-8 1973 Commercial Landings of Fish and Shellfish for the
Mississippi River, Its Tributaries, and Other River
Systems Draining into the Gulf of Mexico 107
VIII-9 Commercial Fisheries Landings for the Chesapeake Bay,
Its Tributaries, and Nearby Areas of the Atlantic Ocean
(Ib in 1000s) 109
VIII-10 Total Catch and Estimated Consumption of Seafood from
the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tributaries, 1975 110
VIII-11 Estimated Sportsfish Catch by Species for the Chesapeake
Bay and Its Tributaries During 1974 112
VIII-12 Estimated Proportion in Catch by Species for James River
and Chesapeake Bay 113
VIII-13 Estimated Consumption of Chesapeake Bay Seafood by Spe-
cies (Commercial and Sports Catch Combined) 115
VIII-14 Yearly Average Kepone Intake Per Day for Consumption of
Finfish, Shellfish, and Crabs Taken from Chesapeake Bay
and James River (u/g) 117
VIII-15 Daily Average Kepone Intake of Kepone for Consumers Who
Take Their Entire Diet of Seafood from the Chesapeake
Bay or James River 118
VIII-16 Estimated Percent of Chesapeake Bay Catch Consumed
Locally 120
VTII-17 1973 Commercial Catch of Marine Summer Resident Fish
from the Atlantic Ocean Off Chesapeake Bay 121
VIII-18 Kepone Concentrations in Fish that Reside in the James
River in the Summer That May Be Caught in the Atlantic
Ocean (ppm) 122
VIII-19 Atlantic Coast Bluefish Commercial Catch and Kepone
Concentrations 123
VIII-20 Kepone Concentrations in Mother's Milk and Births by
States 126
VIII-21 Estimated Mirex Consumption for Families Eating Only
Game with a Mirex Contamination of 0.04 ppm 129
ix
-------
I INTRODUCTION
The primary objective of this study has been to quantify the mirex
and kepone doses to the U.S. population in general and to identify and
characterize specific subgroups of the population that may be receiving
the largest exposures.
This is one in a series of studies being conducted by SRI to quantify
populations at risk to selected pollutants. These studies are generally
conducted on a quick-response basis to provide input to other, more in-
clusive studies.
The quantitative nature of this study required the collection and
assimulation of monitoring and surveillance data for various exposure
media. Because much of the environmental concentration data regarding
mirex and kepone contaminations have been only recently collected, and
have not yet been published, a significant part of this study involved
contacting sources throughout the country to obtain their most recent
data. No doubt additional data will soon be released that could aid in
better characterizing the population exposures. In fact, insufficient
data have made it impossible to estimate exposures for several areas that
may be important.
In this report, human mirex and kepone dosages have been given in
terms of total exposure. Note that this study reports exposures that
took place before biological sorption occurred, and that the degree of
such sorption is not considered. The major human exposure routes evalu-
ated are oral (e.g., food and water) and inhalation.
The main findings of this report are in the form of tables and
figures. The text has been provided to describe the methodologies,
assumptions, and data sources used. All estimates given in this report
depend in a large degree on the reliability and availability of data,
which varied widely.
-------
II SUMMARY
A. Overview
Mirex and kepone are two closely related chemical compounds synthe-
sized from hexachlorocyclopentadiene. Neither has been found to occur
naturally in the environment; hence, all environmental contamination is
attributable to anthropogenic activities related to the manufacture and
use of the two compounds and their products. The highest localized con-
centrations and the greatest environmental concerns of consequence result
from discharges into water systems by manufacturers. Other environmental
contaminations result from using the compounds in pesticide formulations
on large areas of land. Mirex and kepone are readily adsorbed onto sus-
pended solid particles that may be eaten by aquatic organisms, thereby
ultimately entering the human food chain. Mirex and kepone, like many
other chlorinated organic compounds, are only slightly soluble in water
but are soluble in fats and oils. Because of this, they will usually
migrate to portions of the environment that are high in fats and oils.
Because most biological organisms contain fats and oils, mirex and kepone
tend to accumulate at much higher levels in these substances than exist
in the environment. This bioaccumulation, along with their nonbiodegrad-
ability, make the compounds of special concern for ecological and health
considerations. Both compounds have been found to be quite stable in
the environment and may have half-lives of a decade or more. Kepone is
one of the degradation compounds of mirex, and basic mirex material has
been found to be kepone-contaminated.
The main manufacturers of mirex have been the Hooker Chemicals &
Plastics Corp. at Niagara Falls, New York, and the Nease Chemical Company
at State College, Pennsylvania. Most production took place from 1959 to
1974. The basic material is not currently produced; however, existing
stockpiles are sufficient to supply demand for some time. Mirex has been
used to manufacture mirex pesticides and Dechlorane, which has been used
-------
primarily as a fire retardant. Almost three times more mirex has been
sold for making Dechlorane than for pesticide use. The potential environ-
mental contamination from the formulation of Dechlorane in products and
from the use of such products remains largely unaddressed. The main use
of the mirex pesticide has been in bait for controlling the imported
fire ant (Solenopsis saerissima) in a nine-state infested area in the
southeastern United States (Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas). Application has
covered more than 10 million acres per year (some of these acres have been
counted more than once because of multiple applications of the pesticide
bait). Mirex bait is also used in Hawaii to control the pineapple mealy-
bug (about 30,000 acres of crop per year has been treated). Other uses
have included control of the western harvester and the the Texas leaf-
cutting ant.
Kepone's main manufacturers have been the Allied Chemical Company
at Baltimore, Maryland and Hopewell, Virginia; the Life Sciences Products
Company at Hopewell, Virginia; Nease Chemical Company at State College,
Pennsylvania; and the Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. at Niagara Falls,
New York. Most production of the basic kepone material occurred from
1958 to 1975. It is no longer manufactured; however, stockpiles are
sufficient to meet demands for several years. The major use of kepone
in the continental United States is as roach and ant bait in houses, and
on lawns and gardens. It is still registered for these uses. Although
no longer so registered, it was registered for use on nonbearing citrus
for control of the rust mite; on tobacco for control of the southern
potato wireworm and the tobacco wireworm; and on gladiolli and other
plants. A major, primarily non-United States, use is for the control
of the banana root borer in many banana producing countries, including
the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico.
Seafood* taken from selected contaminated areas has been found to
be the greatest environmental source of mirex and kepone for most people.
Mother's milk in three southeastern states (North Carolina, Alabama, and
The term "seafood" as used in this report indicates finfish, shellfish,
and Crustacea, taken from fresh and salt waters.
3
-------
and Georgia) has been found to contain kepone residues. Certain game,
taken from areas in the southeastern United States in which mirex bait
has been applied, has been found to be mirex-contaminated. Other foods
have either been tested for mirex and kepone and found uncontaminated
or have not been tested.
Human environmental atmospheric exposures apparently existed during
manufacture of the two basic compounds. However, environmental atmospheric
sampling has only been conducted for kepone in Hopewell and nowhere for
mirex. Because the compounds are no longer manufactured, such exposures
no longer exist. Use of kepone bait for indoor ant control may result
in extremely low concentrations in the air of dwellings so treated.
Human exposure to mirex and kepone from tobacco appears not to be a
problem.
Drinking water has not been found to be mirex-contaminated. Un-
filtered drinking water taken from the lower James River in Virginia may
contain kepone concentrations, on the order of 0.1 to 10 ppb, that are
probably associated with concentrations on the suspended solids since
both compounds are relatively insoluble in water.
Tables II-l and II-2 summarize potential mirex and kepone exposures
for various populations at risk. These exposures are summarized in the
remaining paragraphs of this chapter and are described in more detail
in the following chapters of this report.
B. Mirex in Foods
The established tolerances for mirex in foods is 0.1 ppm in fat and
meat from cattle, goats, hogs, horses, poultry, and sheep; 0.1 ppm in
eggs; 0.1 ppm in milk fat; and 0.01 ppm in all agricultural commodities,
exclusive of eggs, milk fat, and animal fat. The 0.1 ppm limit has
also been applied to finfish.
Mirex has been found in seafood taken from Lake Ontario and the
St. Lawrence River in New York, from Spring Creek in Pennsylvania, and
from areas in the southeastern United States where mirex bait has been
applied. Mirex has also been found in game taken in the Southeast.
-------
Table II-l
HUMAN POPULATION EXPOSURES TO ENVIRONMENTAL MIREX
Source
Food
Lake Ontario
St. Lawrence
Southeastern
Spring Creek
Southeastern
seafood
seafood
seafood3
fish4
wildgame 3
Average
Environmental
Concentrations
< 0.01-0. 2 ppm
0.02-0.10 ppm
0.01-0.03 ppm
0.02-1.00 ppm
<0.06 ppm
Calculated
Average Adult
Daily Exposure
/ 0.05 pg1
l<0.34 pg2
I 0.06 pg1
' <0.39 pg2
/ 0.02 ug1
/ 0.02-0.09 pg1
\ 0.12-5.80 pe2
^<12 pg5
At-Risk
Population
<1 million
<100 thousand
<4 . 5 million
very few
<9 million
Atmospheric
Basic product manufac
turing neighborhoods
Areas of mirex bait
application
Drinking Hater
No contaminated
supplies found
Tobacco
No concentrations
reported
<0.006 ng/mj
<0.1 ppb
ppt
NE6
<0:09 ng7
130,000
< 300 ,000
<0.]5 yg8
O.OOA ng9
NE
<35% of U.S.
adults
10
'Based on freshwater finfish consumption.
Based on all finfish consumption.
Game or fish taken from areas in which mirex bait has been applied.
''Catch taken near the Nease plant.
Considered an extreme overestimate, based on wildgame fulfilling the requirement for
all meat in the diet.
6Not estimated; exposures no longer exist.
Considered to be an upper limit.
8This is the lower limit of detection for most sampling; no water supplies were found at
this concentration.
An estimate based on plant root uptake data; no concentration data have been reported.
Average per capita consumption.
-------
Table II-2
HUMAN POPULATION EXPOSURES TO ENVIRONMENTAL KEPONE
Source
Food
James River seafood1
Chesapeake Bay seafood
Select East Coast
Atlantic Ocean fish
Spring Creek fish8
Mother's milk
Atmospheric
Basic product manufac-
turing neighborhoods
Indoor ant bait use
Indoor ant trap use
Drinking Water
Lower James River
Tobacco
No concentrations
reported
Average
Environmental
Concentrations
10.4-2.0 ppm, finfish
0.3-3.0 ppm, crabs
0.1-0.2 ppm, oysters
10.0-0.08 ppm, finfish
0.008-0.05 ppm, oysters
0.10-0.26 ppm, crabs
0.01-0.04 ppm6
0.025-0.23 ppm
Calculated
Average Adult
Daily Exposure
<3 ppb
:50 yg/m3
11
<0.3 ng/m3
< 9 ng/m3
12
12
<0.1-10 ppb
1 PPt1"
1.1 ug'
>-3 ug^
i.5 ug-
<0.27 ug7
'0.02-0.20 ug9
,0.14-1.33 yg10
0.6-1.9 ug
<750 pg
11
<0. 15-15 yg
0.004
At-Risk
Population
NE"
5-10 million
>570,000
very few
3,300
115,000
<6-12 million/yr
combined
very
few13
<35% of U.S.
adults
1 The James River estimates assume that the river is open with no restrictions.
2Based on consumption on a species basis.
on eating only seafood taken from the James.
estimated because the river is currently closed to the taking of many species.
5Based on eating only seafood taken from the Bay.
6Mainly bluefish.
7Based on consuming only bluefish as the entire finfish component of the diet.
8Catch taken near the Nease plant.
^Based on freshwater finfish consumption.
^Based on all finfish consumption.
11 These exposures no longer exist because the basic produce is no longer manufactured.
12 Due to volatilization, concentrations could be higher due to suspension of detached
bait particles.
1 3Although these concentrations have been reported for the James, they are not applicable
to any municipal water supply.
11+The estimate is based on plant root uptake data; no concentration data have been reported.
-------
It has not been found to be a problem for Hawaian foods, nor has it been
found to constitute a problem in other foods including mother's milk.
Of 1436 samples of mother's milk taken nationwide and representing all
50 states, none was found to contain mirex at the 30-ppb detection level.
Lake Ontario is currently closed to the taking of many species of
fish because of mirex contamination. This does not mean that it will
permanently remain closed; it has recently been opened to some additional
species. Nor has it been closed to Canadian fishing, except for commer-
cial fishing of coho and chinook salmon. Average mirex concentrations,
by species, in Lake Ontario fish range from none to 0.27 ppm, with an
overall average of 0.10 ppm.
It is estimated that on the average, people who eat Lake Ontario
fish consume 0.05 ug/day of mirex. An average person eating finfish
taken only from the lake would consume 0.34 ]jg/day of mirex. Based on
variations in fish consumption by individuals, 10% of the consuming
population might ingest 0.49 ug/day or more of mirex.
The 1974 U.S. commercial catch from Lake Ontario could supply the
entire finfish requirements for 70,000 people. The sports fishing catch
has not been estimated but probably exceeds the commercial catch. An
estimated 500,000 to 1 million people annually might consume some sports
fish taken from the lake.
Depending on species, fish taken from the St. Lawrence River have
shown average mirex concentrations of 0.02 to 0.10 ppm. It is estimated
that on the average, people who eat St. Lawrence fish consume 0.06 ug/day
of mirex. An average person eating finfish taken only from the river would
consume 0.39 ug/day of mirex. Based on variations in fish consumption by
individuals, 10% of the consuming population might ingest 0.57 ug/day or
more of mirex. The size of the consuming population is not known; however,
sports fishing is a major industry for local communities. The greatest
exposure would be to an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 people.
The mirex consumption for St. Lawrence fish is estimated to be
slightly larger than for consumption of Lake Ontario fish. This is con-
tradictory to the fact that the major mirex discharges were into the
7
-------
lake rather than the river. It is due to the broader representation of
species sampled from the lake, some of which contained little or no
mirex and were not sampled from the river.
Mirex concentrations of 0.02 to 1.0 ppm have been found for fish
taken from Spring Creek near the Nease chemical plant. Few people are
estimated to consume fish taken from Spring Creek. It is estimated that
on the average, people who eat these fish consume 0.02 to 0.09 Mg/day of
mirex.
Mirex concentrations have been found in fish taken from areas in
the southeastern United States where mirex bait has been applied.
Specifically, mirex has been found in fish taken from Alabama, Arkansas,
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. In general, the
concentrations of mirex have been higher in fish taken from treated areas
within a state than in fish taken from untreated areas within the same
state. Moreover, concentrations are higher shortly after application
than they are several years after application. However, sampling tends
to indicate that average concentrations on the order of 0.01 to 0.03 ppm
in finfish will persist at least for several years after application.
It is estimated that on the average, people who eat these fish consume
0.02 ug/day mirex. Based on variations in fish consumption by individuals,
10% of the consuming population might ingest 0.20 yg/day or more of mirex.
Game taken from southeastern states where mirex has been applied have
also been found to be mirex-contaminated, suggesting another source (in
addition to fish) of mirex for sportsmen and their families. Data for
cottontails, opossums, bobwhite quail, deer, and turkey have shown average
mirex concentrations of around 0.04 ppm for samples taken 1 year after
bait application. These concentrations are generally found in adipose
tissue and are somewhat similar to those for finfish taken from the same
area. If it is assumed that contaminated game comprise a family's entire
meat, fish, and poultry supply, the average adult exposure would be 8 to
12 ug/day of mirex, and the 1 year old infant exposure would be 2 yg/day.
These exposures are believed to be gross overestimates because very few
people would eat only contaminated game. The average exposure is esti-
mated to be 0-0.1 ug/day. It has been estimated that approximately
8
-------
9 million people might be at risk to eating at least some game taken
from these areas.
Residents of Hawaii may consume some mirex from foods contaminated
by the mirex bait used to control the pineapple mealybug. Estimating
the magnitude of exposure and the exposed population sizes is impossible
with available data; however, as a rough estimate it has been calculated
that human exposures from these sources would be much less than 1 pg/day.
The exposed population would probably be quite small.
Of 300 fish samples analyzed from Lake Erie, none was found to con-
tain detectable levels of mirex. This was not unexpected since there
were no known discharges into the lake. It is, however, evidence on
the bounds of the pervasiveness of the compound in the environment.
C. Kepone in Foods
The established tolerances for kepone concentrations in foods per-
tain to aquatic organisms and are as follows: 0.3 ppm for shellfish,
0.3 ppm for finfish, and 0.4 ppm for crabs.
Because kepone is used to control the banana root borer (the only
current food or feed use of kepone), a limit of 0.01 ppm has been estab-
lished for banana peels. This limit is presumed to result in kepone
concentrations of less than 0.005 ppm in banana meat.
Seafood and mother's milk from selected locations are the only foods
that have yet been found to be kepone-contaminated. The contaminated
fish are from the James River and Chesapeake Bay, as well as Atlantic
Ocean fish that may reside part of the time in these waters. Contamin-
ated mother's milk has been found in three southeastern states.
Until recently the lower James River was closed to the taking of
most seafood except oysters; it is now open for some other species.
Kepone concentrations in James River oysters have averaged 0.1 to 0.2
ppm; finfish concentrations have averaged 0.04 to 2.0 ppm, depending on
species; average kepone concentrations in crabs have been reported as
0.3 to 3.0 ppm. Current population exposure to kepone from eating James
-------
River fish is small. If, however, the river was reopened for all fishing
the average consumer would ingest 1,1 pg/day of kepone. Based on varia-
tions in fish consumption by individuals, 10% of the consuming population
would ingest 3.5 ug/day of kepone or more.
The Chesapeake Bay is not closed to fishing, but commercial catches
are monitored to determine if kepone concentrations are below action
levels. Average kepone concentrations in Chesapeake Bay finfish have
generally been found to be 0.01 to 0.08 ppm, depending on species;
average kepone concentrations in oysters have variously been reported
as 0.008 to 0.5 ppm; and average kepone concentrations for crabs have
been reported at 0.10 to 0.26 ppm. Based on these data and expected
fish consumption, it is estimated that an average person eating seafood
from the Bay will consume 0.3 yg/day of kepone, whereas based on varia-
tions in fish consumption by individuals, people in the upper 10%'of the
fish-consuming population will ingest 1.0 ug/day of kepone. These re-
sults assume that species required in the average survey diet and not
available in the Bay will be purchased from supplies caught elsewhere.
The Chesapeake Bay is an active area for commercial and sportsfishing.
The combined sports and commercial catch from these waters can supply
the average annual requirements of 4.9 million people for finfish,
8.7 million people for crabs, and 26.5 million people for oysters.
Certain fish such as bluefish, spot, croaker, striped bass, striped
mullet, grey trout, and speckled trout can reside part time in the James
River and/or Chesapeake Bay and part time in the Atlantic Ocean. Fish
caught in the Atlantic after residing in these contaminated waters would
also be expected to be kepone-contaminated. Bluefish samples collected
along the Atlantic coast from Boston to Ft. Lauderdale have been evaluated
for kepone. Average kepone concentrations by collection locations ranged
from none to 0.04 ppm. The highest concentrations were found in the
Virginia samples, with decreasing amounts recorded as distance from
Chesapeake Bay increased. These species that reside part time in the
Bay or James and part time in the Atlantic Ocean have been estimated to
have average kepone concentrations of 0.02 to 0.04 ppm for catches taken
close to the Bay. The commercial catch of these species taken from this
10
-------
location could supply the entire finfish dietary needs of 180,000 people,
whereas the sports and commercial bluefish catch taken over the larger
coastal area could supply the entire finfish requirements of more than
500,000 people. Generally, these species make up only a small fraction
of an individual's seafood diet; hence, substantially more people than
indicated above could be exposed to at least some ingested kepone.
People eating only these species as the total finfish component of their
diet would have an average daily exposure of approximately 0.13 to 0.27
pg/day. This, of course, greatly overestimates the actual exposure for
most consumers.
Kepone concentrations of 0.025 to 0.23 ppm are reported for fish
taken from Spring Creek near the Nease chemical plant. The population
consuming these fish is small; however, these concentrations could
result in an estimated average kepone intake of 0.02 to 0.20 ug/day.
Fish taken from other locations, including Lake Ontario and the
inland Southeastern United States, have seldom been found to be kepone
contaminated.
Approximately 3.9, 7.5, and 2.6% of the mothers in North Carolina,
Alabama, and Georgia, respectively, have been found to have kepone in
their milk. Kepone was not detected in milk samples taken from seven
other southeastern states. The average concentrations for the positive
samples ranged between 1 to 3 ppb. These concentrations would result
in an estimated consumption of 0.6 to 1.9 ug/day for a population of
about 3300 infants. These estimates are only relevant for the 10 states
in which mother's milk has been tested for kepone. Other states (parti-
cularly in the Northeast) might also be suspected because fish consumed
in these areas may also be kepone contaminated.
Household ants or roaches may eat or carry off particles of kepone
bait. If the animal should die in the house, this kepone could pose
a potential human exposure route. The insect may be eaten by children
or may accidently be included in foods during their preparation. The
contaminated insect parts or the bait particles carried off may also be
incorporated in household dust, resulting in inhalation exposure. No
11
-------
data are available, however, to indicate the potential magnitude of
such exposure, which would depend on the number of ants or roaches killed
and on housekeeping practices. The potential ingestion exposure could
be significant (one ant might contain as much as 12.5 yg of kepone) , but
it might also be infrequent.
Residents of Puerto Rico may have some exposure to kepone because
of animal contamination from kepone used in control of the banana root
borer. No environmental monitoring data have been recorded for Puerto
Rico; hence, there is no proof that such exposures actually exist.
Based on the mirex data for Hawaii, and on other test results, it is
possible that such animals might be kepone contaminated on the ppm level.
D. Atmosphere Exposures
Atmospheric concentrations of mirex and, especially kepone, posed
an occupational hazard during product manufacture. Kepone concentrations
3
as high as 3 mg/m have been reported in the Life Sciences plant when
3
it was in operation. The current NIOSH standard is 1 ug/m . Neighbor-
hood environmental atmospheric kepone concentrations as high as 50
Ug/m of air were measured when the Hopewell Life Sciences plant was in
3
operation, with readings as high as 30 ng/m recorded 25 km from the
plant. Environmental atmospheric concentrations of mirex or kepone were
probably also present in State College, Pennsylvania, Niagara Falls,
New York, and Baltimore, Maryland, when the basic product was manufac-
tured at these locations; however, no measurements are reported. It is
estimated that approximately 155,000 people ha_ve been at-risk to atmo-
spheric kepone concentrations at some time and that 130,000 of these
same people were at-risk to atmospheric mirex.
Families are also thought to have been exposed by workers wearing
their contaminated clothing home. Because the basic products are no
longer manufactured, the sources and the exposures no longer exist.
Because mirex bait is only dispensed through the air when associated
with relatively coarse corn cob grit particles, which settle rapidly.
12
-------
amounts remaining airborne should be insignificant. With mirex's high
melting point and low vapor pressure, volatization from bait on the
ground should also be insignificant. No atmospheric concentrations have
been reported for areas when bait was applied. Rough order calculations
indicate that the atmospheric concentration shou]d be much less than
3
0.006 ng/m in the first hours after application. Exposed human popula-
tions are estimated to have been on the order of 230,000 to 330,000 per
year.
Kepone ant and roach bait and traps may be used indoors or outdoors.
Indoor use may result in atmospheric contamination or contamination of
food and water. Accidental exposures may also result, particularly to
children from tasting or eating the material contained in the traps or
bait. No indoor atmospheric concentrations have been reported for rooms
in which kepone bait and traps have been used. Rough order calculations
indicate that due to volatization, the concentrations should be less than
3
0.3 ng/m for rooms in which enclosed traps have been used and less than
3
9 ng/m in rooms in which unenclosed bait has been used. These concentra-
tions might be further increased from the volatization and atmospheric
suspension of bait particles carried away from the traps by insects.
These calculated concentrations are expected to be gross overestimates.
The remaining supplies of kepone are estimated to be sufficient to meet
the ant and roach bait and trap demand for 3 years. Use of this material
could result in as many as 6 to 12 million person exposures per year if
all the material was used indoors.
About 12.5 cases per year have been reported that involve young
children and kepone products. In almost all episodes involving traps,
the children were found chewing the cans without any indication that
they had ingested the contents. Assuming that only 1% of the cases are
reported implies that there might be 1250 such cases per year. Assuming
that the can is partially full, each child might eat 5 mg of kepone, or
about 6.7 ppm in their diet for that day.
13
-------
E. Tobacco
No data have been found to indicate the presence of mirex or kepone
in tobacco. Both chemicals might be found in the soils of tobacco fields
because mirex has been used in the Southeast to control the imported fire
ant and kepone has been used on tobacco for control of the southern potato
wireworm and the tobacco wireworm. Studies have shown that plants can
take up mirex. Based on the uptake data and the application rates of the
pesticides, concentrations on the order of parts per trillion might be
found in tobacco from selected locations. In laboratory tests approxi-
mately 23% of the mirex added to cigarettes was recovered unaltered in
the mainstream smoke. Assuming a mirex concentration of 1 ppt in the
tobacco, leads to an estimated daily inhalation of 4.4 pg for average
male smokers and 3.6 pg for average female smokers. These exposures
are pure speculation because it is not known whether or not mirex or
kepone are still present in tobacco field soils, whether tobacco plants
will take up mirex or kepone, and what concentrations may actually be
present in tobacco,
F. Drinking Water
Mirex and kepone concentrations in drinking water have not been
found to constitute a significant human exposure. Both are relatively
insoluble in water and both are rapidly adsorbed onto sediments. The
only human exposures would probably occur from ingesting mirex or kepone
adsorbed onto the sediments during periods of extreme turbidity and
with little filtration. Numerous drinking water samples taken in areas
where mirex was manufactured or used have failed to show a concentration
at the 0.1-ppb detection level.
The major area of concern in regard to kepone contamination of
drinking water is for people who take their drinking water from the
James River. Tap water taken from the Hopewell area contained no detect-
able kepone at the time of sampling. Ice samples and other water samples
taken directly from the James River have shown kepone concentrations of
0.1 to 10 ppb. Similar concentrations have been found for samples taken
14
-------
at other locations on the James. These were probably on the suspended
particles and, hence, filterable. Persons drinking water contaminated
to these concentrations would ingest, on the average, 1.5 to 150 ng/day
of kepone. Because Hopewell is the only municipality that takes its
drinking water from the lower James and because its processed water has
been found to be free of kepone, the at-risk population should be very
small.
G. Mirex and Kepone in Human Bodies
The ultimate confirmation that environmental concentrations of mirex
and kepone are entering and residing in human bodies comes from the moni-
toring of human tissue, blood, and mother's milk. Evaluation of 284
human adipose tissues for mirex has shown 52 (18%) positive. The mirex
residue concentration in the positive samples ranged between trace amounts
and 1.32 ppm. Of 1435 mother's milk samples taken throughout the country,
none was shown to contain detectable concentrations of mirex. However,
9 out of 298 (3%) mother's milk samples tested contained kepone residues
of 1 to 5.8 ppb. Venous blood samples were drawn from 216 people who
reside within 1 mile of the Life Sciences plant site in Hopewell but who
do not work at the plant. Of these, 40 (19%) contained kepone concentra-
tions of 5 to 50 ppb.
15
-------
Ill SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION BY MIREX AND KEPONE
A. General
All environmental concentrations of mirex and kepone are attributable
to anthropogenic activities related to the manufacture and use of the two
compounds and their products. The current highest localized concentrations
and resulting greatest environmental concerns result from discharges into
the water systems by the manufacturers. Because mirex and kepone are
readily adsorbed onto suspended solid particles, which may in turn be con-
sumed by aquatic organisms, the primary major human exposure is from eating
such organisms. Because the compounds are adsorbed on solids that can
settle or be filtered, the contamination of drinking water appears to be
minimal. Environmental air contamination appears not to have been ad-
dressed during manufacture of the basic mirex and kepone compounds; it is
not, however, a current problem because production of the basic compounds
has ceased.
Other human exposures have and continue to result from mirex and
kepone products that have contaminated plants and aquatic and terrestrial
animals. This is primarily the case for mirex that has been applied to
vast areas in the southeastern United States to control the imported fire
ant.
Environmental contaminations by mirex and kepone are aggravated by
their persistence in the environment. Both have half-lives that may
exceed a decade. Moreover, their degradation products may also be of
environmental concern. For example, mirex partially degrades into kepone.
The pathways of potential human exposure and the geographical loca-
tions of concern are discussed below.
16
-------
B. Environmental Contamination from Manufacturers
1. Mirex
Mirex has been sold not only as an insecticide but also as an
industrial fire retardant under the trade name Dechlorane (Markin et al.,
1972a). A complete list of past mirex product manufacturers and their
production is unavailable because of these manufacturers' reluctance to
release such information and the government's desire to protect the con-
fidentiality of individual companies.
Since 1959, the Hooker Chemical Company plant at Niagara Falls,
New York, has manufactured a substantial amount of mirex, with heaviest
production from 1962 to 1968. In this period, presumably the largest
amount of mirex was discharged with wastewater. From 1968 to April 1975,
mirex was only ground to powder and packaged at the Hooker plant. It
was shipped to the plant in bulk from Nease Chemical Company, State College,
Pennsylvania, and from Hexagon Laboratories of New York City. The company
currently has 147 tons of mirex stored at its Niagara Falls, New York,
plant (Chemical Week, Nov. 3, 1976). Grinding, which is a clean opera-
tion when compared with manufacturing, is a dry process. The equipment
and room are washed down afterwards, with building drains passing through
a sewer into the Niagara Falls sewage treatment plant. The Hooker plant
released an estimated 1.4 Ib/day (0.6 kg) of mirex during this grinding
operation (Forest, 1976). However, Hooker estimates their release to be
0.018 Ib (once per year) (Chambers, 1976). The Niagara Falls sewage is
released in the Niagara River which flows into,J_,ake Ontario. Lake Ontario
empties into the Atlantic Ocean through the St. Lawrence River. As will
be shown later, fish and sediments in all of these inland water bodies
are mirex-contaminated.
The Nease Chemical Company at State College, Pennsylvania, manufac-
tured mirex during 1966 to 1974. Some of the chemical produced is appar-
ently stored by Nease and has been sold periodically to the Hooker Chemical
and Plastics Company. Hooker reports purchasing 1,534,020 Ib of the
material from Nease during 1966 to 1974, as follows (Chambers, 1976):
17
-------
April 1966 - end year (250,000 Ib)
November 1968 - June 1969 (715,240 Ib)
January 1973 - June 1974 (568,780 Ib).
The Nease plant is located near Spring Creek. Concentrations
of mirex has been found in fish and sediments sampled as many as 18 mi down-
stream from the plant in Spring Creek. Spring Creek flows into Bald Eagle
Creek, which flows in turn into the West Branch of the Susquehanna River,
the Susquehanna River itself, and thence into the upper Chesapeake Bay.
Mirex may have also been manufactured at the Allied Chemical
Company formulation facility in Baltimore, Maryland. There are, however,
no reported data indicating that it actually was manufactured there.
Discharges from the plant could have entered upper Chesapeake Bay.
Hooker also reports purchasing 50,000 Ib of mirex from Hexagon
Laboratories, New York, New York (Chambers, 1976). To date it has not
been determined if Hexagon made or purchased the mirex or if they sold
the compound to others.
Manufacturer of mirex bait used in fire ant control was carried
out by the Allied Chemical Company in Aberdeen, Mississippi. Allied sold
this plant to the State of Mississippi in 1975. Since then, Mississippi
has been operating the plant as the sole U.S. producer of mirex bait.
It plans to phase out mirex production by June 30, 1978 (Toxic Materials
News, October 27, 1976). Possible local environmental contaminations
from the operation of this plant are not addressed here because no sup-
porting data exist.
Mississippi's Aberdeen Prairie Plant can produce 60 to 70 tons
of mirex bait in a one 8-hour shift. Production could be increased by
adding another shift (Pesticide Chemical News, May 12, 1976). The plant's
1976 mirex production is estimated to be 10,200 tons. This amount would
be sufficient to treat more than 16,300,000 acres at a rate of 1.25 Ib/a
(Pesticide Chemical News, August 4, 1976).
Hooker's sales of mirex and Dechlorane for 1959 to 1975 are
shown in Table III-l. During 1959 to 1975, 880,319 Ib of mirex were sold
18
-------
Table III-l
HOOKER CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS COMPANY SALES OF
MIREX AND DECHLORANE (C_C1,J BY YEARS
Year
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
*
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
Total
Mirex
Sales (Ib)
—
—
200
12,000
25,500
26,000
54,000
69,120
72,600
62,100
102,000
58,000
30,000
135,665
113,000
80,000
40,134
880,319
C10Cli2
Sales (Ib)
100
1,793
8,737
79,033
284,933
463,033
541,691
331,172
159,438
278,404
72,320
45,610
82,040
119,970
2,850
10,250
2,481,374
Total
Sales fib")
100
1,793
8,937
91,033
310,433
489,033
595,691
400,292
232,038
340,504
174,320
103,610
88,910
255,635
113,000
82,850
50.384
3,338,563
(3,361,693)*
Note: The reported 1971 data err because the sum
of the parts exceeds the total. The figure
in parentheses assumes a production of
112,040 Ib in 1971.
Source: Chambers (1976).
19
-------
for use as a plasticizer and flame retardant under the trade name Dech-
lorane. Hence, only about 25% of the material was sold as a pesticide.
The extent to which Dechlorane was incorporated into other products is
unknown. It was advertized for use in a wide variety of subjects ranging
from paints to papers, although it appears to have been used primarily in
butyl rubber, pyrotechnic mixtures, and plastics (Markin et al., 1972a).
Dechlorane would have been enclosed in many of these products and thus
might not contribute significantly to environmental contamination.
Manufacturers of products containing Dechlorane may also have
emitted the chemical to the environment, where it could not be distinguished
from mirex. As an example, the Armstrong Cork Company of Volney, New York,
tested Dechlorane in 1961 (Syracuse Herald-Journal, Jan. 6, 1977). They
had purchased 1000 Ib £ or their testing (McManus, 1977). Armstrong dis-
charges wastes into the Oswego River, which flows into Lake Ontario.
Elevated levels of mirex have been found in the Lake Ontario sediments
near the area where the Oswego flows into the lake (Forest, 1976). It has
not been possible to compile a complete list of manufacturers who purchased
Dechlorane; however, Hooker's 1975 sales of Dechlorane (C Cl „) are as
follows (Chambers, 1976).
Buyer Destination Sales (Ib)
Canadian Government, Valacartier, 250
Department of National Gro.-Iro., Quebec
Defense
Celesco Industries Highland Industrial 6250
Park, East Camden,
Arkansas
Day and Zimmerman Lone Star Division 3750
Texarkana, Texas
2. Kepone
Kepone was originally manufactured by the Allied Chemical
Company at their formulation facility in Baltimore, Maryland. Original
patents were granted in 1952. It was first registered as a pesticide
20
-------
with USDA in 1959. Allied also subcontracted manufacture to Nease Chemical
Company (State College, Pennsylvania), which manufactured it from 1958 to
1963 (Toxic Materials News, Aug. 18, 1976), and to the Hooker Chemical
Company (Niagara Falls, New York), which manufactured it from 1963 to
1965 (Chambers, 1975). In 1966, Allied shifted production to the Semi-
Works located at the chemical complex at Hopewell, Virginia (Kelly, 1976)
where production continued until 1973. Increasing demand for kepone,
particularly from Europe, and a need for the Semi-Works facility led to the
transfer of manufacture to the Life Science Products Company of Hopewell,
Virginia. Life Sciences manufactured kepone for a 16-month period in 1974
and 1975. U.S. production in 1974 has been estimated to have been
363,000 kg (800,000 Ib) , an estimated 99% of which was exported—mainly
to Latin America, Africa, and Asia (California State Department of Agri-
culture, 1976>.
Environmental discharges of these manufacturers have led to
kepone contamination of several water systems. The Allied and Life
Sciences discharges entered the James River by way of Bailey's Creek.
The kepone has been carried by the James River into Chesapeake Bay.
The EPA estimates 100,000 Ib of kepone is currently in the James River;
about 10% of this kepone can be expected to move into the Chesapeake Bay
(Pesticide Chemical News, Nov. 3, 1976). The Nease Chemical Company
discharges wastes into Spring Creek in Pennsylvania. Spring Creek flows
into Bald Eagle Creek, which in turn flows into the West Branch of the
Susquehanna, the Susquehanna itself, and thence into the upper Chesapeake
Bay. Kepone has been found in fish taken from Spring Creek and Chesapeake
Bay (Pesticide Chemical News, Nov. 3, 1976). The Hooker Chemical Company
discharges wastes into the Niagara River, which flows into Lake Ontario,
and Lake Ontario empties into the St. Lawrence River. Kepone has been
found in fish taken from Lake Ontario (Pesticide Chemical News, Nov. 3,
1976).
Registered producers of kepone products are listed in Table III-2.
There are 26 federally registered producers and another 4 producers who are
state applicants for federal registration. Possible environmental dis-
charges of kepone for these companies are not known.
21
-------
Table III-2
LIST OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF KEPONE PRODUCTS (1976)
Company
Address
Action Product Corp.
Allied Chemical Co.
Athena Corp.
Black Leaf Products Co.
Black Magic Co.
Boyle-Midway, Inc.
Brown Chemical Specialty
Clarence Boord and Sons, Inc.
Common Sense Manufacturing Co., Inc.
F. C. Sturtevant Co.
Gaston Johnson Corp.
General Pest Service Co.
Grant Laboratories Div., Leisure
Enterprises, Inc.
J. & F. Manufacturing Co.
John Opitz, Inc.
Judd Ringer Corp.
Lethelin Products Co., Inc.
McCall Manufacturing Co.
Nott Manufacturing Co., Inc.
0. E. Linck Division, Walco Link Corp.
Old 97 Company
Pearson and Company
Quinn Drug and Chemical Co.
Trager Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Vinson Chemical Products Co.
Winn Chemical Co., Inc.
Asgrow Florida Co.^"
Chem Pack Co .^
Landia Chemical Co.'
Southern Mill Creek Products Co.^
North Miami, FL
Morristown, NJ
Dallas, TX
Elgin, IL
Jacksonville, FL
Cranford, NJ
San Antonio, TX
Leon, IA
Buffalo, NY
Cromwell, CT
Long Island, NY
Los Angeles, CA
Oakland, CA
Houston, TX
Long Island, NY
Eden Prairie, MN
Mount Vernon, NY
Jasper, FL
Pleasant Valley, NY
Clifton, NJ
Tampa, FL
Mobile, AL
Greenwood, MS
Scranton, PA
Opalocks, FL
Blountsville, AL
Plant City, FL
South Miami, FL
Lakeland, FL
Tampa, FL
Corporate address and not necessarily manufacturing address.
t
These four companies are state applicants for federal registration.
Source: EPA, Federal Register 41(59), (March 25, 1976).
22
-------
C. Products and Uses
1. Mirex Uses
Mirex has been used as an insecticide; the same chemical, under
the name of Dechlorane, has been offered as a flame retardant for rubber,
paper, and plastic foam. It has been registered for use as an insecticide
in nine southeastern states. It is not licensed for use in Canada (Forest,
1976).
The major use of mirex in the United States has been to combat
the spread of the imported fire ant, Solenopsis saerissima. The ant,
which differs from native North American fire ant species, originated in
Latin America and arrived in the United States in 1918. The ant does not
appear to have any natural enemies to check its spread in the United States,
where its population grew to significant nuisance proportions by the early
1950s (Shapley, 1971). Only about 2000 acres (0.8 hectares) were infested
in 1932. However, in the next 15 years the fire ant spread rapidly to
infest about 2 million acres (800 hectares) in 1947 and 26 million acres
(10 million hectares) by 1959 (Norman, 1975). Fire ants now infest 135
to 150 million acres (55 to 60 million hectares) (Council for Agriculture
Science and Technology, 1976). Figures III-l and III-2 show the currently
infested areas, including Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. The temperature
boundary of -6 to 12°C (10 to 54°F), which is believed to be the barrier
to further fire ant spread, is also shown. These barriers enclose the
western coastal United States, which has not yet been infested.
The mirex bait used for fire ant control consists of corncob
grit (85%), once refined soybean oil (approximately 15%), and technical
mirex at 0.15% (Markin et al., 1972). The grit acts as a carrier and
the soybean oil as an attractant. The grit is similar to coffee grounds
in size and consistency, and when it is applied aerially, 170 or 320
granules will be found on each square meter of land--the differences
representing two baits designated as 2x and 4x. Because of differences
in formulations and application rates, either 1.7 or 3.5 g/a of technical
mirex will be applied. Another version of bait designated as mirex 10:5,
which is 70% less toxic than mirex 4x, has recently been formulated.
23
-------
AREA
Q
111
CO
LU
Z
o
o
CXI
O
0
u_
O
>•
tr
<
Q
2
3
O
CD
co
DC
-------
Ol
3
O
C
3
-Q
ta
C
rt)
0)
.C
5
o
01
JC.
-C OJ
^H 01
.a
-a
O) O
-
£ E
a>
JZ
3
O
in
CO
LU
CO
Q
LU
I-
z
tr
LU
H
co
< .-
LU f»
X ^
h- *~
D LL
O O
CO
LL <
0 LU
< 01
< Q
- §
I
a
CO
a.
<
LU
CE
-------
The bait may be applied by hand, jeep, tractors, helicopters, and fixed-
wing aircraft on areas of infestation. Aerial applications have been
repeated as many as three times per year. Table III-3 lists the number
of acres treated and amounts of mirex applied from 1962, the first year
of its use in controlling fire ants, to 1975.
It has been announced that about 6.5 million acres will be
sprayed with mirex in spring 1977 for fire ant control; another 11 million
acres have been scheduled for fall treatment. The program calls for a
weakened mirex mixture to be applied by aircraft (Toxic Materials News,
April 6, 1977).
Following its application to soil, the mirex bait is promptly
picked up by the foraging fire ants and carried into the mound for trans-
fer to other ants within the colony. The ants do not consume all of the
mirex, some remains inside the discarded grit and is returned to soil sur-
face. Among terrestrial communities, unused mirex grits may be consumed
directly by insect scavengers (e.g., certain ants, crickets, wood roaches,
and ground beetles). These scavengers are in turn preyed upon by spiders,
reptiles, amphibians, insectivorous birds, and mammals. (Van Middelman
et al., 1972). Some of these may in turn be eaten by humans or may serve
as food for other animals eaten by humans.
The toxicant that has not been consumed, including bait that
has not been picked up by the ants, may be leached from the bait, washed
or occasionally blown directly into aquatic habitats, or carried there
via food chains by immigrating organisms (Van Middleman et al., 1972).
Because mirex is essentially insoluble in water, it probably becomes
adsorbed onto organic detritus and sediments (Odum et al., 1969 and
Maxwell et al., 1971). Species of freshwater and estuarine communities
(e.g., crayfish, river shrimps, penalid shrimps, fiddler crabs, and blue
crabs) are generally scavengers and accumulate mirex by consuming such
detritus and sediments. These Crustacea in turn are eaten by fish, birds,
and mammals.
26
-------
Table III-3
USE PATTERN OF THE INSECTICIDE
MIREX IN THE UNITED STATES FOR FIRE ANT CONTROL
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975 (est)
Total Acres
163,388
1,523,469
2,230,542
3,599,003
6,290,570
10,417,187
13,208,746
11,557,182
15,025,747
11,609,907
11,065,153
14,184,017
13,611,289
12,112,616
Total Mirex (Ib)
612
5,710
8,360
13,488
23,578
39,044
49,508
43,508
56,320
43,510*
41,470*
53,160*
51,010*
45,400*
«
Estimate based on acreage.
Source of 1962 to 1970 data: Markin et al. (1972).
Source of 1971 to 1975 acreage data: U.S. House of
Representatives (1975).
27
-------
In addition to the imported fire ant, several other species of
locally important U.S. pests are effectively controlled by mirex applied
as bait formulations. This includes the western harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex
occidentalis, which infests millions of hectares of rangeland of the western
states. Another is the Texas leaf-cutting ant, Atta texana, a serious pest
for pine seedlings, hardwood trees, and cereal and forage crops in some
areas of east Texas and west-central Louisiana. In heavily infested areas,
the damage caused to buds, needles, and barks of all species of pine by
this ant makes it impossible to establish natural reproduction. Seedling
pines are often destroyed in such areas within a few days of planting
(Van Middleman et al., 1972).
Beginning in 1970, mirex was also used in Hawaii to control
populations of the big-headed ant, Pheidole megacephala, in pineapple
fields (Bevenue et al., 1975). This ant has a symbiotic relationship
with the pineapple mealybug, which is the transmission mechanism for
mealybug wilt, a serious pineapple disease. Control of the ant population
keeps the disease in check (Bevenue et al., 1975). In 1972 about 34,500 kg
(76,000 Ib) of bait was used (containing 220 Ib of mirex) to treat 12,150
hectares (30,000 a).
The use of mirex in Hawaii was temporarily suspended in 1972 by
EPA, but the suspension was later stayed on condition that a 1-year moni-
toring program approved by EPA be conducted. In 1973, the stay was con-
tinued, providing that a further mirex monitoring program was carried out
(Bevenue et al., 1975).
In 1971, a mirex-based bait using canned fish as an attractant
was introduced on a limited scale in California for control of yellow
jackets (Keh et al., 1968; Wagner and Reirson, 1971).
Mirex has been found very effective against termites when soaked
into the wood on which they feed (Esenther and Gray, 1968).
Under laboratory conditions, mirex has also been found quite
toxic to honeybees (Anderson and Atkins, 1966). However, under actual
field conditions when mirex-bait was aerially applied for control of the
imported fire ant, mortality of adult worker bees was not observed, and
28
-------
significant residues of mirex were not found in bees or honey from hives
in the treated area (Clancy et al., 1970).
Mirex has been tried as contact, ingested, or systemic insecti-
cides against a number of insects. In most cases, it was found to be
ineffective. Against several species, however, it was found fairly effec-
tive when incorporated into a bait or otherwise ingested, but no regis-
tration has been obtained for the use of mirex against these insects
(USDA, 1972).
2. Kepone Uses
Kepone's main use has been as an insecticide—primarily for
control of the banana root borer in many banana-producing countries.
It has been used for this purpose in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico.
Directions call for surface applications at 6-month intervals or longer.
The EPA Compendium of Registered Pesticides (CRP) (J973) lists the appli-
cation dosage as 0.1 oz per plant or 2 Ib/a. The CRP check list (EPA
1976a) lists a dosage of 8 Ib/a. A tolerance of 0.01 ppm has been estab-
lished in the United States for negligible residues of kepone in or on
bananas (U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 1976).
In the continental United States, kepone is primarily used as
a roach and ant bait in houses and on lawns and gardens. Several regis-
trations for kepone bait formulation, enclosed or not enclosed in traps,
provide for general applications along baseboards, shelves, sills, or
wherever ants may appear. Label directions do not always specify the
limits of kepone bait that can be applied to a single room. Although
labels warn against applying the insecticide in areas accessible to
children or domestic animals, the directions also specify application
where ants appear—obviously this could include areas that are clearly
accessible (U.S. EPA, 1976a). The EPA (1976)' lists 49 federal and 4 state
products registered for this use. Presumably no more of these products
will be sold after existing stockpiles of kepone have been exhausted or
possibly after reregistration is denied. As of October 1976, there were
227 kg of kepone left in stockpiles in the United States (U.S. EPA, 1976d).
29
-------
Kepone has been registered for use on nonbearing citrus to con-
trol the rust mite. Use was restricted to Florida and it could only be
applied to the foliage of trees that would bear fruit within 1 year
(U.S. EPA, 1973).
It has been used on tobacco to control the southern potato
i
wireworm and the tobacco wireworm. The use was restricted to the south-
eastern United States where it was broadcast as a bait at a dosage of
1 Ib/a in the spring before planting. Directions called for it to be
incorporated into the top 6 in. of soil immediately after application
(U.S. EPA, 1973).
A spray application was approved for use on commercial, field-
grown gladioli for control of the corn earworm, fall earworm, and southern
/
earworm. The spray mixture was 1 Ib kepone per 100 gal of water per acre
(U.S. EPA).
On February 1, 1968, all uses of kepone on Chinese cabbage,
sweet corn, cucumbers, endive, lettuce, peppers, radishes, squash, sugar-
cane, and tomatoes were cancelled. All of these crops, except sugarcane,
were treated by preplant applications of 2% kepone bait disked into the
soil at the rate of 50 Ib/a. Sugarcane was treated at the rate of 2 Ib/a
of kepone as a bait or 3-1/4 Ib/a of kepone as a spray (U.S. EPA, 1976d).
3. Other Environmental Sources of Kepone
Kepone appears as a contaminant of mirex and as one of mirex's
degradation products; hence, kepone should appear in the environment as
a cocontaminant of mirex. The technical grade mirex taken from the
Mississippi bait production plant contained kepone levels from 0.25 to
2.58 ppm (Pesticide Chemical News, August 4, 1976). Carlson et al. (1976)
evaluated soil samples recovered after 12 years of mirex treatment and
ant bait recovered 5 years after an aircraft crash. As much as 50% of
the original mirex was recovered at levels of about 0.5 and 640 ppm,
respectively. Kepone was present at levels of 0.02 ppm in soil and 10 ppm
in the bait, or (i.e., it comprised as much as 10% of the recovered mirex).
30
-------
Accidental exposures to both mirex and kepone are possible
(particularly to children) because both materials have been incorporated
into consumer products, (e.g., Dechlorane products and ant traps).
31
-------
IV ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES
TO MIREX AND KEPONE
A. General
Atmospheric concentrations of rairex and kepone may have constituted
an environmental problem near the primary product manufacturing areas.
Because the primary products are no longer manufactured, the sources of
these exposures and the exposures themselves no longer exist.
Workers who wore their contaminated clothing home are thought to
have exposed their families as well. Except for the processing and appli-
cation of mirex bait and Dechlorane, the sources of these exposures no
longer exist.
Further environmental exposure may occur to people residing in or
passing through areas in which mirex or kepone products have been applied.
This exposure would include people residing or working in areas in which
kepone bait or traps are being used for control of ants and roaches.
Some of these possible past and present atmospheric exposures are
summarized in the following paragraphs. In general, it is concluded that
future human environmental atmospheric exposures to mirex and kepone will
be minimal.
B. Mirex in the Atmosphere Near Manufacturing Facilities
No data on concentrations of mirex in rhe atmosphere have been
found in the literature. Some atmospheric contamination may have been
emitted from the primary manufacturing facilities, principally located
near Niagara Falls, New York, and State College, Pennsylvania. Because
the basic material is no longer manufactured in the United States, these
exposures present no further problem.
With respect to air emissions near Hooker's Niagara Falls plant,
Chambers (1976) states that no visible discharges were noted by the
32
-------
company or government personnel in their observations that were presumably
made during the mirex grinding operations. The two automated dust collectors
associated with the operations have listed manufacturer's removal effi-
ciency of 99.9%.
C. Kepone in the Atmosphere Near Manufacturing Facilities
The major, elevated atmospheric concentrations of kepone probably
occurred in the residential areas near the primary product manufacturing
sites. These areas have been located near Hopewell, Virginia; State
College, Pennsylvania; and Niagara Falls, New York. No ambient data have
been located for State College or Niagara Falls; however, samples were
taken in the Hopewell area when the Life Sciences plant was producing
kepone (Chemical Week, December 24, 1975).
Air monitoring stations in Hopewell were located at the Hopewell
News building, 200 m (0.13 mi) south of the plant site and at the Hopewell
airport 5.2 km (3.24 mi) to the east. Other sites were located in nearby
communities at distances of from 12.5 to 25 km (7.8 to 15.6 mi). Hi-Vol
samples collected at the station 200 m distant from March 1974 through
April 1975, while the plant was in operation, were found to contain from
2 to 50 yg of kepone per cubic meter of air. Kepone concentrations varied,
depending on the length of sample time, weather conditions, and date of
collection. During this same sampling period, the percent of kepone in
relation to the total suspended particulates ranged from less than 1 to
more than 40%.
Hi-Vol air filters taken from the Hopewell airport, the Colonial
Heights area, and the most distant site [ South Richmond , which is approxi-
mately 25 km (16 mi) from the manufacturing plant] contained between 0.1
and 20 ng/m .
Occupational exposures in the Life Sciences plant measured by the
State of Virginia in July 1975, showed airborne kepone concentrations of
3
3 mg/m (Jaeger, 1976). The NIOSH-recommended workplace standard for
kepone is 1 ug/m (NIOSH, 1976).
33
-------
Human respiration rates vary according to age, sex, type of work,
degree of physical exertion and health of the individual; however, the
variation is relatively small. An average adult is considered to respire
3 33
15 m /day and an average worker, 20 m /day—10 m during working hours
(Public Health Service, 1960).
Based on the environmental exposures at Hopewell, people residing
near the Life Sciences plant would have inhaled 30 to 750 yg/day of kepone,
whereas people residing about 25 km from the plant would have inhaled from
0.0015 to' 0.3 yg/day of kepone. The occupational concentrations reported
above appear to be excessive; however, they would result in an inhalation
of 30 mg/working day of kepone. The NIOSH standard allows an occupational
exposure of up to 10 pg/day.
D. Human Atmospheric Exposure to Mirex from Product Use
Because mirex bait is only dispensed through the air when associated
with relatively coarse corn cob grit particles that settle rapidly, amounts
remaining airborne should be insignificant. With the high melting point
and low vapor pressure of bait, volatilization on the ground should also
be insignificant. This conclusion is enhanced by the fact that only 1.7
to 3.4 g of mirex are applied to each acre of treated land. If the entire
amount of mirex present did volatize and remain in a layer of the atmo-
sphere from ground level to 10 m elevation, the atmospheric concentration
3
would be 42 to 84 yg/m . This, however, is a gross overexaggeration of
concentrations that would actually be present.
A more accurate approximation can be made using the methods of
Guckel et al. (1973). Using the evaporation rate of DDT (This rate is
unavailable for mirex, but DDT has a similar vapor pressure.) assuming
that the air is moving 50 L/hr at 20°C and that 1 g of mirex has a sur-
2
face area of 5 cm , and using mirex's molecular weight of 546 gives an
evaporation of 0.6552 g/24-hr/g of mirex. Using the same 10-m atmospheric
layer and assuming that the air exchanges once every 24 hr results in
-2 -2 3
atmospheric concentrations of 2.7 x 10 to 5.5 x 10 ng/m . People
residing in areas with these concentrations would inhale 0.4 to 0.8 ng/
day of mirex.
34
-------
E. Human Atmospheric Exposures to Kepone from Product Use
1. Ant and Roach Traps and Baits
Ant and roach bait and traps may be used indoors or outdoors.
Indoor use may result in atmospheric contamination or contamination of
food and water. Accidential exposures may also result, particularly to
children, from tasting or eating the material contained in the trap or
bait.
Each trap contains approximately 7.5 mg kepone at a concentra-
tion of 0.125% in bait. Indoor use calls for 2 or 3 teaspoons of paste,
2 or 3 tablespoons of granules, or 2 or 3 containers per infested room.
Loose baits may be scattered or placed in piles (U.S. EPA, 1973). Hence,
a single room may be baited with as many as 3 x 7.5 = 22.5 mg of kepone.
The methods of packaging the kepone bait has been defined by EPA
(1976d) as "accessible" and "inaccessible." Inaccessible products include
all enclosed traps made from metal or plastic, as well as metal stakes
containing kepone baits that are hammered into the ground. Accessible
products are those that can be removed from their containers, as well as
foil- or cardboard-covered traps.
EPA estimated that as of August 1976, 538.8 Ib of actual kepone
was held by formulators of bait and traps (U.S. EPA, 1976d). This is
enough to produce 27.5 million inaccessible traps and is estimated to be
a 3-year supply. Thus, exposures to these traps and baits might be ex-
pected to persist for more than 3 more years as manufacturers' supplies
are consumed and retail stocks are purchased.
2. Potential Atmospheric Exposure from Kepone Ant and
Roach Traps
No known recorded data are available about atmospheric concen-
trations of kepone in rooms where kepone traps have been used. Therefore,
in estimating the potential concentrations it is assumed that 3 traps are
3
placed in a room 3 x 4 x 2.5 m (30 m ). The very highest concentration
would occur if all kepone in the traps entered the room atmosphere while
no discharge of air from the room was permitted. The resulting atmospheric
35
-------
concentration would be 22.5/30 = 0.75 mg/m . This concentration is un-
reasonably high because of the low volatilization rate of kepone and
because of circulation of the air.
The data submitted to EPA by Lethelin Products Company, though
not relevant to household exposure estimation, do provide a measure of
the vapor concentrations attainable under maximum conditions (a factory
formulating bait from powdered kepone). For this case, the maximum con-
centration is 1 ug/m for kepone in dust-free air (U.S. EPA, 1976c).
The actual evaporation rate of chemicals is difficult to mea-
sure, and quantitative data are rare. An experimental method has been
devised (Guckel et al., 1973), however, to measure the evaporation rate
of pure pesticides from a thin film. The technique involves observing
the loss in weight of a pesticide at a specified temperature and air
flow by using a very sensitive balance. Kepone was not measured, but
data are given for DDT, another chlorinated hydrocarbon with a vapor
pressure in the same range as that of kepone (U.S. EPA, 1976c).
For air at 20°C moving at 50 L/hr, the evaporation rate of
.0:
kepone gives
-9 2
DDT was -0.01 x 10 moles/cm /hr. Applying this limiting value to
—9 2
0.01 x 10 moles/cm /hr x 490 (molecular weight of kepone)
2
= 0.0049 Mg/cm /hr of kepone.
2
The surface of a kepone trap is approximately 20 cm , giving
0.1 yg/hr or 2.4 yg/day evaporation from a trap under these conditions.
3
For three traps in a 30-m room, the concentration is 2.4 x 3/30 =
0.24 pg/m . However, this estimated evaporation is grossly exaggerated
because the air inside the kepone trap is not moving and because the con-
centration of kepone (and thus the exposed surface) is only 0.125% in
the bait. By assuming that the rate of evaporation is proportional to
concentration a more realistic concentration would be less than 0.00125 x
3
0.24 = 0.3 ng/m (U.S. EPA, 1976c). This assumes that all the air inside
the room would recirculate daily.
36
-------
3
If it is assumed that a person inhales 15 m /24 hr of air and
that he spends all 24 hr in the room, daily exposure (inhalation) would
be approximately 4.5 ng/24-hr day, with an upper limit of 3.6 pg/p day.
3. Potential Atmospheric Exposure from "Accessible"
Kepone Bait
Unenclosed kepone bait is formulated in a variety of matrices,
such as paste, jelly, bread crumbs, and corn cob grit; the usual concen-
tration is 0.125%, the same as for the bait in the traps. An assessment
of inhalation exposure from the use of loose bait, using assumptions
similar to those for the enclosed case, requires an estimate of the vola-
tilization rate of kepone and thus of the surface area of the bait. The
surface
1976c).
2
surface area for one can of bait is estimated as 1800 cm (U.S. EPA,
2
Using the kepone evaporation rate of 0.0049 yg/cm /hr given
above, assuming the air in the room (30 m ) is replaced completely once
every 24 hr, and assuming that 0.125% of the surface area is kepone
result in a calculated atmospheric concentration of
0.0049 x 1800 x 0.00125/30 = 9 ng/m3.
Note that at the assumed evaporation rate it would take 166
days to evaporate all the kepone from the bait (U.S. EPA, 1976c).
3
Again, assuming that an adult inhales 15 m of air per day and
that he remains in the room for 24 hr per day, his exposure would be
15 x 9 = 135 ng/day.
Additional atmospheric exposures may occur for both accessible
and inaccessible ant and roach traps by the bait being eaten or carried
off by the insect. The insect could then die or drop the bait into a
room where it would be available for suspension into the atmosphere as
a dust particle or the kepone could vaporize into the room's atmosphere.
If it is assumed that one-half of the material for three traps in a room
is so exposed, a possible 11.25 mg of kepone are released into the room.
3
A 30-m room could have a maximum possible kepone concentration oi
0.38 mg/m if all the' material entered the room's atmosphere at one
37
-------
time. This, of course, is a gross overestimate because not all the
material would enter the room's atmosphere at one time, because the air
in the room would be replaced by outside air, and because some of the
kepone would be removed through housekeeping. The maximum possible
kepone concentration for this exposure route could easily overestimate
O £
the actual concentration by a factor of 10 to 10 or more.
4. Accidental Exposures to Kepone from Ant and Roach
Traps and Bait
According to the EPA (U.S. EPA, 1976a), 46 cases of human kepone
poisoning have been reported (primarily children). In only one case was
the causitive agent confirmed to be kepone. No deaths were attributed to
acute poisoning. EPA (1976d) lists 52 reported incidents since 1971.
Data from the Pesticide Episode Report System (PERS) show an
average of 12.5 cases per year involving young children and kepone products
(U.S. EPA, 1976d). In almost all episodes involving traps, the children
were found chewing the can without any indication that they had ingested
the contents. If it is assumed that some do ingest the contents and that
the can is partially full, they might eat 5 mg of kepone or about 6.7 ppm
in their diet for that day. Because only a small fraction of the total
number of such actual cases are probably reported, this fraction is
assumed to be 1%, with the implication that 1250 such cases might occur
each year.
The possibility that a child, or anyone, might be exposed to
kepone dissolved by water or in deposits on dishes, pans, and eating
utensils was judged to be remote (U.S. EPA, 1976d).
5. At-Risk Population for Atmospheric Mirex and Kepone
At-Risk Populations for Kepone Baits and Traps—It has been
estimated that the remaining stocks of kepone would be sufficient to make
a 3-year supply of traps and baits. The supply could be used to make 27.5
million unaccessible traps or if used half-and-half it could make 13.8
million inaccessible traps and 430,000 accessible products (U.S. EPA, 1976c)
38
-------
Using the half-and-half production figure and assuming three traps per
room leads to an estimate of 1.5 million rooms per year baited with in-
accessible traps and 50,000 rooms per year baited with accessible traps.
Using an estimate of 4 people per room application leads to an estimate
of 6 to 12 million people exposed per year. These estimates assume that
all the material would be used indoors and they are an upper limit of the
number potentially exposed.
At-Risk Population for Mirex Fire Ant Application—Table III-3
indicates that the average number of acres treated per year in rural areas
for fire ant control was 10 to 14 million from 1967 to 1975. Using the
U.S. rural population density of 15 people/sq mi gives an estimated
230,000 to 330,000 people exposures per year. Because some of the areas
received multiple treatments, some individuals would have received multiple
exposures.
At-Risk Populations for Mirex and Kepone Manufacturing—Manu-
facturing exposures no longer exist because the basic mirex and kepone
materials are no longer manufactured. Using a radius of 8 km (5 mi) from
the plants to characterize past exposed populations, it is estimated that
there were approximately 25,000 people at risk in the vicinity of Hopewell,
30,000 people at risk near State College, and 90,000 at risk near Niagara
Falls. These 155,000 people would have been at-risk to atmospheric kepone
at some time, and the 130,000 people in State College and Niagara Falls
would also have had potential mirex exposure. Environmental kepone ex-
posures may also have occurred near the Allied formulation plant in
Baltimore; if so, they would predate 1960 and were probably minimal in
comparison with the latter Life Sciences emissions in Hopewell.
Additional exposures may have occurred near the various con-
sumer product manufacturing plants. But because of the processes employed
and amounts of materials involved, these were probably minimal.
39
-------
V MIREX AND KEPONE IN DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
A. General
Mirex and kepone concentrations in drinking water have not been
found to constitute a significant human exposure. Both chemicals are
relatively insoluble in water and both are rapidly adsorbed onto sediments.
The only measurable human exposures would probably occur from ingesting
kepone and mirex on sediments resuspended during periods of extreme tur-
bidity, when little filtration occurred.
B. Mirex in,Water
Because mirex has a relatively low solubility, if present, it would
be expedted to be found at levels less than fractional parts per billion.
This occurrence is below the detection level for most analytical methods.
Because of mirex's being found in Lake Ontario sediments, all New York
state water supplies receiving their water in the Great Lakes Basin were
tested for mirex and some were tested for kepone from September to October
1976. These water supplies are listed in Table V-l, and include those taking
their water from Lake Erie, the Niagara River, Lake Ontario, and the St.
Lawrence River. Nothing was found at or above the 0.01 ppb detection level
(Syrotynski, 1977). Because increased turbidity due to spring turnover
might result in detectable levels, New York State plans to conduct a spring
research program to measure the sediment-water interface.
Analyses of more than 50 water samples routinely collected after mirex
treatment in the Southwest have failed to detect it at the 0.1 ppb level.
Better methods of monitoring have found mirex in the range of <1 ppt
(Markin, 1972). However, the mirex was not detected in the water itself.
but in the suspended matter filtered from it. Borthwick et al. (1973)
report a similar lack of success in detecting mirex in estuarine samples
in South Carolina after aerial application of mirex bait. Alley (1973)
also states that mirex has not been detected in natural waters by analy-
tical techniques sensitive to 0.01 ppb.
40
-------
Table V-l
NEW YORK PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS IN THE GREAT
LAKES BASIN TESTED FOR MIREX
Lake Erie
Dunkirk, Wanakah, Erie County Water Authority, Buffalo City
Niagara River
Erie County Water Authority, Grand Island Water District //2,
Tonawanda, Lockport City, Niagara Falls City,
Lake Ontario
Niagara County Water District (at mouth of River), Lyndon-
ville Village, Hilton Village, Monroe County Water Authority,
Rochester City (half comes from upland to south), Ontario
Water District (Wayne County), Williamson Water District,
Sodus Point, Wolcott Village, Oswego City, Onondaga County
Water District, Syracuse City, Chaumont (Chaumont Bay)
St. Lawrence
Cape Vincent, Alexandria Bay, Clayton, Morristown, Massena
Note; Intakes are shared by Che following systems: Monroe
County and Rochester, Onondaga County, and Syracuse.
Source: Syrotynski (1977).
41
-------
No detectable levels of mirex were found in Spring Creek, Pennsyl-
vania, downstream from the Nease chemical plant (Clista, 1977).
Mirex concentrations in sediments and biota are monitored in the
Hawaian pineapple growing areas. Although water is not monitored, no
mirex was detected in sediments at the 3-ppb limit of detectability
(Johnson et al., 1976).
C. Kepone in Water
As indicated previously, kepone has been primarily used in tropical
regions outside of the United States to control banana root borers.
The principal U.S. uses have been to control ants and roaches around
homes and for wireworm control in the southeastern United States. Accord-
ing to one EPA estimate, only 0.8% of the U.S. kepone production has been
used in the United States [i.e., on the order of 900 kg/yr (2000 lb/yr)].
Most of this amount would be contained in traps or dispersed indoors or
near homes. Thus, water contamination from use should be minimal.
The major contamination of water bodies would come from manufacturing
discharges centered at Hopewell, Virginia; State College, Pennsylvania;
and Niagara Falls, New York. Lesser discharges may also have occurred
at secondary product manufacturers centered at a number of locations
throughout the United States.
Other sources of kepone in the water might result from degradation
of environmental concentrations of mirex because kepone has been reported
as a cocontaminant of mirex (Pesticide Chemical News, August 4, 1976).
Most sampling of kepone in water has focused on the James River and
Chesapeake Bay, with other sampling in Spring Creek, Pennsylvania, and
Lake Ontario. The Pesticide Chemical News (August 11, 1976) reports that
in water samples taken from Spring Creek, downstream from the Nease chemical
plant, no detectable levels of kepone were found. However, Ted Clista of
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources indicates finding
concentrations of 0.02 to 0.09 pptn kepone in Spring Creek. No kepone was
reported found in analyzed New York State water supplies that take their
water from the Great Lakes Basin (Syrotynski, 1977).
42
-------
Tap water taken from the Hopewell, Virginia, area contained no de-
tectable kepone at the time of sampling. Ice samples from an ice plant
across the street from the Life Science Products Company manufacturing
site contained from 0.1 to 10 ppb of kepone (Chemical Week, December 2,
1975). Similar concentrations were determined in the discharge water from
the kepone manufacturing site. Samples from the James River ranged from
0.1 to 4 ppb (Chemical Week, December 24, 1975). Other field data re-
vealed concentrations of 0.13 to 0.14 ppb of kepone in James River water
near Skiffs Creek (Toxic Materials News, December 27, 1976). The levels
of kepone found were undetectable (<50 ppt) in the York River (the next
major river north of the James, which also discharges into the Chesapeake
Bay). In the Appomattox River (upstream from Hopewell), kepone was de-
tected at 0.1 ppb.
D. Human Consumption of Mirex and Kepone from Drinking Water
Human water consumption rates vary according to age, sex, work,
health conditions, and temperature. The average adult is considered to
consume 1.5 L of water daily as liquid (Public Health Service, 1960).
Because detectable levels of mirex have not been recorded in drinking
water supplies, it must be assumed that the human exposure is low (less
-9
than 0.1 ppb x 1.5 L/day = 0.15 x 10 L/day). Hence, the mirex consump-
tion would be less than 0.15 tag/day. Kepone concentrations of 0.1 to
10 ppb may be present in some water supplies. This would yield a daily
human consumption of about 0.15 to 15 yg/day for water supplies that
might be contaminated.
These consumption estimates are highly speculative. No data have
shown positive mirex or kepone concentrations in tap water. Municipal
water filtration systems remove most of the sediments and, hence, most
of the mirex and kepone that might be present.
E. At-Risk Population to Kepone in Drinking Water
Hopewell is the only municipality taking its drinking water from the
lower James River between Hopewell and the Chesapeake Bay. The Hopewell
water treatment system is frequently monitored to ensure that whatever
43
-------
kepone is present is removed. No detectable concentrations have been
reported in the finished water. Therefore, the at-risk populations to
kepone-contaminated drinking waters would at most be those few people
who take their water directly from the river.
44
-------
VI POTENTIAL HUMAN MIREX AND KEPONE EXPOSURES FROM SMOKING
No data have been found to indicate the presence of mirex or kepone
in tobacco. Both chemicals should be found in the soils of certain
tobacco fields because mirex has been used in the Southeast to control
imported fire ants and because kepone has been used on tobacco to control
the southern potato wireworm and the tobacco wireworm.
Studies by De La Cruz and Rajanna (1975), Alley (1973), and Markin
et al. (1972) indicate that plants can take up mirex if it is present in
the soils. 'The concentration in the plant was found to depend yn the
concentration in the soil, the type of soil, the plant species, and the
parts of the plant (i.e., roots, leaves, stem, etc.) in which it was
found. The concentration of mirex in the soil of areas treated for im-
ported fire ant control depends on the time since last treatment. The
soil concentrations would probably be several parts per billion immediately
after application, decreasing to fractional parts per billion thereafter
(Van Middelman et al., 1972; Markin et al., 1972; and Spence and Markin,
1974). Considering these data and the plant uptake data, one might
expect concentrations in tobacco from selected locations in the order of
~k
parts per trillion.
To find if the mirex postulated in tobacco could be transmitted to
the lungs when smoking, Atallah and Borough (1975) devised a quantitative
smoking system for collecting mainstream smoke or for delivering smoke
to the lungs of rats via the trachea. Cigarettes were impregnated with
14
five C-labeled insecticides (including mirex) and then tested.
Approximately 23% of the added mirex radiocarbon was recovered unaltered
in the mainstream smoke. Mirex was found to be the most stable compound
A concentration of 1 ppt might be assumed. See Section VII-A-1 for a
discussion concerning this assumed concentration.
45
-------
tested, with approximately 70% of the recovered radiocarbon remaining as
the original product. When mirex was inhaled by rats using the trachea
smoking system, 47% was exhaled, 36% was found in the rats' lungs, 11% in
their bloods, and 1% in their hearts; about 5% was lost in recovery proc-
ess. These data indicate not only that mirex would survive the smoking
process but also that mirex entering the lungs can be taken into the
lungs, blood, and heart and, hence, into other organs and tissue.
Assuming that 23% of the mirex in a cigarette is taken into the
lungs, that an average cigarette's weight is 0.9 g, and that the concen-
tration of mirex in the cigarette is 1 ppt, human exposure from one ciga-
-12
rette would be 2 x 10 g. A telephone survey of adults conducted by
HEW (1970) between 1969 and 1970 indicated that approximately 42% of the
males and 30% of the females smoke cigarettes. Current male smokers
average 22 cigarettes per day and females 18 per day. The estimated
average daily mirex exposure would thus be 4.4 pg for male smokers and
3.6 pg for female smokers. The consumption would, of course, be higher
for heavy smokers.
These estimates are speculative, however, because it is not known
whether mirex or kepone are still present in tobacco field soils; whether
tobacco will take up mirex or kepone; and what concentration of the two
chemicals might actually be present in tobacco.
46
-------
VII MIREX AND KEPONE CONCENTRATIONS IN FOODS
A. Mirex in Foods
1. General
The established tolerances for mirex in foods are 0.1 ppm in
fat of meat from cattle, goats, hogs, horses, poultry, and sheep; 0.1
ppm in eggs; 0.1 ppm in milk fat; and 0.01 ppm in all agricultural com-
modities exclusive of eggs, milk fat, and animal fat (EPA CPR, May 31,
1969). The 0.1-ppm limit has also been applied to finfish.
Foods that might be contaminated by mirex include those grown
or raised in areas where mirex has been manufactured or applied for pest
control. These areas are the southeastern states where mirex has been
used to control fire ants and Hawaii where mirex has been used to control
mealybug wilt disease on pineapples. Product manufacturing has contamin-
ated seafood in Lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence River, and Spring Creek.
Animals that produce food can become contaminated with mirex
as a result of their ingesting plant and animal materials and waters
that have been mirex-contaminated. Mirex, like many other chlorinated
organic compounds, is only slightly soluble in water but extremely soluble
in fats and oils. Because of this, it will usually migrate to portions
of the environment that are high in fats and oils. Because most biological
organisms contain fats and oils, it tends over time to accumulate in them
at much higher levels than exist in the environment (DEC, 1976d) . This
bioaccumulation and the nonbiodegradability of the compound are the pro-
perties that make it of special concern to ecological and public health
specialists.
Bond et al. (1975) fed mirex-contaminated food to cattle to
monitor the accumulation of mirex residues in the milk and fatty tissue
of the cows and in the calves receiving milk from these cows. Residues
of 0.08 ppm of mirex or less were found in the milk and less than 2.52
ppm in the fat samples.
47
-------
Aquatic, food-producing species can become contaminated with
mirex either through directly consuming contaminated sediments or water,
or through food chain build-up. These contaminations have been found to
be particularly problematic in Lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence River,
Spring Creek, and to a lesser extent the southeastern United States.
Mirex contamination of food plants can result from aerial appli-
cation of the pesticide on the plants and from root uptake of concentra-
tions in the soils.
Preliminary work on a number of biological samples has shown
that plants can contain extremely low concentrations of mirex (Alley,
1973). Markin et al. (1972) reported that bahiagrass contained 0.0003
to 0.017 ppm residues when grown in soils containing 0.001 to 0.002 ppm
mirex. De La Cruz and Rajanna (1975) studied mirex uptake in soybeans,
garden beans, sorghum, and wheat seedlings grown in sand and soil sub-
strates containing 0.3 to 3.5 ppm mirex. The seedlings were found to
contain between 0.01 to 1.71 ppm mirex (see Tables VII-1 and VII-2).
Generally, the mirex concentrations for seedlings grown in soil were higher
than those grown in sand. As might be expected, higher concentrations
were found in plants grown in the soils having the higher mirex concentra-
tions .
At the standard application rate, approximately 1.7 g/a of
active mirex is applied. It has been calculated that this is equivalent
to approximately 4 ppb (Van Middleman et al., 1972) or 5 ppb (Markin
et al. , 1972) in a standard 3-in. soil sample. Concentrations in treated
soils have been reported as 0.1 to 10 ppb (Van Middleman et al., 1972),
0.7 to 2.5 ppb (Markin et al., 1972), and 0.2 to 10.4 ppb (Spence and
Markin, 1974). Based on an extrapolation of the plant uptake data re-
ported by De La Cruz and Rajanna (1975) and Markin et al., (1972), plants
grown in these soils might be expected to contain mirex concentrations on
the order of 0.2 ppt to 2 ppb, with a midvalue of about 1 ppt. These
concentrations will depend on, among other factors, the time since the
last mirex application; consequently, current vegetation concentrations
may be less than 1 ppt for most regions.
48
-------
Table VII-1
CONCENTRATIONS OF MIREX RESIDUES (PPM DRY WEIGHT)
DETECTED BY GLC IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF 4-WEEK
OLD CROP SEEDLINGS GROWN IN FIELD SOIL
Concentration of Mirex in the
Experimental Field Soil (ppm)
Plant Parts 3.50 0.80 0.30
Source: De La Cruz and Rajanna (1975).
Garden Beans
Growing tip 0.12 0.06 0.02
Leaves 0.20 0.11 0.01
Upper half stem 0.31 0.22 0.10
Lower half stem 0.63 0.25 0.02
Root 1.18 0.49 0.21
Soybean
Growing tip 0.09 0.06 0.01
Leaves 0.21 0.12 0.10
Upper helf stem 0.35 0.18 0.11
Lower half stem 0.76 0.27 0.12
Root 1.25 0.49 0.17
Sorghum
Leaves 0.22 0.20 0.11
Stem 0.51 0.31 0.17
Root 0.81 0.44 0.20
Wheat
Leaves 0.17 0.18 0.09
Stem 0.56 0.20 0.20
Root 1.17 0.27 0.23
49
-------
Table VII-2
CONCENTRATIONS OF MIREX RESIDUES (PPM DRY WEIGHT)
DETECTED BY GLC IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF 4-WEEK
OLD CROP SEEDLINGS GROWN IN LOAMY SAND
Concentration of Mirex in the
Experimental Loamy Sand (ppm)
Plant Parts 3.40 0.80 0.31 >
Garden Beans
Growing tip 0.27 0.09 0.04
Leaves 0.40 0.19 0.01
Upper half ste/a 0.31 0.28 0.17
Lower half stem 0.79 0.38 0.20
Root 1.68 0.69 0.23
Soybean
Growing tip 0.31 0.08 0.05
Leaves 0.36 0.18 0.03
Upper half stem 0.73 0.29 0.13
Lower half stem 0.92 0.31 0.27
Root 1.47 0.49 0.32
Sorghum
Leaves 0.40 0.33 0.18
Stem 1.60 0.46 0.21
Root 1.71 0.67 0.28
Wheat
Leaves 0.21 0.19 0.04
Stem 0.95 0.32 0.21
Root 1.33 0.55 0.36
Source: De La Cruz and Rajanna (1975).
50
-------
Lane (1973) conducted laboratory experimentation to determine
if food processing degrades mirex in food. Tissue samples and eggs con-
taminated with mirex were obtained from crawfish and mallard ducks.
Under heat treatment, no significant difference was found in the mirex
residues in the control and processed samples. The irradiation of crawfish
tissues with ultraviolet light for 12 and 24 hr showed no significant dif-
ference in the means of the control or treated samples. Photolysis and
gamma irradiation of eggs, however, significantly degraded the mirex con-
tent.
2. Mirex in Foods Grown in the Southeastern United States
Mirex bait has been applied in seven southeastern states to
control the imported fire ant. The amount applied to any given location
was slight (1.7 to 3.4 g/a per application, depending on formulation);
however, due to mirex's persistence in the environment, measurable con-
centrations are expected in the soils and sediments of these areas for
many years to come (mirex's environmental half-life may be on the order
of a decade or more).
Ford et al. (1973) analyzed samples of beef fat to determine
concentrations of mirex and other chlorinated pesticide residues. Samples
were obtained from the Southeast and from other areas that had not been
treated for imported fire ant control. Residues of mirex were found in
67 of the 77 (87%) fat samples tested from the Southeast. Positive con-
centrations ranged from 0.001 ppm (the lowest level of detection) to
0.125 ppm, with an average value of 0.026 ppm. Only one sample, 0.125
ppm, was in excess of the established tolerance level of 0.1 ppm in the
fat of beef cattle. Analysis of other tissues taken from the same cattle
showed no residues or minimal residues.
Beef samples taken from outside the treated areas showed no
mirex residues. The absence of mirex in samples from untreated areas,
although it does not provide absolute proof that the residues found in
samples resulted from the insecticide application of the treated areas,
does strongly indicate that this is the case (Ford et al., 1973).
51
-------
In obtaining a registration and tolerance level for mirex,
Allied Chemical Company monitored whole milk and milk fat from a herd
of cows grazing on a pasture treated with a single application of bait.
They reported 0.002 to 0.007 ppm in whole milk and 0.02 to 0.13 ppm in
milk fat (Hawthorne et al., 1974). Because the same residue levels were
found in pretreatment and untreated check animals, Hawthorne et al. (1974a)
initiated another study: A total of 66 samples was obtained from 5 states,
including 6 control samples obtained from untreated areas. The treated
areas had received two to five mirex applications. Of the 60 samples
analyzed from these areas, no mirex residues at the 0.3-ppb level of
detection were found; however, at least 26 of the samples came from areas
that had received their last mirex treatment a year or more before collec-
tion. Another 26 of the samples came from areas that had been treated at
least 6 months before sampling. The authors conclude that milk cattle
must be ingesting small amounts of mirex but not enough to show up in
milk at residue levels above 0.3 ppb.
The FDA conducted a 1976 survey to measure the mirex concen-
trations of fishery products from seven south Atlantic-Gulf Coast states
(FDA, 1977) that had been treated with mirex to control imported fire ants.
The data obtain'ed from 132 samples of finfish, shellfish, and crustacea
are summarized on a regional basis in Table VII-3 and on a species basis
in Table V1I-4. None of the shellfish or crustacea surveyed showed de-
tectable mirex. For finfish, however, all surveys except those from
Texas contained some samples with detectable mirex. The average mirex
in finfish by states was:
Alabama, 0.029 ppm
Arkansas, 0.021 ppm
Georgia, none sampled
Louisiana, 0.015 ppm
South Carolina, none sampled
Mississippi, 0.002 ppm
Texas, none detected
• Florida, none sampled.
52
-------
Table VII-3
MIKEX IN SOUTHEASTERN U.S. FISH
(ppm)
State
(Region)
Alabama
Northern
Southern
Eastern
State
Arkansas
Southern
Central
State
Florida
Northern
State
Georgia
Eastern
State
Louisiana
Northern
Southern
Central
State
Mississippi
Southern
Central
State
South Carolina
Eastern
State
Texas
Northern
Southern
State
C J.11
Number
8
f
4
12
3
9
12
—
—
—
—
1
—
11
12
—
12
12
—
—
6
6
12
J-J.O11 IJ11CX
Average Number
0.035
12
0.018
0.029 12
0.083
ND
0.021 —
—
—
—
—
0.022 —
12
0.014 —
0.015 12
—
0.002
0.002 —
—
— -
ND
ND
ND —
J.J-.L911 lil.ua
Average Number
^^-
ND*
__
ND
—
r.
—
1
1
11
11
,
ND 12
—
ND 12
12
—
12
12
12
, —
_
~ "
l_CH_Ccl
Average
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND - None Detected.
No samples taken.
Source: FDA (1977).
53
-------
Table VII-4
SUMMARY OF FY77 MIREX COMPLIANCE EVALUATION
PROGRAM FOR SOUTH ATLANTIC-GULF COAST
FISHERY PRODUCTS BY SPECIES AND STATE
State
(Species)
Alabama
Buffalo Fish
Carp
Catfish
Oysters
Arkansas
Buffalo Fish
Carp
Catfish
Drum Fish
Garfish
Florida
Crab
Georgia
Crab
Shrimp
Louisiana
Buffalo Fish
Carp
Catfish
Gar
Gasper (gou)
Oyster
Crab
Shrimp
Mississippi
Buffalo Fish
Carp
Catfish
Crab
Shrimp
South Carolina
Crab
Shrimp
Texas
Drum
Flounder
Redfish
Trout
Sample
Size
4
1
7
12
6
1
2
2
1
1
5
6
3
3
3
1
2
12
6
6
5
1
6
2
10
6
6
2
1
5
4
ND
None Detected.
Range not applicable.
Source: FDA (1977).
Average
0.040
0.010
0.020
ND*
Trace
0.150
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.004
0.025
0.010
ND
0.029
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Trace
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Minimum
Maximum
0.030
—t
Trace
ND
0.070
0.060
0.020
Trace
ND
ND
0.008
0.007
0.066
0.022
0.050
ND
0.010
54
-------
The highest concentration fround was 0.15 ppm in an Arkansas carp. The
breakdown by gepgraphic areas (Table VII-3) within the states shows some
variation in mirex levels in finfish from different areas. A further
analysis of these findings indicates a positive correlation between 1976
mirex treated areas and positive mirex concentrations (FDA, 1977).
In the imported fire ant eradication program, mirex was aerially
applied to coastal areas near Charleston, South Carolina. Results of field
studies conducted to monitor the movement and accumulation of the mirex
applied in the estuarine system were reported by Borthwick, et al.,(1973).
Background and periodic posttreatment samples collected from 1969 to 1971
of water, bottom sediments, shrimp, crabs, fish, and estuary-dependent
birds and mammals were analyzed for mirex using electron-capture gas
chromatography.
The data revealed that (1) mirex was translocated from treated
lands and high marshes to estuarine biota—all animal classes sampled
contained mirex—and (2) higher biological concentrations of mirex
occurred in predators such as racoons and birds. Mirex residue ranges
for respective sample categories were: water, <0.01 ppm; sediments,
0 to 0.07 ppm; crabs, 0 to 0.60 ppm; finfish, 0 to 0.82 ppm; shrimp,
0 to 1.3 ppm; mammals, 0 to 4.4 ppm; and birds 0 to 17.0 ppm.
In a following study (Borthwick, et al., 1974), estuarine
sediments, crabs, shrimps, and finfish were collected in June 1972 at 11
stations. The collection took place 2 years after aerial applications
of mirex bait for control of imported fire ants in coastal areas near
Charleston. Mirex was present in three species of fish (white catfish,
0.021 ppm; bluegill, 0.047 ppm; carp, 0.12 ppm) and blue crabs (0.026
ppm) at two freshwater stations. However, mirex was not detected in
36 animal samples, most of which were taken from nine saline stations
in the estuaries after a period of restricted use of the pesticide.
Analysis of bottom sediment samples at all stations detected no mirex.
The test detection level of 0.01 ppm indicates that mirex in crabs,
shrimp, and finfish diminished in the 18 to 24 months between the two
studies.
55
-------
Wild catfish from areas receiving blanket application of mirex
bait have shown residues of 0.008 to 2.59 ppm. The higher concentrations
were found within 48 hours of application, and the lower concentrations
were found 2 years after application (Hawthorne et al., 1974b). Hawthorne
et al. (1974b) also collected samples of 50 commercially raised catfish
in the southeast; 25 came from areas that had been treated with mirex
and 25 from areas that had not been treated. Mirex was found in none of
the 50 samples at the 0.01 ppm detection level.
Other programs have monitored the mirex concentrations in
wildlife in the southeastern United States. Many of the target organisms
monitored are not used directly as human food but may indirectly enter
the human food chain or indicate concentrations of other foods consumed
by humans. For example, Oklendorf et al. (1974) collected eggs of anhingas,
herons, and ibises during 1972 at coastal and inland locations from Florida
to New Jersey. Of 209 eggs tested, 17.7% were found to contain mirex.
The highest levels occurred in samples from coastal Georgia, inland South
Carolina, and inland Florida. Mirex concentrations as high as 2.9 ppm
were detected.
In a study reported by Markin et al. (1974), 77 samples, each
composed of oysters, crabs, shrimp, fish and fish products, were collected
from 7 coastal locations during 1971 within the area where mirex was used
and from 2 check locations outside the treatment areas. The study showed
that mirex occurred in only 9 of the 77 samples (0.005 to 0.024 ppm range),
all of which come from near Savannah, Georgia. This area of Georgia had
been treated in 1967, 1969, and 1970.
Markin et al. (1972b) sampled wild populations of edible red
craw-fish for mirex. The crawfish were taken in May 1971 from six south-
central Louisiana parishes that had been treated with mirex. Seven
samples showed detectable levels of mirex (0.01 ppm detection level).
The results by parish were:
St. Landry, ND - 0.01 ppm
Lafayette, ND
Evangeline, ND - 0.01 ppm
56
-------
St. Martin, ND - 0.07 ppm
Avoyelles, ND - 0.04 ppm
Vermillion, ND
Wolfe and Norment (1973) monitored the mirex residues in selected
organisms in Monroe County, Mississippi, approximately 1 year after mirex
bait was aerially applied. Residue levels in fish taken from treated areas
were 2 to 20 times higher than those from untreated areas, and the levels
of mirex in stream fish remained relatively constant for 7 months after
treatment. Ranges in average mirex concentrations in parts per million
for the various sampled locations were as follows:
November 1971 April 1972
Untreated streams 0.01 to 0.06 0.02 to 0.05
Treated streams 0.01 to 0.53 0.03 to 0.76
Samples of wildlife were collected in Mississippi in 1970 and
were analyzed for the presence of mirex (Baetcke et al., 1972). The
samples were collected 1 year after mirex had been aerially applied in
the primary study area. Adipose tissue samples taken from 19 deer from
Monroe County showed an average mirex concentration of 0.057 ppm, rang-
ing as high as 0.283 ppm. Concentrations of mirex for other wildlife
sampled are as follows:
Adipose Samples
(ppm)
ND - 11.252
0.087
ND - 3.148
19.978 - 59.925
5.104 - 104.386
ND - 1.614
0.436
1.002 - 56.536
57
Specie
Fish (catfish)
Chicken
Bobwhite quail
Brown thrasher
Blue jay
Meadow lark
Turkey
Eastern kingbird
Robin
Barred owl
Number
Sampled
7
1
20
4
3
3
6
1
5
1
Liver Samples
(ppm)
ND
0.
ND
0.045
0.350
0.350
0.076
0.
ND
4.
- 0~.
550
- 0.
- 1.
- 1.
- 1.
- 0.
131
- 1.
072
674
295
838
506
506
475
443
-------
In 1970, 12 groups of 10 starlings each were caputred from areas
where mirex had been used. In 10 of the 12 pools,,- the whole body residues
(less skin, beak, feet, and outer wings) ranged from 0.01 to 1.66 ppm
(Oberheu, 1972).
Work by others, including Borthwick et al. (1973), Nagvi and
De La Cruz (1973), and Collins et al. (1974), demonstrate that low levels
of mirex residues remain in the environment and are concentrated in some
species' tissues. The work of Collins et al. (1974) is of interest to this
study because it investigated and compared mirex residues in selected
vertebrates and selected components of the human food chain for 1 year
after aerial application of mirex bait in Louisiana. Their data are
shown in Table VII-5 and indicate that mirex was detected in 77% of the
human food chain items surveyed. Mirex was not detected in beef fat
before mirex treatment or for 1 year after treatment. Low levels were
found in milk (ND to 0.022 ppm), chicken eggs (ND to 0.493 ppm), and
chickens (0.004 to 0.515 ppm).
3. Mirex in Hawaian Foods
The mirex monitoring program in Hawaii tests for mirex residues
in soils and wildlife in pineapple growing areas—the only place in Hawaii
where the pesticide is used; however, no tests have apparently been made
about the possibility of mirex contamination of pineapples. The 1972
to 1974 surveys monitored residues in sediments, soils, and aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife. Residues in pineapple field soils ranged from 3
to 18 ppb 9 months after mirex had been applied; no residues were found
in the sediments. Only 8 fish of 110 aquatic animals sampled contained
mirex in levels averaging 3 to 7 ppb. Mirex residues in birds ranged
from undetectable to 10 ppb; residues in rodents were quite variable, but
in terms of the geometric mean the amount in the Polynesian rat decreased
with time from 1270 to 56 ppb. The geometric mean for residues in mon-
gooses decreased from 2200 ppb immediately after application to 238 ppb
39 weeks later. No evidence of mirex residue buildup in the aquatic food
chain was apparent, and the higher mirex accumulations in terrestrial biota
were temporary (Bevenue et al., 1975; Johnson et al., 1976).
58
-------
3T
o
H
(U
M
l"J
51
§
tj
A*
H
I-l
o
Z
M
CO
Qd
U
E
^^
M
U
^
i-H
O
H
u"> H
I 55
M W
> H
11 W
iH S
.0 H
Cfl W
H 2
0.
1
,_
«
KH
CJ
Q
8
fe
5
^^
EC
S5
M
CO
Cx3
Q
t_4
C/3
U
Cd
.,
w
(^
li
s
s
a
o
e
a
(0
^
c
01
u
c
0
u
X
0)
5
to
X
8
rsi
CO
JZ
U
e
i
M
4J
C
§
•o
V
3 "O
•o c
to o
at "-*
4>
i-l 01
a N
S -«
a *w
ai
0)
1-1 CU
a. N
B -i
a co
CO
01
3 TJ
•o c
w 2
en o
at m
an
at
>-> a
§•-
a a
CO
VI
.e
4-1
C
o
e
c-0
0)
3 T>
•o c:
•>< 3
u) O
CU >4-l
0=i
0)
— 1 01
a. N
e •*
CC W
CO
^
^
|
^
01
3 -0
•o c
TW 3
u O
PC
01
«*^ a)
i*^
ra to
CO
M
U
01
3
CNJ
0>
3 -a
-4 3
CO O
CU U-*
ai
o>
^^ 01
O. N
Q to
C
V
01
u
u
01
L«
at
3 t?
•o c
01 o
01 **-f
ai
a
•~* 0)
a. N
E •*
n u
CO
s
01
•o
o
o
(u
— 1 -» 00 O >O
o S oo. i , O
O • . Q . . 1 II •
Z O O Z O O 1 1 1 O
u £,
CT •-!
i-t CN CN •-< >TIOO O O CM
-< t-l r^
^^ O . O O ( tA . «O
0 • 1 • 1 >
ZOO O O O O
cr
1-1 en
O CJN tn »j
-1 . O O O .
O 1 O O 1 O 1
a a • I • • i a « i
Z Z 0 00 20
cr
r-ICMCNO -7r*-O r-li-^O
F^ CO
t*^ r» t/*t rH ^o *^ ON CM
OOtrt^ OOvO |Otn
OOO OOO 'O"!
*
^ ^1 o^ O ^ •& ^ O r^ ^^
•-» , r*
CN O f"> | IH •— < o r*
O O O t o —< O i H »j o i ooo o o
Q • • ' ••• O • •
zoo ooo zoo
4J
cr
rHCMtNO irtvOi-l i-ltMi-l
i-l i-l
t/> »*> »^ o <-*
• u * O • • Q ' • •
ozlz ooz loo
4J ^
cr -H
•-I n
(4 *•*
W H 01
r-103
"-^ O T3
i-l CO EO
co at
o *-*
o **^ at
0 TJ
•• 01 O
oi so e
tj eo
b 1- 1
3 01
o > a
« < Z
* +- -H-
59
-------
4. Mirex in Spring Creek, Pennsylvania, Fish
The Nease Chemical Company plant, State College, Pennsylvania,
is near Spring Creek. The plant has manufactured both mirex and kepone,
although reportedly neither is now manufactured. Stockpiles of mirex
apparently still exist because Nease continues to supply the material to
Hooker Chemical Company.
Spring Creek flows into Bald Eagle Creek, which flows into the
West Branch of the Susquehanna, into the Susquehanna River, and thence/
into upper Chesapeake Bay. Spring Creek is used for sports fishing;
apparently no commercial fishing occurs (Pesticide Chemical News, August
11, 1976). The creek has not been closed for sports fishing.
Mirex concentrations of 44 ppb have been found in the creek's
sediments near the Nease plant (Clista, 1977) as have kepone concentrations
of 35 ppb according to Clista (1977) and 5.33 ppm according to the
Pesticide Chemical News (August 11, 1976).
Clista reports that trout and suckers taken with the 18 mi
downstream from the plant show kepone concentrations of 0.025 to 0.23 ppm
and mirex concentrations of 0.02 to 1.0 ppm. Concentrations of 0.15 to
0.17 ppm kepone in trout and 0.18 ppm kepone in suckers have been reported
in the Pesticide Chemical News (August 11, 1976).
5. Mirex in Lake Ontario Fish
Lake Description—Lake Ontario has a surface area of 7500 sq mi,
a maximum depth of 802 ft, and an average depth of 276 ft. The volume
of Lake Ontario is 393 mi^. Its drainage basin land area is 29,500 sq
mi. The Niagara River, with a mean flow of 195,000 cfs, contributes 85%
of the inflow to the lake (DEC, 1976d).
Much of the shoreline is bounded by bluffs dissected by tributary
streams. The eroded shore material, largely silt and clay, probably
contributes much of the sediment to the lake (DEC, 1976d).
The lake empties into the Atlantic Ocean through the St. Lawrence
River. If the inflow of water could displace all the water in the lake,
60
-------
the replacement time on the basis on inflows and the volume of the lake
would be 8 years.
In the United States, 2.3 million people reside in the Lake
Ontario basin, with 3.8 million in Canada. Major industrial companies
are situated in Syracuse, Oswego, Rochester, Buffalo, Niagara Falls,
Hamilton, St. Catherines, Toronto, Oshawa, and Kingston.
Mirex in Lake Ontario Sediments—Analysis of sediment samples
collected in Lake Ontario in 1968 revealed the occurrence of mirex in
two zones of high concentration related to input from the Niagara and
Oswego Rivers. Sediment sampling was carried out on a polyconic grid
comprising 287 stations. The sediment distribution pattern (Figure VII-1)
found in this study follows the known flow of Lake Ontario eastward,
close to the southern (New York) shore. Heaviest concentrations occur
near the mouth of the Niagara River (below Buffalo), with a secondary
concentration in the Rochester embayment and a third adjacent to Oswego
(Forest, 1976).
Of the 287 stations sampled in 1968, samples were recovered
at 262 locations, from which 229 were subsequently analyzed for mirex
residues in 1976. Of the 229 samples analyzed, 75 (32.8% contained
detectable residues of mirex. Concentrations of mirex in the 75 samples
ranged from 0.7 to 40 ppb, with a mean content of 7.5 ppb and a standard
deviation of 8.3 ppb (see Figure VII-2). The 1976 resurvey of the zones
of high mirex concentrations recorded from 1968 indicates that the mirex
is still in place in the surface sediments of the lake (Van Hove Holdri-
nent et al., 1977).
A suspended solids sample taken in the Niagara River confirmed
an upstream source of mirex. Bottom sediment samples in the Oswego River
identified an industrial source 14 km upstream of the river mouth (Van
Hove Holdrinet et al., 1977).
61
-------
z
UJ
5
UJ
QC
<
O
UJ
OC
H
Ul
O
X
Ul
OC
UJ
OC
O
62
-------
111
LU
0.
I
in
tn
O
g
z
a:
O
-
1 i
05 a.
O O
co
LU
E E
u u
»- r)
6 6
< Q
M h-
O O
z z
I 1
to a
z z
(O
r>
05
I
UJ
O
UJ
O
cc
O
UJ
(O
O
LU
O
I
X
LU
CC
GC
D
a
I
e
I
63
-------
Mirex Concentrations in Fish Taken From Lake Ontario,
Its Tributaries, and the St. Lawrence River—The New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Canadian government
have executed or supervised the majority of mirex analyses of fish samples
*
collected from Lake Ontario. Some of the analyses for the Canadian
government have been performed by private firms under contract.
Detailed listings of mirex concentrations by fish species and
collection locations are given in Table VII-6 for U.S. sampling locations
and in Table VII-7 for Canadian sampling locations. Table VII-8 summarizes
mirex occurrence in Lake Ontario species.
From the large sample of fish data, it can be seen that a
significant number of fish exceed the present FDA standard of 0.1 ppm.
The highest average mirex concentration for the list of species is 0.2 ppm
for chinook salmon and lake trout. Average mirex concentrations of approx-
imately 0.1 ppm are shown for brown and rainbow trout and for coho salmon.
Smallmouth bass and white perch show average mirex concentrations of
approximately 0.08 ppm.
In a March 9, 1977, news release the Hooker Chemical and
Plastics Company announced that they were unable to identify mirex in
representative samples of fish taken last fall from Lake Ontario. The
fish samples included coho salmon, chinook salmon, brown trout, white
perch, brown bullheads, white bass, gizzard shad, lake trout, rainbow
trout, white suckers, and alewife.
Mirex concentrations for fish taken from various locations
on the St. Lawrence River are given in Table VII-9. The higher concen-
trations are found in fish collected near Massena below the power dam.
Species having samples exceeding the 0.1 ppm FDA specification include
smallmouth bass, muskellunge, walleye, and white and yellow perch. Over-
all average mirex concentrations for fish taken from Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence are given in Table VII-10.
*See for example OME (1976), Spagnoli (1976), IJC (1976), FDA (1976),
DEC (1976a), DEC (1976b), and DEC (1976c).
64
-------
Table VII-6
SUMMARY OF MIREX CONCENTRATIONS OF LAKE ONTARIO
FISH BY LOCATION (U.S. Data)
Mlrex (ppm)
Species
(Location)
American Eel
Lewis ton
Fort Niagara
Pultneyville
Salmon River Estuary
Chaumont Bay
Total
Largemouth Bass
Braddock and Sodus Bays
Oswego Harbor
Salmon River' Estuary
Total
Smallmouth Bass
Pultneyville
Nine Mile Point
Mexico Bay
Salmon River Estuary
Chaumont Bay
Alan Otty Shoal
Total
Rock Bass
Chaumont Bay
Total
White Bass
Nine Mile Point
Oswego Harbor
Total
Black Crappie
Salmon River Estuary
Black River Bay
Total
Number
of Fish
Analyzed
1
14
2
1
_9
27
9
5
_9
23
19
10
4
3
11
15.
62
6>
6
31
_6
37
2
_7
9
Number
of
Analyses
1
14
2
1
_9
27
9
5
_9
23
19
10
4
3
11
15
62
j.
1
16
__5_
21
2
_1
3
Average
0.050
0.020
0.250
ND*
0.020
0.036
0.010
<0.010
0.010
0.009
0.090
0.060
0.140
0.160
0.040
0.100
0.084
<0.010
<0.010
0.030
0.060
0.039
0.010
<0.010
Range
ND -0.05
0.17-0.33
ND
0.01-0.07
ND- -0.33
ND -0.03
ND -<0.01
<0. 01-0. 03
ND -0.03
< 0.01-0. 31
0.01-0.19
0.07-0.29
0.15-0.18
0.01-0.11
0.02-0.30
<0. 01-0. 31
_^_
—
<0. 01-0. 11
0.01-0.14
0.01-0.14
0.010
—
0.007 <0.01-0.01
ND - None Detected.
65
-------
Table VII-6 (Continued)
Species
(Location)
Number
of Fish
Analyzed
Number
of
Analyses
Mirex (ppm)
Brown Bullhead
Fort Niagara 6
Wilson Bay 7
Oswego Harbor 12
Salmon River Estuary 11
Chaumont Bay 34
Total 70
Northern Pike
Oswego Harbor 2
Salmon River Estuary 20
Chaumont Bay 18
Total 40
Pumpkinseed
Chaumont Bay 9_
Total 9
Yellow Perch
Oswego Harbor 10
Mexico Bay 17
Wilson Bay 16
Chaumont Bay 15
Alan Otty Shoal 12
Total 70
White Perch
Pultneyville 18
Oswego Harbor 14
Henderson Harbor 5
Chaumont Bay 13
Alan Otty Shoal 20
Total 70
Coho Salmon
(lake fish)
Mexico Bay 2
Salmon River Estuary 23^
Total 25
2
7
3
11
_9
31
40
I
1
9
4
1
4
_8
26
2
23
25
Average
0.030
0.010
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.008
Range
0.02-0.04
0.01-0.03
ND -0.01
ND -0.04
ND -0.01
ND -0.04
2
20
8
0.
0.
0.
080
040
010
0.06-0.10
0.01-0.09
ND
-0.07
0.032
ND
ND
ND -0.10
ND
ND
6
11
2
2
3
24
<0.010
0.020
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.007
ND -<0.01
< 0.01-0. 030
ND -<0.01
<0.01
<0. 01-0. 01
ND -0.03
0.090
0.020
0.040
0.030
0.080
0.072
0.060
0.140
0.140
<0.01-0.31
ND -0.04
0.01-0.05
0.02-0.19
ND -0.31
ND -0.12
0.05-0.50
ND -0.50
66
-------
Table VII-6 (Concluded)
Species
(Location)
Coho Salmon
(Spring Brook Weir)
Spring Brook Weir
Total
Chinook Salmon
Mexico Bay
Salmon River Estuary
Total
Brown Trout
Wilson
Pultneyville
Oswego Harbor
Mexico Bay
Salmon River Estuary
Total
Lake Trout
Oak Orchard
Mexico Bay
Stony Island
Total
Wai ley
Oswego Harbor
Total
Rainbow Smelt
Niagara Bar
Total
Number
of Fish
Analyzed
6
6
1
15
16
8
8
7
8
9
40
23
3
25
51
4
4
75
75
Number
of
Analyses
6
6
1
15
16
8
8
7
8
9
40
23
3
25
51
4
4
-
5
5
Mirex (ppm)
Average
0.020
0.020
0.130
0.220
0.214
0.080
0.120
0.100
0.110
0.070
0.096
0.160
0.250
0.260
0.210
0.010
0.010
0.030
0.030
Range
0.01-0.02
0.01-0.02
0.08-0.36
0.08-0.36
0.01-0.13
< 0.03-0. 22
0.07-0.16
0.05-0.13
0.02-0.10
0.01-0.22
0.02-0.42
0.04-0.42
0.02-0.97
0.02-0.97
ND -0.02
ND -0.02
0.02-0.04
0.02-0.04
67
-------
Table VII-7
SUMMARY OF MIREX CONCENTRATIONS OF LAKE ONTARIO
FISH BY LOCATION (Canadian Data)
Species
(Location)
Alewife
Eastern Basin
Total
Smallmouth Bass
Eastern Basin
Total
Rock Bass
Eastern Basin
Total
White Bass
Frenchman's Bay
Etobicoke Creek
Total
Black Crappie
Frenchman's Bay
Total
Brown Bullhead
Jordan Harbor
Frenchman's Bay
Duff ins Creek
Total
Northern Pike
Frenchman's Bay
Etobicoke Creek
St. Georges
Number
of Fish
Analyzed
5
5
9
9
10
10
7
5
12
3
3
11
4
10
25
5
1
2
Number
of
Analyses
5
5
9
9
10
10
7
5
12
3
3
11
4
10
25
5
1
2
Mirex
Average
0.11
0.11
0.38
0.38
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.09
Q.Q8
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.14
0.11
0.09
0.02
0.10
ND
(ppm)
Range
0.09-0.13
0.09-0.13
0.16-0.64
0.16-0.64
ND* -0.24
ND -0.24
0.04-0.13
0.03-0.12
0.03-0.13
0.008-0.02
0.008-0.02
ND -0.27
0.08-0.19
0.04-0.38
ND -0.38
0.008-0.04
Total
Yellow Perch
Eastern Basin
Frenchman's Bay
Duffins Creek
Etobicoke Creek
St. George's
Total
10
7
9
10
_1
37
10
7
9
10
_1
37
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.25
0.05
ND
0.10
0.008-0.10
ND -0.17
0.02-0.09
0.08-1.30
0.02-0.11
ND
ND -1.300
ND - None Detected.
68
-------
Table VII-7 (Concluded)
Species
(Location)
White Perch
Frenchman's Bay
Duffins Creek
Total
Gizzard Shad
Jordan Harbor
Frenchman's Bay
Total
White Sucker
Frenchman's Bay
Duffins Creek
Etobicoke Creek
Total
Bluegill
St. Georges
Total
Carp
Frenchman's Bay
Total
Smelt
Eastern Basin
Total
Number Number
of Fish of
Analyzed Analyses
Mirex (ppm)
10
_3
13
10
_3
13
Average
0.44
0.25
0.38
0.15
ND
0.12
Range
0.38-0.44
0.25-0.44
ND -0.21
ND
ND -0.21
2
8
13
23
10
10
4
4
5
5
2
8
13
23
10
10
4
4
5
0.07
0.04
0.03
0.04
ND
ND
0.02
0.02
0.20
0.20
0.05-0.08
0.03-0.07
0.002-0.07
0.002-0.08
ND
ND
0.01-0.05
0.01-0.05
0.13-0.31
0.13-0.31
69
-------
Table VII-8
OVERALL SUMMARY OF MIREX IN LAKE ONTARIO FISH
(U.S. data given in Table VII-6)
Species
American eel
Bass
Largemouth
Smallmouth
Rock
White
Black crappie
Brown bullhead
Northern pike
Perch
Yellow
White
Pumpkins eed
Rainbow smelt
Salmon
Coho-lake
Coho-spring brook weir
Chinook
Trout
Brown
Lake
Rainbow
Walleye
Number
of Fish
Analyzed
27
23
62
6
37
9
70
40
70
70
9
75
25
6
16
40
51
17
4
Number
of
Analyses
27
23
62
1
21
3
31
40
24
26
1
5
25
6
16
40
51
17
4
Mirex
Average
0.036
0.009
0.084
0.010
0.039
0.007
0.008
0.032
0.007
0.072
ND
0.030
0.140
0.020
0.214
0.096
0.210
0.103
0.010
(ppm)
Range
ND* -0.33
ND -0.03
0.01-0.31
—
0.01-0.14
0.01-0.01
ND -0.04
ND -0.10
ND -0.03
ND -0.31
ND
0.02-0.04
ND -0.50
0.01-0.02
0.08-0.36
0.01-0.22
0.02-0.97
ND -0.28
ND -0.02
'ND - None Detected.
70
-------
Table VII-9
SUMMARY OF MIREX CONCENTRATIONS OF ST. LAWRENCE
FISH BY LOCATION
Species
(Location)
American Eel.
Massena — below
dam
Total
Brown Bullheads
Alexandria Bay
Total
Smallmouth Bass
Cape Vincent
Alexandria Bay
Ogdensburg
Massena --below
dam
Total
Lake Sturgeon
Massena — below
dam
Total
Muskellunge
Cape Vincent
Carleton Is.
Ogdensburg
Number
of Fish
Analyzed
14
14
15
15
12
6
11
17
46
1
1
1
2
1
Number
of
Analyses
14
14
7
7
12
6
11
17
46
_!
1
1
2
1
Mirex (ppm)
Average
0.030
0.030
0.005
0.005
0.080
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.062
ND*
ND
0.080
0.080
0.040
Range
ND -0.09
ND -0.09
<0. 01-0. 01
<0. 01-0. 01
0.01-0.36
0.01-0.09
<0. 01-0. 23
<0. 01-0. 27
<0. 01-0. 36
ND
ND
—
0.04-0.11
—
Total
Northern Pike
ND - None Detected.
0.070
0.04-0.11
Ogdensburg
Massena — below dam
Total
Walleye
Massena — below dam
Total
3
1
4
7
7
3
1
4
7
7
0.050
0.090
0.060
0.020
0.020
0.04-0.07
0.04-0.09
0.01-0.10
0.01-0.10
71
-------
Table VII-9 (Concluded)
Species
(Location)
Number
of Fish
Analysed
Number
of
Analyses
Mirex (ppm)
Average Range
White Bass
Massena—below dam
Total
White Perch
Massena—below dam
Total
Yellow Perch
Ogdensburg
Massena—below dam
Total
_4
4
14
9
10
19
4
4
14
14
4
12
0.020
0.020
<0.01
0.05
0.03
ND -0.07
ND -0.07
ND -0.19
ND -0.19
ND -0.03
0.01-0.11
ND -0.11
72
-------
Table VII-10
SUMMARY OF MIREX CONCENTRATIONS IN FISH TAKEN FROM LAKE ONTARIO,
ITS TRIBUTARIES, AND THE ST. -LAWRENCE RIVER*
Assumed Average
Species Mirex Concentration (ppm)
Lake Ontario and Its
Tributaries
Alewife O.li
American eel 0.05
Brown trout 0.11
Brown bullheads 0.03
Black crappy <0.01
Bluegill NDt
Chinook salmon 0.21
Coho salmon 0.20
Catfish 0.27
Chain pickerel ND
Carp 0.02
Gizzard shad 0.11
Herring ND
Lake trout 0.21
Largemouth bass 0.01
Northern pike 0.03
Pumpkinseed ND
Rainbow trout 0.06
Rainbow smelt 0.13
Rock bass 0.03
Shiners ND
Smallmouth bass 0.11
Smelt 0.02
Suckers 0.02
Walleyed pike 0.06
White bass 0.05
White perch 0.09
Yellow perch 0.05
St. Lawrence River
Muskellunge 0.07
Northern pike 0.06
Smallmouth bass 0.06
Walleyed pike 0.02
White perch 0.10
Yellow perch 0.03
American eeel 0.03
White bass 0.02
Brown bullheads 0.01
*
Average of U.S. and Canadian sources as of February 18, 1977.
ND - None Detected.
73
-------
Regulations for the Consumption of Lake Ontario Fish—On
September 14, 1976, the New York State Health Department and Department
of Environmental Conservation prohibited the possession (and consequently,
the opportunity to eat) of several species of fish from the Lake Ontario
watershed; coho and chinook salmon, brown bullheads, catfish, lake
trout, smallmouth bass, and the alewife-herring group. In addition,
pregnant women were warned not to eat smelt, white perch, and white bass,
and all others were cautioned to eat these fish no more than once a week
(DEC, 1976d).
On October 2, 1976, the order prohibiting possession was modi-
fied so that anglers fishing for coho and chinook salmon and smallmouth
bass in Lake Ontario and its tributaries are permitted to keep up to
three trophy-size fish, provided these fish are identified in accordance
with regulations (DEC, 1976d).
On March, 1977, the ban was lifted; all bullheads, chinook,
lake trout, and brown trout under 18 in. can be kept, and steelhead and
rainbows under 25 in. can be kept. Smallmouth bass, American eel,
catfish other than bullheads, and alewife-herrings are still banned.
Eating bullheads is recommended no more than once a week, and none should
be eaten by pregnant women, nursing mothers, or children. Trophy fish
can be kept for coho, chinook salmon, and for smallmouth bass (F. David,
Syracuse Herald-American, March 20, 1977).
Canada's Ontario Resources Ministry has banned commercial
fishing for coho and chinook salmon in Lake Ontario and other bodies
of water because of concentrations of mirex found in them. No ban has
been imposed on sports fishing catches; however, Ontario recommends that
all varieties of fish taken from these waters be eaten no more than once
a week. The commercial ban extends farther than the shores of Lake
Ontario; taking coho and chinook salmon is banned for Lake Ontario, as are
eels from the St. Lawrence River. The ban is expected to be extended
to include catfish in the St. Lawrence and eels in Lake Ontario (Sports
Fishing Institute, 1976).
74
-------
Mirex Concentrations for Fish Taken from Lake Erie—No known
discharges of mirex have occurred in Lake Erie; however, the Ontario
Ministry of Agriculture and Food obtained and ananlyzed samples of fish
t.aken from the alke to determine if contamination might exist (IJC, 1976)
Species samples were minnow, rainbow smelt, coho salmon, and chinook
salmon. Of the more than 300 samples analyzed (Table VII-11) , none was
found to contain detectable levels of mirex.
Table VII-11
SUMMARY OF MIREX CONCENTRATIONS OF LAKE ERIE FISH
Species
Minnow, assorted
Rainbow smelt
Coho salmon
Chinook salmon
Number
of Fish
Analyzed
150
150
2
4
Number
of
Analyses
30
20
2
4
Average
ND*
ND
ND
ND
Range
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND - None Detected.
Source: IJC (1976).
B. Kepone in Foods
1. General
The established tolerances for kepone in foods generally pertain
to aquatic organisms and are as follows: 0.3 ppm for shellfish, 0.1 ppm
for finfish, and 0.4 ppm for crabs. In addition, because kepone is used
to control the banana root borer (the only current food or feed use of
kepone), a limit of 0.01 ppm has been established for banana peels. This
limit is presumed to result in kepone concentrations of less than 0.005
ppm in banana meat. On April 10, 1977, the action level for kepone in
finfish was increased to 0.3 ppm.
The major geographic areas expected to produce kepone contami-
nated foods are aquatic systems that have received kepone emissions from
75
-------
product manufacturers. These would include Spring Creek, Pennsylvania;
the James River and Cheaspeake Bay; and the eastern coast of the Atlantic
Ocean. Lesser concentrations might be expected in food taken from the
southeastern United States.
Uptake and accumulation of kepone in food products is expected
to follow mechanisms similar to mirex. The accumulation, transfer, and
loss of kepone in estuarine food chains was studied in laboratory bio-
assays by Bahner et al. (1976). Kepone was bioconcentrated by oysters,
mysids, grass shrimp, sheepshead minnows, and spot, from concentrations
as low as 0.023 ug/L seawater. Depuration of kepone from oysters was
rapid; however, clearance of kepone from Crustacea and fish was relatively
slow, with tissue concentrations requiring 24 to 28 days to decrease
30 to 50%.
Kepooe was fed to dairy cows in concentrations of 0.25 to 5.0
ppm for 60 days. The highest residue level in milk recorded from an
individual cow was 0.44 ppm. No measurable amounts of kepone were present
in milk 83 days after discontinuing treatment (Smith and Arent, 1976).
The FDA marketbasket survey, which records contaminants in foods,
does not examine for kepone residues.
2. Kepone in Food from Southeastern United States
Kepone could be present in the southeastern United States in
areas that were treated with mirex for fire ant control because mirex
can degrade into kepone (Carlson et al., 1976), because kepone has been
found to be a co-contaminant of mirex (Pesticide Chemical News, August 4,
1976), and because some kepone was used for pest control on southeastern
U.S. agriculture. To test for its presence in fishery products, the
FDA (FDA, 1977) conducted 11 surveys and gathered 132 samples. These
included samples of finfish, shellfish, and Crustacea taken from eight
southeastern states. Although mirex was found in numerous finfish samples
in this survey, no kepone was detected. In fact, only one crab sample
from Georgia contained kepone (trace level), and no mirex was detected.
76
-------
Bender (1977) reports that data collected by the Virginia
Department of Agriculture have shown that no source of kepone exists in
nonaquatic food products. These data are shown in Table VII-13. The
only samples showing kepone concentrations were ice taken from Hopewell
at a location near the Life Sciences plant (as high as 50 ppb) , crabmeal
(as high as 0.27 ppm), and fishmeal (as high as 0.06 ppm).
3. Kepone in Atlantic Ocean Fish
Since the summer of 1976, the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture has studied kepone levels in fish and shellfish along the
North Carolina coast. According to the FDA (1977), crabs, oysters, and
shrimp showed negligible levels of kepone. All samples of spot, flounder,
mullet, trout, and croakers were below the 0.1 ppm action level. Blue-
fish were generally higher than other finfish, but only one sample (0.2
ppm) exceeded the action level. The North Carolina Department of Agri-
culture noted an increase in kepone in the October-November samples for
certain species and attributed the increase to fall migration.
FDA Field Districts were to collect one bluefish sample per
week (for 10 weeks) landed at coastal ports in the Mid and South Atlantic
states to be tested for kepone concentrations (FDA, 1977). This program
resulted in the collection and analysis of 66 bluefish samples collected
along the Atlantic coast from Boston, Massachusetts, to Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida. The results are tabulated in Table VII-12 by collection point.
Average kepone concentrations by collection locations ranged from none
detectable to 0.04 ppm. The average of all samples was 0.014 ppm and
the range was none detected to 0.06 ppm. The highest concentrations
were found in the Virginia samples (average of 0.04 ppm) as expected
because the Chesapeake Bay is presumed to be the major source of residual
kepone on the Atlantic Coast.
4. Kepone in Bananas
The only large-scale U.S. use of kepone on food and feed has
been for control of the banana root borer in Puerto Rico. The kepone-
77
-------
Table VII-12
SUMMARY OF FY77 KEPONE AND MIREX COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION PROGRAM FOR ATLANTIC
COAST BLUEFISH
Collection Point
Boston, MA
Galilee, RI
Point Judith, RI
Sheep shead Bay, NY
Brooklyn, NY
Freeport, NY
Sandy Hook Bay, NY
Cape May, NJ
Absecon, NJ
Atlantic City, NJ
Lewes, DE
Hampton, VA
Morehead City, NC
Nags, NC
Miami, FL
Deer field Beach, FL
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Total
Sample
Size
8
1
1
2
1
9
2
3
1
6
2
9
10
1
8
1
1
66
Kepone (ppm)
Average
0.01
trace
trace
0.02
trace
trace
0.02
trace
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.04
trace
trace
ND
ND
ND
0.014
Minimum
ND*
—
—
0.02
—
—
0.02
—
—
trace
0.02
0.01
ND
—
—
—
—
ND
Maximum
0.02
—
—
0.02
—
—
0.03
—
—
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.02
—
—
—
—
0.06
ND - None Detected.
Source: FDA (1977).
78
-------
Table VII-13
KEPONE CONCENTRATIONS OF VIRGINIA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Collection
Date
12/17/75
1/30/76
3/8/76
3/8/76
3/8/76
3/8/76
3/8/76
3/8/76
12/10/75
12/10/75
12/10/75
12/10/75
1/2/76
1/2/76
1/2/76
12/15/75
12/16/75
12/15/75
12/15/75
12/15/75
12/16/75
12/16/75
12/16/75
12/17/75
12/17/75
12/17/75
12/17/75
12/17/75
12/19/75
12/19/75
12/19/75
12/18/75
12/18/75
12/18/75
12/18/75
12/18/75
12/18/75
Product
Ensilage/corn
Crude peanut
oil
Bee honey
Bee honey
Bee honey
Bee honey
Home canned-
cucumber
pickles
Home canned-
green beans
Ice, 10- Ib bag
Ice, floor
Ice, block
Tap water
Pole beans
(fresh)
Kale (fresh)
Beef chuck
roast
Oats
Peanuts
Soybeans
Corn
Corn
Corn
Soybeans
Soybeans
Corn
Wheat
Raw peanuts
Soybeans
Corn
Soybeans
Corn
Soybeans
Soybeans
Corn
Corn
Soybeans
Soybeans
Corn
Collection
Location
Hopewell
Suffolk
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Prince George
Prince George
Prince George
Prince George
Prince George
Prince George
Prince George
Charles City
Hopewell
Prince George
Prince George
Prince George
Prince George
Charles City
Charles City
Chester
Charles City
Charles City
Charles City
Charles City
Charles City
Charles City
Sample
Origin
Farm silo
Oil mill
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Ice processor
Ice processor
Ice processor
Ice processor
Producer
Retail store
Retail store
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer
Test
Results
ND*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
11.1 ppb
1.2 ppb
50.0 ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND - None Detected.
79
-------
Table VII-13 (Continued)
Collection
Date
12/15/75
12/15/75
8/10/76
8/11/76
8/17/77
8/17/76
8/20/76
8/20/76
8/23/76
8/24/76
8/24/76
8/24/75
8/24/76
8/24/76
8/24/76
8/24/76
8/24/76
8/24/76
9/7/76
10/27/76
10/27/76
10/27/77
10/27/77
10/23/76
5/18/76
5/11/76
5/19/76
11/18/76
11/18/76
11/2/76
9/14/76
9/22/76
Product
Soybeans
Wheat
Ice
Ice
Chicken
Ham
Chicken
Pork sausage
Chicken
Peppers
(fresh)
Stringbeans
(fresh)
Squash
(fresh)
Tomatoes
(fresh)
Lettuce
(fresh)
Potatoes
(fresh)
Grapes (fresh)
Collards
(fresh)
Lettuce
(fresh)
Ice
Ice (block)
Ice (bags)
Ice (block)
Ice (bags)
Tuna salad
sandwich
Crab meal
Crab meal
Crab meal
Crab meal
Crab meal
Crab meal
Crab meal
Crab meal
Collection
Location
Prince George
Prince George
Hop ewe 11
Hopewell
Sandston
Sandston
Richmond
Richmond
Richmond
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Hopewell
Richmond
Ri chmond
Richmond
Hopewell
Hopewell
Richmond
Morattico
Hayes
Lottsburg
Hayes
Morattico
Lottsburg
Morattico
Hampton
Sample
Origin
Producer
' Producer
Ice processor
Ice processor
Richmond, VA -
processor
Surry, VA -
processor
Wilkesboro, NC -
processor
Court land, VA -
processor
Fort Wayne, IN
processor
Retail store
Retail store
Retail store
Retail store
Retail store
Retail produce
Retail produce
Retail store
Retail store
Ice plant
Ice plant
Ice plant
Ice processor
Ice processor
Norfolk, VA -
processor
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Test
Results
ND
ND
0.1 ppb
0.03 ppb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.20 ppb
ND
ND
0.03 ppm
0.15 ppm
0.27 ppm
0.02 ppm
0.04 ppm
ND
ND
0.03 ppm
80
-------
Table VII-13 (Concluded)
Collection
Date
9/22/76
9/22/76
10/5/76
5/19/76
11/12/76
11/12/76
10/13/76
10/27/76
12/13/76
12/13/76
12/13/76
11/12/76
11/16/76
11/16/76
11/16/76
10/27/76
9/13/76
9/14/76
9/14/76
9/14/76
9/14/76
9/14/76
10/8/76
10/8/76
10/13/76
10/13/76
10/14/76
10/8/76
9/14/76
10/27/76
11/16/76
Product
Crab meal
Crab meal
Crab meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish meal
Fish solubles
Fish solubles
Fish solubles
Fish solubles
Collection
Location
Hampton
Hayes
Lottsburg
Reedville
Cape Charles
Cape Charles
Cape Charles
Fairport
Cape Charles
Cape Charles
Cape Charles
Cape Charles
Horsey
Reedville
Fairport
Reedville
Broadway
Fairport
Reedville
Cape Charles
Cape Charles
Cape Charles
Fairport
Reedville
Cape Charles
Cape Charles
Horsey
Fairport
Fairport
Fairport
Fairport
Sample
Origin
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Portmonmouth, NJ
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Reedville, VA
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Portmonmouth, NJ
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Processing plant
Test.
Results
0.08 ppm
ND
ND
ND
0.02 ppm
0.02 ppm
0.02 ppm
0.06 ppm
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NOTE: Ice samples from Hopewell, Virginia, were collected from an
ice processor within approximately 50 yards of Life Sciences
Products Company. The processor crushes and bags ice, which
is manufactured by a Richmond, Virginia, ice plant. The ice
processor was closed and moved to another location for approxi-
mately 8 months.
Source: Virginia Department of Agriculture and Commerce.
81
-------
treated bananas could represent a source of possible human exposure.
Tolerance limits of 0.01 ppm have been established for banana peels, with
0.005 ppm for banana meat. Concentrations of kepone lower than the
tolerances are presumed to be present in the meat but at less than the
0.005 ppm level of detectability (U.S. EPA 1975a). Other food products
could be contaminated from runoff of the kepone applied to the base of
the banana stem. EPA reportedly has no data on the extent of this runoff
nor on residue levels in streams or in aquatic organisms. The extent
of wildlife feeding at the base of banana plants is unknown (U.S. EPA,
1976a).
5. Chesapeake Bay and the James River
Description—Chesapeake Bay is a coastal-plain estuarine system
formed from the submerged valleys of the Susquehanna River and its tribu-
taries, including the Potomac, the James, the York, and the Rappahannock.
In addition, dozens of smaller tributaries drain into arms inlets, and bays
on all sides, giving the Bay the appearance of a complicated branching
system. The southernmost arm of the system, the James River, was probably
a separate river flowing into the ocean through its own estuary before
the area was flooded by the present sea level (Gross, 1972).
The total volume of fresh water discharged each year by rivers
flowing into Chesapeake Bay approximately equals the total volume of the
estuary. The Susquehanna River supplies 49% of the annual fresh-water
discharge, the Potomac River contributes 18%, and the James River about
15%.
The James River estuary area is considered to be 650 km2 of a
total Bay area of 10,000 km2. The James River has an annual freshwater
discharge of 10 km3/yr and drains about 26,000 km2. The distance from
Hopewell, Virginia, where major kepone discharges have occurred, to the
Chesapeake Bay is approximately 100 km.
Kepone in James River Sediments—The EPA estimates that 100,000
Ib of kepone is in the James River. Baileys Bay on the James River is
estimated to be the repository for approximately 15-25% of the kepone in
82
-------
the river's sediments. It is further estimated that 10% of the sediments
in the James River could be expected to move into the Chesapeake Bay
(Pesticide Chemical News, November 3, 1976).
Kepone levels in sediments taken from Baileys Bay on the James
River ranged between 1.0 and 9.99 ppm in about three-fourths of the samples.
In Baileys Creek, kepone levels in sediments were as high as 30 ppm
(Pesticide Chemical News, November 3, 1976).
Kepone Concentrations for Fish Taken From the Chesapeake Bay
and the James River—The concentrations of kepone in fish
reported here are primarily based on data collected during 1976. The
Fisheries Monitoring Program (Bender, 1977) was designed to collect
kepone residue information on major marine and freshwater organisms as
a function of location and season of the year. Since January 1, 1976,
approximately 5,000 samples of finfish, oysters, and crabs taken from
the James River and the Chesapeake Bay have been analyzed for kepone by
Virginia and Maryland state laboratories. This number does not include
hundreds of analyses of water and sediments from various locations, nor
does this number include the many analyses made by federal laboratories.
Results of the oyster part of the monitoring program in the
James (Table VII-14) have shown that the kepone in oysters generally
remains below the present action level of 0.3 ppm. Residue levels were
found to increase in early summer while the oysters are fattening in
preparation for spawning, decline after spawning, and then increase again.
On the basis of these data, the James was reopened for the taking of adult
oysters on May 21, 1976, and has remained open. The major value of the
oyster beds in the James is their production of seed oysters (i.e., small
oysters) for transplanting in other areas in the Bay. Experiments have
shown that oysters depurate their kepone residues rapidly; therefore,
the James was also reopened for the taking of seed oysters (Bender, 1977).
The average concentration of kepone in James River oysters was 0.14 to
0.22 ppm.
83
-------
Table VII-14
KEPONE IN JAMES RIVER OYSTER ROCKS
Sample Location
Mouth of Nansemond River
Nansemond Ridge
Naseway Shoals
Ballards Marsh
Mouth of Pagan River
White Shoal
Miles Watch House
Point of Shoals
Wreck Shoals
Jail Point
Swash Hole
Deep Water Shoals
Horse Head
Blunt Point
Total
Sample
Size *
12
14
14
9
12
8
14
14
9
13
13
13
9
4
158
Kepone (ppm)
Average
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.19
0.16
0.19
0.14
0.22
0.19
0.20
0.19
0.21
0.18
0.18
0.17
Minimum
0.05
NDt
ND
0.05
0.04
0.11
ND
0.03
0.13
0.04
0.08
ND
0.05
0.09
ND
Maximum
0.21
0.33
0.26
0.41
0.28
0.36
0.27
0.40
0.31
0.45
0.32
0.44
0.31
0.41
0.45
Number of calendar months with representative data.
ND - None Detected.
Source: Bender (1977)
84
-------
Blue crabs from the James River have also been monitored for
kepone. Male crabs spend more time upriver in fresher water than do females.
Forty-three samples of males have been collected from the James, with an
average kepone residue of 0.81 ppm; therefore, the entire James River
is closed to commercial harvesting of male crabs. Around the mouth of
the river (i.e., from Newport News Point to Seawells Point), female crabs
average 0.19 ppm, below the present action level; hence, this area is
open to crabbing. Upriver from this line females average 0.28 ppm, but
the area remains closed because of the high ratio of males to females in
this area. Blue crab samples collected from the Bay average 0.07 ppm,
well below the action level (Bender, 1977).
The residue levels determined for James River fish as part of
the Fisheries Monitoring Program are shown in Table VII-15. Freshwater
fish in the James,, with the exception of the channel catfish and anadro-
mous marine fishes such as the shad and herring, generally exceed the present
action level of 0.1 ppm by factors as high as 20. The largemouth bass
and black crappie show average concentrations in excess of 1 ppm. In the
lower James, where marine fishes are the primary concern, there are three
types of populations: (1) fishes like shad, which traverse the river to
spawn in the upper freshwater portions and leave after spawning; (2)
fishes like croakers, which move into the estuary and use it as a feeding
ground during the summer and then return to the ocean; and (3) resident
estuarine fish, like white perch, which spend their entire lives in the
estuary (Bender, 1977).
During the early spring, samples showed that shad moving into
the lower James had kepone residues below the present action level, but
the longer they remained, the more kepone they accumulated. After several
weeks, approximately 30% of the shad samples at the upstream stations
exceeded the present action level (Bender, 1977).
Summer resident marine fishes (bluefish, spot, croaker, striped
mullet, and grey trout) showed average kepone concentrations of 0.4 to
1.2 ppm. The concentrations for striped bass and speckled trout were
much lower (0.04 and 0.07 ppm).
85
-------
Table VII-15
KEPONE IN JAMES RIVER FISH
Specie
Channel catfish
White catfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
Shad
Bluefish
Spot
Croaker
Striped mullet
Striped bass
Grey trout
Speckled trout
American eel
Oyster toad
Hogchoker
White perch
Sampling
Location
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
Zone Q
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Weyonoke
All Zones
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
Sample Average
Size Kepone (ppm)
205
32
36
23
26
34
35
23
10
128
23
16
33
4
8
4
8
16
3
18
31
0.04
0.16
1.12
1.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.12
0.04
0.65
0.75
0.62
0.37
0.04
1.21
0.07
2.37
2.53
0.93
2.06
Source: Bender (1977).
86
-------
Kepone residues in estuarine resident fish like the American
eel, oyster toad, hogchoker, and white perch showed average kepone
concentrations of 0.9 to 2.5 ppm.
Most of the Fisheries Monitoring Program in Chesapeake Bay has
been devoted to testing kepone in finfish. However, oysters were
collected from 12 bay locations, with no kepone detected in any of the
samples. Similarly, hard clams from the bay have shown only trace
amounts of kepone (Bender, 1977).
Table VII-16 gives average kepone levels found in finfish
taken from the Chesapeake Bay as part of the monitoring program. The
average concentrations varied from 0.03 to 0.08 ppm.
The FDA conducted an FY77 Compliance Evaluation Program to
determine if commercially marketed finfish, crustacea, and shellfish
from Virginia and Maryland comply with guideline kepone concentrations
(FDA, 1977); 102 samples were collected, composed of 12 species, from
eastern U.S. commercial marketplaces. The data collected, 94 (92%)
contained detectable levels of kepone, the median of all samples was
0.03 ppm.
Table VII-16
KEPONE IN CHESAPEAKE BAY FISH
Sample Average
Specie Size Kepone (ppm)
Bluefish 412 0.03
Croakers 249 0.06
Grey trout 106 0.05
Flounder 45 0.08
Spot 86 0.03
Total 898 0.04
Source: Bender (1977).
87
-------
Table VII-17
SUMMARY OF FY77 KEPONE AND MIREX COMPLIANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM
FOR MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA FJSHERY PRODUCTS
Species/
Place of Collection Sample
Croaker
Cape Charles, VA 1
Baltimore, MD 7
Hampton Roads, VA 2
New York, NY 4
Washington, DC 2
Whitestone, VA 1
Philadelphia, PA _4
Total 21
Bluefish
Baltimore, MD 6
Cape May, NJ 1
Exmore, VA 1
Hampton Roads, VA 2
New York, NY 3
Philadelphia, PA 5
Montross, VA 1
Washington, DC 2
Total 21
Kepone (ppm)
Average Minimum ^Maximum
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.13
0.04
0.05
0.01
trace
0.02
0.02
0.02
trace
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.09
0.02
0.06
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.08
0.04
0.06
0.09
Butterfish
Baltimore, MD
Rockfish
Washington, DC
Clam
Baltimore, MD
Severn, VA
Total
1
_4
5
0.05
ND*
trace
trace
trace
0.03
0.07
trace
trace
Trout
Baltimore, MD
Halethorpe, MD
Philadelphia, PA
Severn, VA
Tangier, VA
Washington, DC
Total
5
1
1
3
1
_2
14
0.05
0..02
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.02 0.07
0.04
trace
trace
0.10
0.02
0.10
ND - None Detected .
Source: FDA (1977) .
88
-------
Table VII-17 (Concluded)
.Species/
Place of Collection
Spot
Baltimore, MD
Halethorpe, MD
Tangier, VA
Washington, DC
Whitestone, VA
Total
Catfish
Lanexa, VA
Smithfield, VA
Toano, VA
Washington, DC
Total
Flounder
Baltimore, MD
Washington, DC
Total
Mackerel
Baltimore,' MD
Hampton, VA
Total
Crab
Baltimore, MD
Crisfield, MD
Hampton, VA
Hayes, VA
Newport News, VA
Total
Oyster
Baltimore, MD
Washington, DC
Total
Kepone (ppm)
Sample
4
1
1
2
1
1
5
2
_2_
4
1
_1
2
3
2
2
1
_4_
11
2
_2
4
Average
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.09
0.02
0.04
0.05
trace
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.10
trace
0.25
0.03
0.03
0.08
ND
ND
ND
Minimum
0.02
—
—
trace
—
trace
_.
—
0.02
—
trace
trace
0.01
trace
„
—
0.07
0.01
. —
0.20
—
0,01
trace
Maximum
0.14
—
—
0.02
—
0.14
__
—
0.08
—
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.01
__
—
0.28
—
0.29
.._
0.04
0.29
89
-------
All samples of the nine finfish species contained detectable
levels of kepone, except for the single rockfish sample. The mean level
of kepone in finfish was 0.038 ppm, with two samples of fish exceeding
the 0.1 ppm action level. No clam or oyster samples contained residues
greater than 0.02 ppm. Most contained undetectable levels. All crab
samples contained detectable levels of kepone, but none of the samples
exceeded the 4-ppm action level for crabs. The mean level of kepone
in crabs was 0.08 ppm.
Table VII-18 compares the results of the FDA market place
samples collected before the issuance of the Compliance Program with those
collected under the program. For most of the species covered in both
periods, the mean kepone levels were quite similar.
Data on concentrations of kepone in various species of finfish,
shellfish, and crabs from the James River, Chesapeake Bay, and the market-
place were analyzed by Bender et al. (1977). The data were separated
into categories: finfish, shellfish, and crabs. Within these categories
the data were separated into species. Finfish species with fewer than
10 observations were grouped into a species labeled "other." The weighted
average kepone concentrations, based on sample mass, that was calculated
for each of the 42 cells is given in Table VII-19. These calculations
are part of the "what if" program developed by VPI (Krutchkoff, 1977).
The EPA (1977) summarized the kepone concentration of a set of
seafood samples taken from the Chesapeake Bay and the James River. For
the Chesapeake Bay there were 193 finfish samples, representing 16 species.
Excluding shad, the average concentration was 0.056 ppm with a range of
0 to 0.86 ppm; the average for the shad was 0.117 ppm. The 110 shellfish
samples had an average concentration of 0.046 ppm, with a range of 0 to
0.76 ppm. The 48 crab samples had an average concentration of 0.261 ppm,,
with a range of 0 to 3.44 ppm.
For the James River, the 51 samples represented 10 species and
showed an average concentration of 0.931 ppm, with a range of 0 to 8.1 ppm
(no higher than for other finfish). The 55 shellfish samples had an aver-
age concentration of 0.209 and a range of 0 to 0.51 ppm. Only 5 crab
90
-------
Table VII-18
COMPARISON OF KEPONE IN FISHERY PRODUCTS FROM MARYLAND
AND VIRGINIA TAKEN BEFORE AND DURING THE FDA
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM (CEP)
Sampling
before CEP
Specie
Bluefish
Croaker
Crabs
Spot
Trout
Catfish
Rockf ish
Shad
Eel
Herring
Perch
Mackerel
Flounder
Butterfish
Oysters
Clams
No. of
Samples
22
20
12
6
5
6
1
31
1
1
1
__t
—
—
—
Mean
(ppm)
0.040
0.032
0.102
0.035
0.046
0.007
0.080
0.031
0.030
ND*
0.070
CEP Sampling
No. of
Samples
21
21
12
9
13
8
1
—
—
—
—
2
4
2
4
5
Mean
(ppm)
0.047
0.033
0.082
0.035
0.044
0.037
ND
0.075
0.010
0.050
ND
0.008
Total
No. of
Samples
43
41
24
15
18
14
2
31
1
1
1
2
4
2
4
5
Mean
(ppm)
0.043
0.033
0.092
0.035
0.045
0.024
0.040
0.031
0.030
ND
0.070
0.075
0.010
0.050
ND
0.008
ND - None Detected.
—No samples taken.
Source: FDA (1977).
91
-------
Table VII-19
ESTIMATED AVERAGE KEPONE CONCENTRATIONS IN
JAMES RIVER AND CHESAPEAKE BAY FISH (PPM)
Species James River Chesapeake Bay
Market
Black crappie
Bluefish
Butterfish
Catfish
Croaker
Eel
Flounder
Herring
Largemouth bass
Mullet
Perch
Striped bass
Shad
Spot
Trout
Weakfish
Other
Clams and Conchs
Oysters
Crabs
1.0116
0.2859
—
0.0514
—
0.6415
—
0.2213
2.4158
—
2.6526
0.3822
0.0257
0.8157
0.1525
—
1.3772
0.0486
0.1429
0.3405
—
0.0589
0.0629
—
0.0411
0.0659
0.0775
0.0310
—
—
0.0617
—
0.0172
0.0282
0.0725
0.0303
0.0441
0.0080
0.0080
0.0984
—
0.0485
0.0194
0.0382
0.0233
—
0.0159
—
—
0.0743
—
—
0.0202
0.0211
0.0309
—
0.0556
—
—
0.0911
Source: Bender et al. (1977).
92
-------
samples were available; their concentration averaged 2.69 ppm and ranged
from 2.04 to 3.10 ppm.
Restrictions on James River Seafood—As of April 1977, the James
River has been opened for the taking of shad, herring, baby eel, turtles,
all catfish, and shellfish; the lower James is open for taking female
crabs, but their use is limited to the processing trade.
6. Kepone Concentrations in Spring Creek, Pennsylvania, Fish
As indicated in Section VII-A-4, kepone has been found in fish
taken from Spring Creek near the Nease Chemical plant. Clista (1977)
reports that trout and suckers taken within 18 mi downstream of the plant
show kepone concentrations of 0.025 to 0.23 ppm. The Pesticide Chemical
News (August 11, 1976) reported that kepone concentrations of 0.15 to
0.17 ppm had been found in trout, with 0.18 ppm in suckers.
7. Kepone in Chickens from Contaminated Fishmeal
Fish taken from Chesapeake Bay have been shown to be kepone-
contaminated. Part of the catch is used to make fishmeal that is fed to
chickens, but no data have been found to indicate the possible levels
of contamination to chicken meat and eggs. In a test program, hens
were fed 75- to 100-ppm kepone in their feed for 16 weeks. (Fish taken
from Chesapeake Bay have shown average kepone concentrations on the order
of 0.01 to 0.1 ppm, and fishmeal has shown concentrations of 0.02 to 0.06
ppm.) After 5 weeks of treatment, the kepone content of egg yolk was
163 and 336 ppm, respectively, for the two dosage levels. After 13
weeks it was 100 and 214 ppm, respectively; 3 weeks after kepone ingestion
had ceased, kepone content was 26 and 70 ppm, respectively (Naber and
Ware, 1965). Hence, chickens fed fishmeal contaminated at the 0.02 to
0.06 ppm level might be expected to produce eggs that were contaminated
to that level or higher.
93
-------
VIII HUMAN EXPOSURE TO MIREX AND KEPONE
THROUGH FOOD CONSUMPTION
A. General
As Section VII has shown, the major foods contaminated by mirex
and kepone are finfish, shellfish, and Crustacea taken from selected
areas in the eastern United States. Human exposure, therefore, depends
on the amount of these foods taken from the contaminated areas and eaten
by individuals.
Another contaminated food that can be of importance is mother's
milk. About 3% of the samples evaluated have been found to be kepone-
contaminated. This contamination may be of particular importance because
of the latency of cancer development and because milk constitutes a sub-
stantial proportion of an infant's diet.
B. Human Food Cons umpt ion
Various food consumption surveys indicate that the average person,
depending on socioeconomic characteristics, might consume an average
of from 10 to 40 g/day of fish. Considering the relatively high levels
of mirex and kepone in fish taken from various locations and considering
that certain individuals consume substantially more than the average rate,
this exposure route can be important.
A major source of data concerning the consumption of fish product
purchases (by socioeconomic characteristics of households) was obtained
from a survey conducted in 1969-1970 by Market Facts, Inc. for the Bureau
of Commercial Fisheries (Nash, 1970). In this survey, 1500 households
maintained diaries of fish and shellfish purchases for more than a year.
The participants were representative of the U.S. population by geographic
region and included a wide variation of incomes, family sizes, occupations,
and ages, as well as races and religions. The results of this survey
are broken down in detail for 37 types of fish purchased during the year.
94
-------
Tabulations of the average consumption of various types of purchased
fi'sh products, based on the Market Facts Survey, are presented in Table
VIII-1. Th'e results, which are given for the three major regions of
interest for mirex and kepone exposure (New England, Middle Atlantic, and
South Atlantic), as well as for the national average, represent average
home consumption of pruchased fish. (Note that certain individuals consume
much more fish than the average, and thus are potentially exposed to much
higher levels of mirex and kepone than averages would indicate.) Finch
(1973) states that the results of the Market Facts Survey show that 1.8%
of the participants consumed an average of more than 60 g/day of fish
and, in fact, 0.1% of the participants consumed more than 165 g/day.
These estimates include sportscatch eaten at home and fish eaten away
from home. These results have been used to estimate the consumption
of purchased fish by various population percentiles. These are:
Population
Percentile
10.0
5.0
1.0
0.1
Fish Products
(g/day)
26.0
38.0
77.0
165.0
The consumption of nonpurchased (sport fish) has not been reported
in the same detail for purchased fish. Based on a projection of the
"U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Consumption Survey 1965-1966" (1972),
we estimate the average total daily consumption of fish to be 21.6 g per
person. This means that approximately 5.7 g of sportsfish and fish eaten
away from home are consumed per person per day. According to La Bovit
(1970), 20% of fish consumption occurs away from home. Miller and Nash
(1971) show that the fish purchased for eating away from home are generally
lobsters, clams, shrimp, oysters, halibut, flounder, and haddock.
Another segment of the population expected to consume above average
quantities of fish are people belonging to Weightwatchers or on special
diets that substitute fish for other meat. The Weightwatchers diet follows
(Weightwatchers Handbook, 1974):
95
-------
Table VIII-1
U.S. PURCHASED FISH CONSUMPTION
(g/day)
Seafood Type
Specialty items
Tuna pie
Clam chowder
Oyster stew
TV .dinners
Smoked fish
Other specialties
Shellfish
Shrimp
Oysters
Crab
Lobsters
Lobster tails
Clams
Scallops
Other shellfish
Finfish
Haddock
Flounder
Halibut
Ocean perch
Cod
Salmon
Red snapper
Catfish
Whiting
Swordfish
Pollock
Other finfish
Canned fish
Salmon
Tuna
Sardines
Shrimp
Oysters
Other canned
Average
U.S.
0.168
0.293
0.171
0.560
0.137
0.415
1.200
0.254
0.196
0.214
0.168
0.094
0.107
0.010
0.740
0.682
0.390
0.779
0.700
0.213
0.210
0.317
0.239
0.209
0.019
0.840
1.813
3.601
0.437
0.188
0.227
0.200
New
England
0.167
0.687
0.153
0.583
0.092
0.728
1.240
0.155
0.200
2.355
0.065
0.807
0.342
0.011
2.375
0.768
0.373
0.142
0.984
0.155
0.022
0.000
0.179
1.527
0.056
0.629
1.092
4.722
0.373
0.410
0.034
0.424
Middle
Atlantic
0.154
0.488
0.216
0.722
0.196
0.656
1.562
0.144
0.157
0.142
0.262
0.091
0.163
0.004
1.235
1.507
0.306
0.403
0.936
0.102
0.154
0.000
0.213
0.293
0.015
0.613
1.767
4.102
0.584
0.205
0.088
0.283
South
Atlantic
0.096
0.390
0.216
0.436
0.103
0.442
1.557
0.507
0.265
0.175
0.108
0.043
0.070
0.011
0.707
0.999
0.068
1.232
0.764
0.088
0.129
0.190
0.403
0.065
0.027
2.007
2.024
3.174
0.838
0.085
0.281
.0.170
Total
15.9
21.883
17.763
17.671
Source: Nash (1970).
96
-------
Seafood Type Grams per Day
Shrimp 16.3
Salmon 16.3
Scallops 16.3
Tuna 16.3
Other fish 32.6
Total fish 97.8
Of the approximately 8 million people who subscribe to the Weightwatchers
program, it is now known how may adhere to the prescribed diet.
The amounts of all food consumed per capita is found to vary within
the general population, primarily as a function of sex and age. Socio-
economic variables such as income status are also found to be associated
with food consumption.
C. Human Consumption of Mirex in Foods
1. Potential Mirex Exposure from Lake Ontario Fish
Lake Ontario is currently closed to the taking of many species
of fish because of mirex contamination. This does not mean that the lake
will permanently remain closed; however, because of the environmental
persistance of mirex, fish taken from the lake are expected to be con-
taminated for some time to come. Moreover, the lake has not been closed
to Canadian fishing (except for commercial fishing of coho and chinook
salmon) or the marketing of Canadian catches. The potential exposures
listed here indicate possible exposures if the lake is reopened or if
sportsfishermen disregard the restrictions.
The eastern basin of Lake Ontario provides almost all sports
fishing and most of the commercial fishing in the lake (Great Lakes
Basin Commission, 1975). Sports fishing, which has been a major factor
in the economy of many communities near the lake, is estimated to have
amounted to 8.8 million angler days in 1970 (Great Lakes Basin Commission,
1975). Sports fishing has basically consisted of open*-water fishing,
fishing for bass, and shore fishing for bullheads, smelt, and native finfish.
97
-------
2
O
P=5
W
P-i
CO
-H- 0)
. 60
c/2 cfl
• !-i
!=> O
cu m
rH I
co tn
S co
CN
CN
CO
O O
OO O
CN CO
O O
OO O
-O- CN
01 ON
o
00
00
CN
O
CM
00
00
vO
O
in
CN
1
hH
M
M
>
(U
rH
&
a
H
g
5
CO
Z
O
U
Q
O
0
Fn
<
H
M
P-l
/-"\
>N
cO
T)
60
s.'
cu
rH
(rt
^
.4-
4-1
C
Cfl
UH
C
M
rH
1
in
i — i
O
O
r^.
)-i
cfl
01
^
rH
o
0
OO
m r~-
f-~ ro
CN rH
O m
m CM
0
ON
m
O
3
TJ
O
S-i
•H
rS
3
O
O.
cn
•H
cfl
0)
I—
00
cn
CJ
•o
o
(-1
ex
cfl
0)
M
0)
O
C
cfl
o
OO
CN m oo
cn
0)
o
CO
o
Pi
m
r--
m
ro
cn
cu
cfl
4-1
0)
I I 1 vo oo
1 1 1 rH
O LO
1 1 I o oo
1 1 1 rH
CO co
1 1 1 00 vO
1 1 1
O CO
1 1 1 O ON
1 1 1 rH
o
1 1 0
i I m
o
i i m
1 1 ON
o
1 1 ON
1 1 CO
O
1 1 CN
1 I J Pi
I I
I I
vD
60
ON
CN
O
CN
•
O
4-1
cu
f
cn
VJ
co
60
3
v>
ft
cn
rH
•H
0
0)
4-1
^_l
o
r*.
cn
*v
cn
4-1
cfl
m
A
cn
rH
•H
O
cn
4-1
CJ
C
3
•n
"O
cfl
13
C
cfl
j_t
cfl
60
3
CO
cn
cu
60
cfl
^i
0)
OJ
to
,
^•^
CO
ON
rH
iH CM
co r^
ON
4-1 rH
cu •^
60
-------
Commercial fishing landings for 1973 and 1974 are given in Table
VIII-3 for the United States and Canada. The U.S. fish catch was about
300,000 Ib annually, and the Canadian total was about eight times higher.
No data have been found that indicate where the Lake Ontario commercial
catch has been marketed nor the amount of sports fish caught.
Table VIII-4 shows the proportion of fish in the 1974 U.S.
commercial catch by species taken from the lake and the average mirex
concentrations found in the fish. If it is assumed that a person eats
fish species in the same proportion as the commercial catch, the weighted
average mirex concentration is 0.057 ppm.
Table VIII-5 shows estimates of mirex consumption from Lake
Ontario fish. These concentrations would result in an average intake of
0.34 yg/day of mirex for people taking all of their finfish from the lake.
If a person's entire seafood component of his or her diet were taken from
the lake, the mirex exposure would be 1.01 yg/day. Those eating the
most fish (upper 10% of the consuming population) would consume 0.49 to
1.5 yg/day of mirex or less, depending on the amount of seafood in the
diet taken from locations other than Lake Ontario. (Most people would
supplement Lake Ontario finfish in their diet with fish taken from other
locations.) Based on the average amount of freshwater fish consumed,
the estimated exposure would be 0.05 yg/day.
The 1970 population of counties bordering Lake Ontario was 1.3
million; population within a two-county distance from the lake was 3.4
million. Because about 14% of the U.S. population fishes for freshwater
fish (FDA, 1976), these population figures would indicate about 480 thou-
sand local fishermen. Because each of these would fish for one or more
people, about 500,000 to 1 million local people might eat some Lake Ontario
fish.
Another approach to estimating the size of the population at
risk is based on the size of the commercial catch. According to Table
VIII-3, the 1974 U.S. commercial catch from Lake Ontario was 324,000 Ib.
If it is assumed that one-third of the live weight of finfish is edible
(Thorslund and O'Mara, 1977) and that an average per capita mid-Atlantic
99
-------
Table VIII-3
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES LANDING FOR
LAKE ONTARIO (Ib in 1000s)
United States
Canada
Total
Species
Bowfin
Bullheads
Carp
Catfish
Crappie
Eels, common
Lake herring
Lake trout
Pike or pickerel
Rock bass
Sauger
Sheepshead
Smelt
Sturgeon
Suckers
Sunfish
White bass
Whitefish
White perch
Yellow perch
Yellow pike
Unclassified for
animal food
Total
1973
1
53
19
2
9
40
1
—
—
22
TI
5
< 1
8
19
2
< 1
54
64
1
1974
—
73
16
4
7
51
<1
—
< 1
14
1
7
—
6
14
<1
< i
81
49
1
1973
4
233
413
24
—
188
17
<1
11
44
6
99
1
18
208
6
16
287
757
4
1974
5
248
395
24
14
222
32
1
21
28
4
103
1
15
204
4
16
290
699
3
1973
5
286
432
26
9
228
18
<1
11
66
6
104
1
26
227
8
16
341
821
5
1974
5
321
411
28
21
273
32
1
21
42
5
110
1
21
218
4
16
371
748
4
300
324
20
35
2,656 2,688
Source: 1973 data - Pileggi and Thompson (1976).
1974 data - National Marine Fisheries (1976).
100
-------
Table VIII-4
PROPORTION BY SPECIES IN U.S. COMMERCIAL CATCH
FOR LAKE ONTARIO, 1974
Species
Bullheads
Carp
Catfish
Crappie
Eels, common
Lake herring
Pike or pickerel
Rock bass
Sheepshead
Smelt
Suckers
Sunfish
White bass
Whitefish
White perch
Yellow perch
Yellow pike
Proportion
in Catch
0.2253
0.0494
0.0123
0.0216
0.1574
0.0031
0.0031
0.0432
0.0031
0.0216
0.0185
0.0432
0.0031
0.0031
0.2500
0.1512
0.0031
Mirex
Concentrations
(ppm)
0.03
0.02
0.27
0.01
0.05
ND*
0.03
0.03
NRt
0.13
0.02
NR
0.05
NR
0.09
0.05
0.06
ND - None Detected.
t
NR - Not Reported.
101
-------
finfish consumption of 5.777 g/day (Nash, 1970), the 1974 commercial
catch supplied the annual diet of finfish for 70,000 people. (This
estimated population is for the commercial catch only.)
Table VIII-5
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL DAILY PER CAPITA INTAKE OF
MIREX FOR CONSUMERS OF LAKE ONTARIO FISH
Percent of
Consuming
Population
Average
10
5
1
0.1
Assuming all
Finfish in Diet
Taken from Laket
(Ug/day)
0
0
0
1
3
.335
.490
.716
.451
.146
Assuming all
Seafood in Diet
Taken from Lake
(yg/day)
1.
1.
2.
4.
9.
014
484
169
395
532
t
Assumes 5.777 g/day of finfish eaten and 17.763
g/day of all seafood eaten.
That is, 33% of the seafood in the diet is finfish.
2. Mirex Exposure from St. Lawrence Fish
Estimated human mirex exposures for the consumption of St.
Lawrence fish are given in Table VIII-6. Two sets of exposures are given:
one assumes that all finfish eaten by a consumer are taken from the river
and the other assumes that all seafood eaten by a consumer are taken from
the river. Average daily per capita mirex consumptions for the two sets
of exposure assumptions are 0.39 and 1.17 ug, respectively. Based on the
average amount of freshwater fish consumed, the exposure would be 0.06
Ug/day. The size of the consuming population is not known; most of the
target population, however, would live near the St. Lawrence river and
might supplement part of their diet with sportscatch of fish from the
river. These people might also consume some seafood from Lake Ontario.
102
-------
Table VIII-6
ESTIMATED DAILY PER CAPITA INTAKE OF
MIREX FOR CONSUMERS OF ST. LAWRENCE FISH
Percent of
Consuming
Population
*
Average
10
5
1
0.1
Assuming all
Finfish in Diet
Taken from Rivert
(yg/day)
0.387
0.566
0.828
1.677
3.637
Assuming all
Seafood in Diet
Taken from River
(yg/day)
1.172
1.716
2.508
5.082
11.022
Assumes 5.777 g/day of finfish eaten and 17.763 g/day
of all seafood eaten.
That is, 33% of the seafood in the diet is finfish.
According to the 1970 population, there were 200,500 people
residing in counties bordering on the St. Lawrence River. Population
within a two-county distance from the river was 377,600. Given that
about 14% of the U.S. population freshwater fishes (FDA, 1976), there are
about 53,000 local fishermen. Each of these would fish for one or more
people giving a local at-risk population estimate of about 50,000 to
100,000. The amount of fish taken from the St. Lawrence and eaten by
many of these people would be minimal.
3. Mirex Exposure from Spring Creek, Pennsylvania, Fish
Characterizing the consumption of mirex from fish taken
from Spring Creek is complicated because the extent of contamination of
fish in the creek or the extent of fishing on the creek have not been
reported. The creek has been said to be a good spot for sportsfishing,
but apparently it has no commercial fishing. Mirex concentrations of
0.02 to 1.0 ppm have been found in suckers and trout taken near the
103
-------
NEASE chemical plant. These concentrations could result in a mirex
intake of 0.12 to 5.8 yg/day if an average consumer filled the entire
finfish component of his diet with fish taken from Spring Creek. The
intake could be 0.36 to 17.8 yg/day if the average person's entire
seafood supply came from Spring Creek. Based on the average amount of
freshwater fish consumed, the average exposure would be 0.02 to 0.09
yg/day.
These exposures would only be applicable to, at most, a relatively
few sportsmen who reside in the local area, and even these sportsmen
would probably supplement their diet with seafood taken from other
locations.
The Spring Creek fish are also kepone-contaminated; hence, the
consumer would be exposed to both mirex and kepone.
4. Mirex Exposure to Residents of the Southeastern United States
From Fish Consumption
A number of investigators have recorded the mirex concentra-
tions in fish taken from areas in the southeastern states where mirex
bait has been applied. Specifically, mirex has been found in fish taken
from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South
Carolina. In general, higher concentrations of mirex have been found in
fish taken from treated areas within a state than in fish taken from un-
treated areas within the same state. Moreover, concentrations are much
higher shortly after application than they are several years after appli-
cation. However, sampling tends to indicate that average concentrations
on the order of 0.01 to 0.03 ppm in finfish will persist at least for
several years after application. This is substantiated by the samples taken
1 to 2 years after application reported by Borthwich et al. (1974),
Hawthorne et al. (1974b), and Collins et al. (1974). The 1976 sampling
reported by the FDA (1977) showed detectable mirex concentrations in
See for example: FDA (1977), Markin et al. (1972b) , Markin (1974),
Borthwich et al. (1973), Borthwich et al. (1974), Baetche et al. (1972,
Hawthorne et al. (1974b), Collins et al. (1974), and Wolfe and Norment
(1973).
104
-------
finfish taken in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi; mi rex
was not found in samples taken in Texas.
Possible population exposures to southeastern U.S. residents
from eating mirex contaminated fish are shown in Table VIII-7. These
exposures assume that the average mirex concentration is 0.02 ppm for
the eaten fraction of the mirex-contaminated fish. Based on available
data, this average concentration appears to be appropriate. One diffi-
culty lies in assessing the proportion of contaminated fish taken for
food in the states. Assuming that all fresh and frozen finfish in an
average person's diet are contaminated, the exposure would be 0.13 yg/day.
The highest exposure illustrated in Table VIII-7 would be for the upper
0.1 percentile of fish consumers taking all of their seafood from con-
taminated areas. Their exposure would be 3.3 pg/day of mirex. Based
on the average amount of freshwater fish consumed, the average exposure
would be 0.02 yg/day.
The greatest mirex exposure is to sports fishermen in these
areas. In addition, some commercial fishing takes place in the inland
waters in these areas. Table VIII-8 lists the 1973 commercial catch for
the Mississippi River, its tributaries, and other river systems draining
into the Gulf of Mexico. For Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, and
Louisiana more than 31 million Ib of commercial catch were taken in
1973; of this amount about 25 million Ib were finfish. This commercial
catch of finfish would satisfy the finfish component of the diet for
about 1.5 million people.
Much of the population of all the southeastern states in which
mirex bait has been applied is probably ingesting some mirex with their
fish. For most of these people, however, the mirex ingested is expected
to be much less than the exposures listed in Table VIII-7. The 1970 total
populations for these "at-risk" states are:
105
-------
Table VIII-7
MIREX CONSUMPTION FROM FISH EATEN BY SELECTED
RESIDENTS OF SOUTHEASTERN STATES (ug/day)
Human Population
Fish Consumption Percent of Fish in Standard Diet
Percentile Based Taken from Contaminated Areas'!"
on Amount Eaten '
Average
10
5
1
0.1
10%
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.15
0.33
38%t
0.13
0.20
0.29
0.59
1.25
100%
0.35
0.52
0.76
1.54
3.30
*
Total amounts eaten (g/day) for the various percentiles
are assumed as 17.7, 26, 38, 77, and 165, respectively.
Assumes an average mirex concentration of 0.02 ppm.
^An average of 38% of the total seafood diet is composed
of fresh and frozen finfish.
106
-------
oo
I
,0
CO
H
M O
\O O vO rH
CO rH CO I I 3-
I rH CM
I vO O
CO
iO i^ ^O
I O r^ ON I
I co co r~ I
ON
oo i
I
I O
I 00
00
o
CM
oo m
I O <-4
I CN O
CO
vO
ON
ON 3S
c
o
CO
0.
§
co
cu
•H
U
CD
a
CO
_r;
tfl
•H
U-l
O
C rH
•H CO
UH IM
5 M-l
0 S
PQ 03
13
CO
CU
r~*.
rH
rH
3
rJQ
•a
c
cfl
43
Cfl
•H
CU t4"4
M 4-J
CO CO
U CJ
CU
01
T3
rH
O
J_4
o
01
5^
co cu
Xl C»
3 0
J3 0
0-32
tJ
CO
jC
co
js -a
CO M
•H ro
U-l C4
l-i N
CO i-l
o a
r^
co ^
•H CJ
4-1 CO
CU JQ
rH rH
T3 rH
T3 -H
cO 3
Pn O"
CO T3
CO CO
CO
-------
1970
State Population
Alabama 3,444,165
Arkansas 1,923,295
Georgia 4,589,575
Mississippi 2,216,912
Texas 11,196,730
Florida .6,789,443
South Carolina 2,590,516
About 14% of the U.S. population did some freshwater fishing
during 1970 (FDA, 1976). For Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and South Carolina this represents an estimated 2 million
fishermen. The at-risk population to eating at least some sportsfish
caught in these states would be 2 to 4 million because many families
tend to fish together and because many of the fishermen indicated
might go fishing less than twice per year.
D. Kepone Exposure from Fish Consumption
1. Kepone Exposure from Chesapeake Bay and James River Fish
The lower James River is currently closed for the taking of
most fish. Chesapeake Bay is not closed, but commercial catches are
monitored to determine if the kepone concentrations are below action
levels.
The Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, and nearby areas of the
Atlantic Ocean have been active areas for commercial fishing. Table
VIII-9 gives the catches by species for 1974 and 1975. Each year about
230 million lb of fish products have been commercially taken from these
waters.
Thorslund and O'Mara (1977) estimated the 1975 commercial fish-
ing catch for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in terms of edible
pounds by species (Table VIII-10). For the entire Bay approximately
50 million lb of edible seafood products were produced from commercial
and sports fishing. Oysters make up approximately one-third of this
weight.
108
-------
1
M
M
>
<
«
^2 t&3
U SB
52H
C.A CT-.
v J H"4
W O
35 /-N
U en to
< o
w w o
33 3 0
H < rH
OS SH C
O^ *H
f^j ~n
fe Qc
^^ rO
CO W iH
r^ *^* s«— '
02
M Q 2
§ 5B fT1
3 c_>
,1 -0
CO
en u u
W M M
Wry' L-l
r*< c^
Pd < Z
W H <
K 5 rJ
cn « H
M M <
fe (*
H
< cn
M H
U M
Pi
g
O
CO
m
r^
ON
^J
r^
_>j
r"1
01
o
H
r-x
-a-
ON
_ j
^^
in
p^
o\
^H
cfl
0
•H
00
l-i
*O
>
•3-
r^
ON
__j
^^
in
r^
ON
rH
T3
C
CS
rH
>
cfl
S
vl-
r^
ON
rH
co
M
CD 4-1
a
•H ^*t
h CU
4_) \>4
cn o
CO vO
CO r^»
vO rH
CO vO
m vo
rH
CO vO
CM CO
CM CM
vO r^
rH -«3-
rH
ON r^
o -l a- -a-
rH rH
VO CM
CM r-
vo' rH
~a- CM
rH O
oo m
VO CM
O O
CM -3-
vO -3"
m m
m m
CO
CM r^.
co r-»
co co
vo r~>
rH vO
*^
o m
O CO
o m
ON ON
* *>
m m
CM rH
o o
co ^a*
oo oo
•* CM
* *t
vO 00
CM rH
CO
CQ CU
•O 4->
CO CO
0 O
VO rH
M
vO OO
a"
m rH
CM O
00 CO
vo m
m
oo
^
1 ON
1 rH
*
p^
CM
co
1 CO
1 vO
*l
r-
-0 f-
OJ CO
•H -H
14H «-i
•H
CO TJ
W O
CO O
rH ^
0 C
c o
3 52
. oo
r^
-3-
-a-
oo
CM
CM
f^
o
vO
vO
ON
CO
CM
CO
CO
CSI
^.
vO
rH
CM
o
CO
CM
CM
r*^
rH
m
^
CM
m
CO
vO
m
co
CO
.^f
M
f^^
vO
rH
CO
4J
o
H
T3
c
CO
U
•
s~\
vO
ON
rH
T)
c
cfl
/^
cfl
Q^
r-i
^^
o
•H
4J
CO
•H
a
o
co
CO
"^
o
•H
j_l
CU
r;
a,
CO
O
e
4-1
TJ
C
CO
O
•H
C
cfl
CU
U
O
rH
cfl
C
o
•H
4-1
Cfl
2
,.
cu
o
3
O
cn
109
-------
Table VIII-10
TOTAL 'CATCH AND ESTIMATED CONSUMPTION OF SEAFOOD^FROM THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, 1975
Food Fish
Commercial Catch
Bluefish
Croaker
Flounder
Grey trout
Shad
Striped Bass
All other 'finfish
Total Finfish
Blue crabs
Oysters (meat)
Clams (meat)
Total Shellfish
Catch—Live
Weight (Ib)
2,312,012
2,872,204
341,520
2,710,513
1,646,019
2,107,398
6,706,200
18,695,866
47,541,907
17,051,548
1,246,817'
65,840,272
Consump t ion—Edible
Weight (Ib)
770,670
957,402
,113,840
903,504
548,673
702,623
2,235*400
6,232,112
4,754,191
17,051,548
1,246^817
23,052,556
Sportsfish Catch
Finfish
Shellfish
60,013,000
3,822,830
20,005,000
1,109,240
Nonfood Fish
Manhaden and alewives
32,795,486
6,888,692
Based on data given by Thorslund and O'Mara (1977);
Potomac River catch excluded.
110
-------
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA) surveyed marine
recreational fishing in the Northeastern United States for 1974; Maryland
and Virginia were also included. Data on sportsfish catch were obtained
by telephone, mail, and household surveys. For each state the following
species were separated: bluefish, white perch, striped bass, spot, and
weakfish; other categories included all other finfish, hardshell clams,
oysters, and crabs. Approximately 87.5% of the catch was from Chesapeake
Bay. The survey provided the following percentages (Thorslund and O'Mara,
1977):
Percent of Total
Species_of Fish Finfish by Weight
Bluefish 47
White perch 9
Striped bass 10
Spot 5
Weakfish 8
All other 21
Because the percentage breakdown of weights for shellfish was unavailable,
it was assumed that crabs made up 80% of the shellfish, and oysters and
clams each accounted for 10% (Thorslund and O'Mara, 1977). Using these
percentages, the estimated sportsfishing catch by species is given in
Table VIII-11.
Note that the sportsfishing catch of finfish is approximately
three times the commercial catch, whereas the commercial shellfish catch
is approximately 17 times the sportsfishing catch.
As part of the "What If" kepone program, Krutchkoff (1977)
estimated the proportional weights of fish in catches by species (Table
VIII-12). He assumed that the weight of species taken for consumption
follows the same proportion as the weight of samples taken for kepone
evaluation. These proportions were then used in evaluations to charac-
terize the consumption of kepone from seafood (Bender, 1977; Bender
et al., 1977).
Ill
-------
Table VIII-11
ESTIMATED SPORTSFISH CATCH BY SPECIES FOR THE CHESAPEAKE
BAY AND ITS TRIBUTARIES DURING 1974
Catch Edible
Weight Weight
Species (Ib) (lb)
Bluefish 28,206,110 9,402,350
White perch 5,401,170 1,800,450
Striped bass 6,001,300 2,000,500
Spot 3,000,650 1,000,250
Weakfish 4,801,040 1,600,400
All other finfish 12,602,730 4,201,050
Finfish Total 60,013,000 20,005,000
Clams 382,283 110,930
Oysters 382,283 110,930
Crabs 3,058,264 887,440
Shellfish Total 3,822,830 1,109,300
Grand Total 21,114,300
Based on data given by Thorslund and O'Mara (1977).
112
-------
Table VIII-12
ESTIMATED PROPORTION IN CATCH BY SPECIES
FOR JAMES RIVER AND CHESAPEAKE BAY
Species
James River
Chesapeake Bay
Market
Black crappie
Bluefish
Butter fish
Catfish
Croaker
Eel
Flounder
Herring
Largemouth bass
Mullet
Perch
Striped bass
Shad
Spot
Trout
Weakfish
Others
Clams
Oysters
Crabs
—_
0.0047
—
0.6339
—
0.0595
—
—
—
—
0.0017
0.0056
0.2648
0.0002
0.0007
—
0.0289
0.4790
0.5210
- _—
0.1068
0.0038
0.1116
0.0426
0.0156
0.3745
—
—
0.0061
—
0.0404
0.0616
0.1182
—
0.1188
0.2680
0.7320
—
0.1106
0.0276
0.0316
0.1920
—
0.0790
—
—
0.0413
—
0.0243
0.1288
0.0778
0.2868
—
—
—
Source: Bender, et al. (1977).
*
Based on proportional weights in samples used for kepone analysis.
113
-------
Combining the commercial and sportsfishing catch for the region
and dividing by the total catch weight give another estimate of the pro-
portion consumed by species. This estimate is given in Table VIII-13.
a. Estimated Kepone Exposures
The "What If" program is a computer model designed to
answer questions regarding the possible human consumption of kepone from
the ingestion of finfish, shellfish, and crabs taken from the James River
and Chesapeake Bay. The program has a fixed data set that can be varied
to answer various what if type questions that might be raised by re-
searchers or decision makers. Kepone concentration and consumption data
were each arrayed in 42 sets. These 42 sets are based on collection
location (James River, Chesapeake Bay, and the market) and on species.
The concentration and proportion of fish consumed by species data have
been given in Tables VII-19 and VIII-12 (see Kurtchkoff, 1977; Bender,
1977; and Bender et al., 1977).
Each set of data was fit to statistical distribution func-
tions. A good fit was found by using the exponential distribution.
This distribution is useful because it can be completely characterized
by one parameter (the mean). It was assumed that the distribution of
edible meat in the sample represents the distribution of edible meat to
the consumer (e.g., that the proportion of samples at a particular loca-
tion in the James reflects the proportion of fish caught at that location).
The consumption levels of finfish (6.3 g/day), shellfish
(2.6 g/day), and crabs (0.3 g/day) used in the program are average amounts
of fresh and frozen purchased food determined by the Marketfacts Survey
(Nash, 1970) for South Atlantic states.
The program can also vary the action levels of kepone
concentration to determine human exposure. This part of the program
apparently assumes that all products exceeding the action level would be
detected and not marketed.
114
-------
Table VIII-13
ESTIMATED'CONSUMPTION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY SEAFOOD BY SPECIES
(Commercial and Sports Catch Combined)
Total Edible
Species Weight (Ib) Proportion
Bluefish 10,173,020 0.388
White perch 1,800,450* 0.069
Striped bass 2,703,123 0.103
Spot 1,000,250* 0.038
Weakfish 1,600,400* 0.061
All other finfish 6,436,450 0.245
Finfish Total 26,237,112 1.000
Clams 1,357,747 0.056
Oysters 17,162,478 0.710
Crabs 5,641,631 0.233
Shellfish- Total 24,161,856 1.000
Sportsfishing catch only.
115
-------
Table VIII-14 gives estimated daily kepone intake (assuming
that there is no action level) for consumption of James River and Chesa-
peake Bay finfish, shellfish, and crabs. The six sets of exposure esti-
mates given for each source location are based on three consumption levels
and on two levels of kepone contamination (average values and the con-
tamination for the higher 1% of fish). The three consumption levels are:
The average consumption for the South Atlantic
states.
The level roughly corresponding to the total
seafood consumed by 10% of the population but
using the same distribution of species con-
sumed by the average population.
Levels roughly corresponding to the total
seafood consumed by 10% of the population
but assuming the diet is 59% finfish, 17%
shellfish, and 24% oysters.
Based on these results, which are summarized from the
"What If" program, it is concluded that the average person eating sea-
food from the Bay or from both the James and the Bay will consume 0.3 to
0.4 yg/day of kepone. People in the upper 10% of the seafood consuming
population ingest 1.0 to 1.6 yg/day of kepone on the average. People
who consume only James River fish have an average kepone intake of 1.1
Ug/day, with an upper 10% limit based on consumption of 3.5 yg/day.
Those few who might eat only fish that have high kepone
contaminations (i.e., contaminations in the upper 1% level of all fish
analyzed) would consume one-fourth to one-half again as much kepone as
do consumers of average concentrations.
The kepone consumption levels reported in Table VIII-14
may be high for most consumers. People residing in the James River and
Chesapeake Bay area would most likely include seafood in their diet that,
although the species are found in the James or the Bay, is taken from
nonkepone-contaminated locations. On the other hand, the kepone consump-
tion estimates are low for people who might eat seafood taken only from
the James or the Bay. The kepone consumption for these people has been •
estimated using the following assumptions:
116
-------
Table VIII-14
YEARLY AVERAGE KEPONE INTAKE PER DAY FOR CONSUMPTION
OF FINFISH, SHELLFISH, AND CRABS TAKEN FROM
CHESAPEAKE BAY AND JAMES RIVER (y/g)
Source of Fish
James River
Chesapeake Bay
James and Bay
Market
Yearly
Consumption
7.4*
23. 2f
23. 2*
7.4*
23. 2f
23. 2*
7.4*
23. 2f
23. ^
7.4*
23. 2f
23.2*
Average
Kepone Intake
(yg/day)
1.1
3.5
4.9
0.3
1.0
1.5
0.4
1.2
1.6
0.3
1.0
1.4
Kepone Intake
<0.01%5
(yg/day)
1.6
5.1
6.4
0.4
1.2
1.7
0.5
1.6
2.0
0.4
1.2
1.6
Source: Bender et al., (1977) and based on an unlimited
action level.
*Equivalent of 9.2 g/day (6.2 g finfish, 2.6 g shellfish, and
0.3 g oysters).
^Equivalent of 28.8 g/day (19.8 g finfish, 8.2 g shellfish, and
0.9 g oysters) .
fEquivalent of 28.8 g/day (17 g finfish, 5 g shellfish, and-
7 g oysters).
^Kepone concentration for the upper 1% of the catch.
117
-------
Seafood species of finfish and of shellfish
are eaten in the same proportion as the catch
(Table VIII-13).
Finfish and shellfish are eaten in the same
proportions as found in the Marketfacts Survey
(Table VIII-1).
Kepone concentrations are the same as those used
in the "What If" program (Table VII-19).
Weights of seafood eaten for different frac-
tions of the population are in accordance with
data given by Finch (1973).
Use of these assumptions results in the estimated average daily intake
of kepone given in Table VIII-15. The average consumer, eating only
seafood from Chesapeake Bay or the James River would ingest 3.5 and 8.5
ug/day of kepone, respectively.
Table VIII-15
DAILY AVERAGE KEPONE INTAKE OF KEPONE FOR CONSUMERS
WHO TAKE THEIR ENTIRE DIET OF SEAFOOD FROM
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY OR JAMES RIVER
Percent of
Population
Group*
Average f
10.0
5.0
1.0
0.1
Seafood
Consumption
(g/day)
14.2
26.0
38.0
77.0
165.0
Kepone Consumption
Chesapeake Bay
3.5
6.4
9.4
19.0
40.7
(y g/day)
James River^
8.5
15.5
22.6
45.8
98.2
*
Those taking all of their seafood from the Bay or the
James.
Average consumption for South Atlantic states.
TAssumes no restrictions on species taken.
118
-------
b. Estimated Size of the At-Risk Population for the
Consumption of Chesapeake Bay/James River Seafood
The Chesapeake Bay is an active area for sport and commer-
cial fishing. Part of the commercial catch is marketed locally; however,
much of the catch is sold elsewhere. Considering the local population
as those counties and cities that are contiguous to Chesapeake Bay re-
sults in an estimated local population of 2,052,178 in Maryland and
1,004,580 in Virginia.
Table VIII-5 gives the weight of edible seafood taken from
the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Using the South Atlantic consump-
tion figures given in Table VIII-1, the sports and commercial fishing
catch from these water can supply the average annual requirements of 4.9
million people for finfish, 8.7 million people for crabs, 3.9 million
people for clams, and 26.5 million people for oysters.
Thorslund and O'Mara (1977) have estimated the catch con-
sumed locally (Table VIII-16). Their estimates appear to be high for
oysters and crabs. Another estimate, given in Table VIII-16, assumes
that the entire catch is consumed in accordance with the Marketfacts
Survey results (Table VIII-1) and that the local population is 3,056,758.
In this estimate 61% of the finfish are consumed locally, as are 11% of
the oysters, 77% of the clams, and 34% of the crabs. These results
clearly indicate that the kepone contamination of Chesapeake Bay seafood
is not only a local problem but can also affect millions of people outside
of the local area. As the FDA report (1977) indicates, seafood from
Virginia and Maryland are sold in many eastern cities.
2. Kepone Exposure from Atlantic Ocean Fish
Certain species such as bluefish, spot, croaker, striped bass,
striped mullet, grey trout, and speckled trout reside part time in the
James River and/or Chesapeake Bay and part time in the Atlantic Ocean
(Bender, 1977). Fish caught in the Atlantic after residing in these
contaminated waters would also be expected to be kepone-contaminated.
Unfortunately, no comprehensive evaluation has been made of the kepone
119
-------
concentrations in most of these species taken from the Atlantic off the
shores of the Chesapeake Bay. Table VII1-17 lists the size of the com-
mercial catch of these species: 2.9 million Ib was taken, yielding an
estimated edible weight of almost 1 million Ib. Table VIII-18 gives the
kepone concentration of the species taken from the James River, the
Chesapeake Bay and, in the case of bluefish, the ocean. The FDA data
shown for the Chesapeake Bay were collected at the marketplace and may
include a mixture of Bay and Ocean fish. The concentration data given
in Table VIII-6 imply that an average kepone concentration on the order
of 0.02 to 0.04 ppm might be found for these species in the Atlantic off
the shores of the Bay. If this is in fact the case and if people eat only
these species as the total finfish component of their diet, this catch
would supply the dietary needs of 178,000 people and would expose them to
an average of 0.13 to 0.27 ug/day.
Table VIII-16
ESTIMATED PERCENT OF CHESAPEAKE BAY CATCH
CONSUMED LOCALLY
Source of Estimate
Species
SRI
61
11
77
34
Thorslund and
O'Mara (1977
57
72
40
53
Finfish
Oysters
Clams
Blue crabs
Because the bluefish ranges over a fairly wide area off the
Atlantic coast, it was suspected that the bluefish taken from anywhere
along the coast might be kepone-contaminated. As a consequence, the
FDA (1977) analyzed the kepone concentration in bluefish taken as far
north as Massachusetts and as far south as Florida. The average kepone
concentrations as well as the commercial bluefish catch by coastal state
are gi^en in Table VIII-19. Kepone concentrations were found in bluefish
120
-------
Table VIII-17
1973 COMMERCIAL CATCH OF MARINE SUMMER RESIDENT FISH
FROM THE ATLANTIC OCEAN OFF CHESAPEAKE BAY
Estimated Estimated Edible
Species Catch (Ib) Weight (Ib)
Bluefish 341,400 113,800
Spot 343,100 114,367
Croaker 388,700 129,567
Mullet 5,100 1,700
Striped bass 540,500 180,167
Grey trout 1,252,000 417,333
Speckled .trout 1,300 433
Total 2,872,100 957,367
Source: Pileggi and Thompson (1976).
121
-------
Table VIII-18
KEPONE CONCENTRATIONS IN FISH THAT RESIDE IN THE JAMES RIVER
IN THE SUMMER THAT MAY BE CAUGHT IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN (PPM)
James River Chesapeake Bay Ocean
Species
Bluefish
Spot
Croaker
Mullet
Striped bass
Grey trout
Source 1: Bender (1977.
Source 2: Bender et al. (1977).
Source 3: FDA (1977).
Source 1
0.65
0.75
0.62
0.37
0.04
1.21
Source 2
0.286
0.816
—
—
0.382
0.153
Source 2
0.059
0.028
0.041
—
—
0.073
Source 3
0.040
0.035
0.032
—
—
0.046
Source 3
0.037
—
—
—
—
__
122
-------
Table VIII-19
ATLANTIC COAST BLUEFISH COMMERCIAL
CATCH AND KEPONE CONCENTRATION
State
Maine
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
1973 Catch
(lb)*
59,000
556,000
278,000
96,000
1,412,000
888,000
3,000
276,000
2,905,000
2,008,000
3,000
1,583,000
Average Kepone
(ppm)t
NM
0.014
<0.010
NM
0.012
0.015
0.020
NM
0.037
0.009
NM
NM
ND
§
Source: Pileggi and Thompson (1976).
fSource: FDA (1977).
*NM - Not Measured.
§
ND - None Detected.
123
-------
as far north as Massachusetts and as far south as North Carolina. The
highest average concentration (0.037 ppm) was found, as expected, for
the1 catch taken off Virginia shores. Approximately 8.5 million Ib of
bluefish caught commercially from North Carolina to Massachusetts appears
to be contaminated in the average range of 0.009 to 0.037 ppm.
The 1970 sportsfishing catch of bluefish off the Atlantic coast
is estimated as follows (NOAA, 1973):
Location Catch (Ib)
North Atlantic
Middle Atlantic 717,000
South Atlantic 12,489,000
Total Atlantic 13,206,000
Generally, bluefish make up only a small fraction of an indi-
vidual's seafood diet. The seafood consumption survey (Nash, 1970) does
not list bluefish as a separate species. People in the South Atlantic
states who eat only bluefish as the finfish component of their diet would
have an average kepone exposure of less than 0.25 ug/day. The commercial
and sportsfishing catch could supply the entire fresh and frozen finfish
requirements of 570,000 people with fish contaminated at these levels.
3. Kepone Exposure from Eating Fish Taken from Spring
Creek, Pennsylvania
Characterization of the consumption of kepone from fish taken
from Spring Creek is complicated because the extent of contamination of
the entire population of fish in the creek and the extent of fishing on
the creek have not been reported. Kepone concentrations of 0.025 to
0.23 ppm are reported for the fish taken near the Nease chemical plant.
These concentrations could result in a kepone intake of 0.14 to 1.33 pg/day
if an average consumer filled the entire finfish component of his diet with
fish taken from Spring Creek. The intake could be 0.44 to 4.09 yg/day if
the average person's entire seafood supply came from Spring Creek. Based
on the average amount of fresh fish consumed, the average exposure would
be 0.02 to 0.20 ug/day.
124
-------
At most, these exposures would only apply to a relatively few
, sportsmen who reside locally. Even these would probably supplement their
diet with, seafood taken from other locations.
The Spring Creek fish are also mirex-contaminated; hence, the
consumer would be exposed to both mirex and kepone.
E. Mirex and Kepone in Mother's Milk
Tests for mirex were made of 1436 samples of mother's milk which
were taken nationwide and represented all 50 states. None was found at
the 30-ppb detection level. Of these samples, 298 were later tested for
kepone; 9 were positive, with concentrations ranging from less than 1 to
5.8 ppb. The nine positive samples came from Alabama, Georgia, and
North Carolina. Data regarding the percent found positive and kepone
/
concentration by state are given in Table VIII-20.
The New York State Health Department will soon begin tests on several
hundred pregnant women and nursing mothers in counties bordering Lake
Ontario and Lake Erie to check on the level of mirex, kepone, and poly-
chlorinated biphenyis (PCB) in their systems (Syracuse Herald-Journal,
January 4, 1977).
According to Siler (1976), approximately 38% of mothers nurse their
infants after they leave the hospital; the LaLeche League estimates that
as many as 50% of the 3,160,000 babies born in the United States in 1974
were nursed. The number of live births for selected states are given in
Table VIII-20.
Nursing may last from 2 weeks to 1 year or more. The LaLeche League
recommends that the infant be nursed for the first 6 months.
Infant consumption of mother's milk has been estimated at 850 ml/day;
however, this figure is based on wet nursings and is now believed to be
too high. A study currently being conducted by the University of Illinois
shows an average of 606 ml for the first month, 601 ml for the second
month, and 625 ml for the third month for healthy infants. Bo (1976)
reports consumption of 500 to 600 ml for the first 2 weeks and 700 to 800
ml for 2 weeks to 6 months for Swedish children.
125
-------
•H
4J
•H-J-
CO /-v
0 ,0
AH OL
a
O
CO
>» 4-1
^ co
CO O
g
3
3
CO
cu
00
c
CO
C*
o
o
\ ' 1
1 r4 1
V
CU
00
cfl
i-l
CU
^
<
o
1 O 1
1 • 1
r«4
V
0
00
in
i
1 0
1 O
.-1
V
co
1 iH
CO
O
in
•
CM
O
in
CM
O
00
•
m
o
o
o
•~D
CM
0
CM
1
M
M
^
•
CO
p
p5
H
PQ
a
CU
4J >
C -H
CU 4J
a -H
M CO
1) O
PH PH
_J_
^^ cu
•o >
CU tH
4J 1 '
OT -H
CU CO
H 0
PH
O •
25 0
SS
CU
>*
•H CO
4-1
r~ -H
&\ pQ
o
0
C3
'
O
**»^
*^
f*l
o
0
o
iH
f~»
m o
00 O
CO O
iH 0
\O CO
CM iH
O O
O O
O O
oo
CM
O O
O O
o o
CO
4J
u
in
so
CO
CU
4-1
cfl
•U
CO
cfl
•H
C
•H
00
•H
>
Cfl
C
•H
iH
O
Cfl
O
r*.
4-1
M
O
z
flj
c
•H
i-H
O
CO
O
r^
4-1
3
O
CO
CO
cfl cfl CO
CO S -H
C cfl 00
Jrf CO O
M iH CU
< < O
PS
o
3
i-J
C
cu
*
CO
-o
•H
),4
O
rH
^
•H
a
a
•H
co
CO
•H
co
CO
•H
S
cfl
c
cfl
•H
ca
•H
3
O
CO
CU
4-1
cfl
4J
CO
•o
CU
4J
CO
•H
^
co
cu
4-1
CO
4J
co
-a
CU
4-1
•H
c
cfl ^
o
•H iH
4J iH
CO CU
•H 73
•U C
CO O
•U rH
CO PQ
• • ••
CU 0)
u u
M V*
3 3
0 0
CO CO
* -f-
126
-------
Assuming a child consumes 600 ml/day of milk with kepone concentra-
tions of 1 to 5.8 ppb, he would consume 0.6 to 3.5 yg/day of kepone.
Assuming that the child weighs 10 Ib (4.54 kg), the daily consumption is
*~4 — 4
1.3 x 10 to 7.7 x 10 yg kepone per gram body weight. The estimated
daily exposure and at-risk population by state, assuming that one-third
of the mothers nurse their babies for 6 months, is:
State
Average Kepone
Exposure
(ug/day)
0.6
1.9
1.5
Estimated
At-Risk
Population
1100
1500
700
North Carolina
Alabama
Georgia
These estimates are only relevant for the 10 states for which mother's
milk has been tested. Other states might also be suspected because of
past manufacturing activity, product use, and fish and other contaminated
food consumption. Moreover, the sample size tested for some of the states
is relatively small and therefore does not prove conclusively that kepone
is not present.
Mirex contamination of cows milk may be a factor if ant bait has
been applied to grazing land within the last 6 months. However, Collins
et al. (1974) found mirex in cows milk only for areas treated within 3
months, but not 6 months before. Hawthorne et al. (1974a) found no mirex
at the 0.3-ppb level for 60 milk samples taken from treated areas. They
conclude that the milk cattle may be receiving small amounts of mirex
but that not enough is present to show up in milk at residue levels above
0.3 ppb.
F. Mirex Exposures from Foods Other Than Seafood and Mother's Milk
The available data, although not conclusive, tend to indicate that
the mirex concentrations of foods, other than seafood, grown or raised
commercially are free from detectable mirex contamination. The studies
of beef, cows milk, and commercially raised catfish in southeastern
states have confirmed the general absence of mirex. '-However, the findings
127
-------
reported by Collins et al. (1974) have shown mirex levels of 0.001 ppm in
chicken eggs and 0.014 ppm in chickens taken 12 months after mirex appli-
cation.
It does appear that game taken from selected southeastern states,
in which mirex bait has been applied, might be mirex-contaminated. Hence,
this would suggest another source (in addition to fish) of mirex to sports-
men and their families. Data given by Collins et al. (1974) show mirex
concentrations as high as 0.254 ppm for cottontails, opossums, and bob-
white quail taken 6 to 12 months after mirex application. The average was
about 0.07 ppm. Samples of deer adipose tissue taken 1 year after mirex
application in Mississippi showed an average concentration of 0.057 ppm
(Baetcke et al., 1972). Baetcke et al. (1972) also found mirex in bob-
white quail and turkey. Mirex found in birds suggest that it is present
in game birds (e.g., Oklendorf et al., 1974 and Oberheu, 1972). If it is
assumed that a family eats only wildgame as the meat, fish, and poultry
component of its diet and that these wildgame are from contaminated areas
with an average mirex concentration of 0.04 ppm, the exposures would be
as illustrated in Table VIII-21. These assumptions result in an adult
exposure of 8 to 12 yg/day. These exposures, however, are believed to be
gross overestimates because very few people would eat only game. Nor is
it likely that all game would be taken from one contaminated area. More-
over, the mirex concentrations for contaminated game are at present,
probably much less than 0.04 ppm.
According to the Household Food Consumption Survey (FDA, 1972), an
average southern female consumed up to 5 g/day of game meat and an average
southern male consumed up to 10 g/day of game meat. These consumptions
would result in an average ingestion of up to 0.4 ug/day of mirex.
In the southeastern states during 1970, there were 1.3 million big
game hunters and 2.8 million small game hunters (Fish and Wildlife Service,
1972), some of whom hunted both small and large game. Hunting success
*
This estimated concentration assumes that more than 1 year has passed
since the last treatment of mirex bait. State averages should be lower
because many areas have not been recently treated. Moreover, because
this estimated concentration is most applicable to adipose tissue, con-
centrations in red meat should be lower.
128
-------
varies with the type of game, area hunted, and amount of time spent hunt-
ing. If it is assumed that of 4 million hunters, 75% capture some game
and that each hunter hunts for an average of 3 people (allowing for several
hunters in some families), an estimated 9 million people have some expo-
sure to southeastern sports game that might be mirex-contaminated.
Table VIII-21
ESTIMATED MIREX CONSUMPTION FOR FAMILIES EATING ONLY
GAME WITH A MIREX CONTAMINATION OF 0.04 PPM*
Daily Mirex
Population Subgroup ( g/day)
Infant (1 year) 2.00
Male (15-17) 11.00
Female (15-17) 8.00
Male (19) 8.56
Male (35-54) 12.00
*
Food consumption as given in Table VII-2. The
calculations assume that all meat, fish, and
poultry are game from contaminated areas and
have a mirex concentration of 0.04 ppm.
Vegetables grown in the southeastern United States on land where
mirex bait has been applied may also have been contaminated by root up-
take; however, no data have been found to prove that any such vegetables
actually contain mirex. Section VII-A-1 of this report indicates that
plants grown in these areas may be contaminated at the order of 1 ppt.
According to Table VIII-2, U.S. citizens ingest on the average of about
200 g/day per person of all types of vegetables. Assuming that these are
all mirex-contaminated at the 1-ppt level would result in an average ex-
posure of 0.2 ng/day.
129
-------
Residents of Hawaii may have some exposure to mirex from its use to
control the pineapple mealybug. Most wild species sampled in Hawaii for
mirex are not directly consumed by humans but may indicate potential
mirex concentrations present in the human food chain. Surveillance
samples have shown mirex concentrations of ppb levels. Although it is
rather difficult to extrapolate from these data to estimate human expo-
sures, it might be assumed that some people would consume an average of
10 g/day of such contaminated food. This would yield daily exposures of
much less than 1 yg.
G. Kepone Exposures from Foods Other than Seafood and Mother's Milk
No data have been found to indicate that kepone has contaminated
food other than seafood and mother's milk. Food that might be suspected
of kepone contamination include bananas grown where kepone has been
applied and chicken meat and eggs from chickens fed kepone-contaminated
fishmeal. The kepone in mother's milk from North Carolina, Georgia, and
Alabama probably comes from seafood; however, it may represent an, as yet,
untested source such as a mirex degradation product. Kepone may also be
present in imported food or food products. For example, Brewerton and
Slad (1964) report on kepone residues in apples from crops that had been
treated with kepone pesticides in New Zealand.
Human exposure to kepone may occur from ingesting ants that have
eaten kepone bait. children, for example, may eat on purpose or ant
bodies may have been mixed accidentally in foods. This type of exposure
would probably occur on a one-time basis; however, because of habit or
poor housekeeping, for some individuals the exposure could persist.
An ant may eat several times its own weight per day over several
feedings. Assuming that a 10-mg ant eats its own weight in 0.125% kepone
bait, it could contain 12.5 jjg of kepone. Human exposure then might be
multiples of 12.5 Mg, depending on the number of ants ingested.
Residents of Puerto Rico may be exposed to kepone used to control
the banana root borer. The exposure route would be from ingesting fish
or animals that might be directly or indirectly contaminated. No data
130
-------
have been located to indicate the possible species or magnitude of con-
centration. It has been said that chickens are known to feed in the
Puerto Rican banana fields. Some inference may be drawn as to potential
concentrations in chickens from a test program where hens were fed 75-
to 100-ppm kepone in their feed for 16 weeks. After 5 weeks of treatment,
the kepone content of the egg yolk was 163 and 336 ppm, respectively, for
the two dosage levels. After 13 weeks it was 100 and 214 ppm, respectively
(Naber and Ware, 1965). Environmental sampling has been conducted in
Hawaii where mirex has been used on the pineapple fields. As has been
previously shown, the application of technical mirex to pineapples is much
less than the application of technical kepone to bananas. The geometric
mean of the amount of mirex in the Polynesian rat decreased with time from
1270 to 56 ppb. The geometric mean for residues in mongooses decreased
from 2200 ppb immediately after application to 238 ppb 39 weeks later.
While not conclusive, these data indicate that species of animals feeding
in the banana fields may have kepone concentrations on the order of ppm
levels following1 application.
131
-------
IX MIREX AND KEPONE IN HUMAN BODIES
The entrance and persistence of environmental concentrations of
mirex and kepone in human bodies is confirmed by monitoring human tissue,
blood, mother's milk, etc.
The first discoveries of mirex residues in human adipose tissue
were reported by Kutz et al. (1974). Positive identifications were
found in six cadavers, all of whom had resided in southeastern states;
concentrations ranged from 0.16 to 5.94 ppm.
The Ecological Monitoring Branch of the Environmental Protection
Agency is currently monitoring human adipose tissue for mirex and kepone.
Plans are to analyze 500 samples from southeastern states. (Pesticide
Chemical News, August 25, 1976.) Evaluation of the first 284 of these
samples showed 52 (18%) positive. The mirex residue concentrations in
the positive samples ranged between trace amounts to 1.32 ppm on a wet
weight basis. By state, the number of samples and the percent for mirex
are: Louisiana, 47, 40%; Mississippi, 28, 32%; Georgia, 51, 24%;
Alabama, 27, 11%; South Carolina, 17, 6%; Florida, 53, 6%; Texas, 52, 0%;
and North Carolina, 9, 0% (Pesticide Chemical News, October 20, 1976).
Of 1435 mother's milk samples taken throughout the country, none was
shown to contain detectable concentrations of mirex. However, 9 of 298
mother's milk samples tested contained kepone. All positive samples were
from southeastern states (Bondell, 1977).
Venous blood samples were drawn from 216 people who resided within
1.8 km of the Life Sciences' plant in Hopewell, Virginia. Of these 216
samples, 40 (approximately 19%) contained kepone concentrations of 5 to
50 ppb. The remaining 176 samples contained evidence of nondetectable
levels of kepone; however, these levels were below the measurable levels
of <5 ppb. Thirty-six of these forty positive samples., were from the
residential area within 0.4 km of the plant. None of the people reported
having worked at either Life Sciences or the Allied Chemical Co. (U.S.
EPA, 1975b).
132
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alley, E. G., "The Use of Mirex in Control of the Imported Fire Ant,"
J. Evir. Quality, 2_(1):52-61 (1973).
Atallah, Y. H. and H. W. Dorough, "Insecticide Residues in Cigarette Smoke.
Transfer and Fate in Rats," J. Agr. Food Chem. , 23(1):64-71 (1975).
Baetcke, K. P., J. D. Cain, and W. E. Poe, "Mirex and DDT Residues in
Fish, Wildlife, and Estuaries," Pesticides Monitoring J.
6U): 14-22 (1972).
Banner, L. H., A. J. Wilson, J. M. Sheppard, J. M. Patrick, L. R. Goodman,
and G. E. Walsh, "Kepone Accumulation, Transfer, and Loss Through
Estuaririe Food Chains," published in "Prepublications of Kepone in
the Marine Environment," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1976).
Bender, M. E., J. E. Douglas, Jr., and R. G. Krutchoff, "Supplemental
Presentation - Relating to the Establishment of Action Levels for
Kepone in Seafood," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Document
Control No. OPP210006 (February 22, 1977).'
Bender, M. E., "Kepone Presentation for January 26, 1977 EPA Public
Hearing," Virginia Institute of Marine Science (1977).
Bevenue, A., J. N. Ogata, L. S. Tengan, and J. W. Hylin, "Mirex Residues
in Wildlife and Soils, Hawaiian Pineapple Growing Areas - 1972-1974,"
Pesticides Monitoring J., JK3):141-149 (1975).
Bo, L., "A Longitudinal Study of Protein, Nitrogen, and Lactose Content
of Human Milk from Swedish Well Nourished Mothers," Am. J.
Clin. Nutrition, 2^:1127-1133 (1976).
Bond, C. A., D. W. Woodham, E. H. Ahrens, and J. G. Medley, "The Cumulation
and Disappearance of Mirex Residues II. In Milk and Tissues of Cows
Fed Two Concentrations of the Insecticide in Their Diet," Bull.'
Envir. Contamination and Toxicol. , 14_(1):25-31 (1975).
Bondell, J., Private Communications, U.S. EPA Health Effects Branch,
Washington, D.C. (April 6, 1977).
Borthwick, P. W., G. H. Cook, and J. M. Patrick, Jr., "Residues in Fish,
Wildlife and Estuaries," Pesticides Monitoring J., 7/3/4): 144-145
(1974).
Borthwick, P. W., T. W. Duke, A. J. Wilson, J. I. Lowe, J. M. Patrick,
and J. C. Oberheu, "Residues in Fish, Wildlife, and Estuaries,"
Pesticides Monitoring J., 7(1);6-26 (1973).
133
-------
Brewerton, H. V. and D. A. Slade, "Kepone Residues on Apples," New
Zealand J. of Agric. Res.. _7(4):647-653 (1964).
California State Department of Food and Agriculture, "Pesticide Use
Report" (1976).
Chambers, A. W., "Correspondence to the Environmental Protection Agency
(November 24, 1975).
Chambers, A. W., "Information Pertaining to Mirex," Hooker Chemicals
and Plastics Corp.,"Correspondence to G. A. Shanahan (May 21, 1976).
Chem. Week, "End of Line for Kepone," m.(26):10 (1975).
Chem. Week, "End of Line for Mirex" (November 3, 1976).
Clista, T., Personal Communications, Water Quality Bureau, Department
of Environmental Resources, Pennsylvania (February 9, 1977).
Collins, H. L., G. P. Markin, and J. Davis, "Residue Accumulation in
Selected Vertebrates Following a Single Aerial Application of
Mirex Bait, Louisiana - 1971-72," Pesticides Monitoring J.
8.(2)J125-130 (1974).
Council for Agriculture, Science, and Technology, "Fire Ant Control,"
CAST Report No. 62, Iowa State University (1976).
DEC, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Rome
Analytical Laboratory Data (1976a).
DEC, Memorandum - W. Stone to S. Free (August 9, 1976c).
DEC, Memorandum - W. Stone to S. Free (August 26, 1976b)
De La Cruz, A. A. and B. Raj anna, "Mirex Incorporation in the Environ-
ment: Uptake and Distribution in Crop Seedings,"
Envir. Contamination and Toxic._, IjUD : 38-42 (1975).
Department of Environmental Conservation, "Progress Report - The Problem
of Mirex in Lake Ontario," New York State (1976d).
Esenther, G. R. and D. E. Gray, "Subterranean Termite Studies in
Southern Ontario," the Canadian Entomologist, 100:827-834 (1968).
FDA, "Compliance Program Evaluation - FY77 Kepone and Mirex Contamination,"
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1977).
FDA, News Release (February 2, 1976).
Finch, R., "Effects of Regulatory Guidelines on the Intake of Mercury
from Fish—The MECCA Project," Fishery Bull. , 7^(3) :615-626 (1973).
134
-------
Ford, J. H., J. C. Hawthorne, and G. P. Markin, "Residues in Food and
Feed," Pesticides Monitoring J., U2):87-94 (1973).
Forest, H., "Mirex - A New Persistent Pesticide in Lake Ontario," The
Rochester Committee for Scientific Information Bulletin No. 199
(1976).
Friedman, G. D., "Smoking Among White, Black, and Yellow Men and Women,
Kaiser-Permanente Multiphase Health Examination Data, 1964-1968,"
Am. J. Epid.. 96_(1): 23-35 (1972).
Glancey, B. M., W. Roberts, and J. Spence, "Honey-Bee Population Exposed
to Bait Containing Mirex Applied for Control of Imported Fire Ants,"
Am. Bee J., 110(8):314 (1970).
Great Lakes Basin Commission, "Great Lakes Basin Framework Study,
Appendix 8, Fish," (1975).
Gross, M. G., Oceanography - A View of the Earth (Prentice Hall,
New Jersey, 1972).
Guckel, W. etal., Pesticide Sciences, 4_:137-147 (1973).
Hawthorne, J. C., J. H. Ford, C. D. Loftis, and G. P. Markin, "Mirex in
Milk from Southeastern United States," Bull. Envir. Contamination
and Toxic.. 11(3):238-24Q (1974a).
Hawthorne, J. C., J. H. Ford, and G. P. Markin, "Residues of Mirex and
Other Chlorinated Pesticides in Commercially Raised Catfish,"
Bull, Envir. Contamination and Toxic., _U(3);258-264 (1974b).
Holden, C., "Mirex: Persistent Pesticide on Its Way Out," Science,
194:301-303 (1976).
IJC, "Residue Analysis Reports," (0118, 0119, 0047, and 0048) Provincial
Pesticide Residue Testing Laboratory, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture
and Food (1976).
Jaeger, R. J. , "Kepone Chronology," Science", 194;93 (1976).
-Johnson, J. M., A. M. Dollar, and D. C. Cox, "Mirex Monitoring in Hawaii,
A Cooperative Venture," J. Envir. Health, 38(4):254-258
(1976).
Kaiser, K. L., "Mirex: An Unrecognized Contaminant of Fishes from Lake
Ontario," Science, 185_:523-525 (1974).
Keh, B., N. T. Brownfield, and M. E. Person, "Experimental Use of Bait
with Mirex Lethal to Both Adult and Immature Vespula Pennsylvania
(Hymenoptera: -Vespidae)," Calif. Vector News, 15;. 115-118 (1968).
135
-------
Kelly, B., The Invention of Kepone: It Looked Great on Paper," Washing-
ton Star (September 21, 1976).
Krutchkoff, R. C., "Brief Summary of the Kepone Data Analysis and the
Kepone 'What If -Program," Virginia Polytechnic Institute (1977).
Kuntz, F. W., A. R. Yobs, W. G. Johnson, and G. B. Wiersma, "Mirex
Residues in Human Adipose Tissue," Envir. Entomology, ^(5):
882-884 (1974).
La Bovit, C., "Foods Eaten Away from Home," U.S-. Department of Agricul-
ture (1970).
Lane, R. H., "Influence of Food Processing on Mirex," Dissertation,
Louisiana State University (1973).
Lang, E. P., A. M. Kales, H. M. Bollinger, and J. M. Dimitroff, "Sr-90
and Cs-137 Content of Total Diet," J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem.,
46:749-767 (1963)
Markin, G. P., J. H. Ford, J. C. Hawthorne, J. H. Spence, J. Davis,
H. L. Collins, and C. D. Loftis, "The Insecticide Mirex and
Techniques for Its Monitoring," U.S. Department of Agriculture
(1972a).
Markin, G. P., J. H. Ford, and J. C. Hawthorne, "Mirex Residues in
Wild Populations of the Edible Red Crawfish," Bull. Envir.
Contamination and Toxic., £(6):369-374 (1972b).
Markin, G. P., J. C. Hawthorne, H. L. Collins, and J. H. Ford, "Levels
of Mirex and Some Other Organochlorine Residues in Seafood from
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal States," Pesticides Monitoring J.,
1(3/4):139-143 (1974).
McManus, R., Personal Communications, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (February 4, 1977).
Miller, M. M. and D. A. Nash, "Regional and Other Related Aspects of
Shellfish Consumption—Some Preliminary Findings from the 1969
Consumer Panel Survey," National Marine Fisheries Service, circ.
361 (1971).
Naber, E. C. and G. W. Ware, "Effect of Kepone and Mirex on Reproductive
Performance in the Laying Hen," Poultry Sci. , 44_:875-880 (1965).
Nagvi, S. M. and A. A. De La Cruz, "Mirex Incorporation in the
Environment: Residues in Non-Target Organisms - 1972," Pesticides
Monitoring J. , 7_(2): 104-111 (1973).
Nash, D. A., "A Survey of Fish Purchases by Socioeconomic Characteristics,"
Annual Report February 1969 - January 1970, Working Paper No. 50,
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (1970).
136
-------
National Marine Fisheries Service, "Great Lakes Fisheries, Annual Summary
1974," Current Fisheries Statistics No. 7231 (August 10, 1976).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, "Current Fisheries Statis-
tics, No. 6952: Maryland Landings," U.S. Department of Commerce
1976a).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, "Current Fisheries Statis-
tics, No. 6953: Virginia Landings," U.S. Department of Commerce
(1976b).
N10SH, "Recommendations for a Kepone Standard," Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare (February 2, 1976).
Norman, C., "The Little Nipper Who Cost the South a Fortune," Nature
(London), 255.(5504) : 94-95 (1975).
Oberheu, J. C., "The Occurrence of Mirex in Starlings Collected in Seven
Southeastern States - 1970," Pesticides Monitoring Journal,
41-42 (1972).
Ohlendorf, H. M. , E. K. Klass, and T. E. Kaiser, "Environmental Pollution
in Relation to Estuarine Birds," U.S. Bureau of Sports, Fisheries
and Wildlife (1974).
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, "Insecticide Mirex Found in Lake
Ontario Fish," News Release (July 16, 1976).
Pesticide Chemical News, "EPA Notes Estimate of 100,000 Pounds of Kepone
in the James River" (November 3, 1976).
Pesticide Chemical News. "Human Tissue Samples Analyzed for Mirex Will Be
Analyzed for Kepone" (August 25, 1976).
Pesticide Chemical News. "Mirex Human Tissue Sample Results to Date
Show 52 of 284 Samples Positive" (October 20, 1976).
Pesticide Chemical News. "Mirex Samples from Mississippi Plant Contain
Kepone at 0.25 to 2.58 ppm Levels" (August 4, 1976).
Pesticide Chemical News. "No Action Taken on Violative Kepone Residues in
Pennsylvania Sport Fish" (August 11, 1976).
Pileggi, J. and Thompson, B. G. , "Fishery Statistics of the United States
1973," Statistical Digest No. 67, National Marine Fisheries Service
(1976).
Shapley, D. , "Mirex and the Fire Ant: Decline in Fortunes of a 'Perfect*
Pesticide." Science. 192:358-360 (1971).
137
-------
Siler, L., Pediatric News (February 1976).
Smith, J. C. and F. S. Arent, "Residues of Kepone in Milk from Cows
Deceiving Treated Feed," J. Econ. Entomology, ^0_(4): 925-927 (1967).
Spagnoli, J. J., "Mirex Data," Memorandum NYSDEC (September 16, 1976).
Sperrie, J. H. and G. P. Markin, "Mirex Residues in the Physical Environ-
ment Following a Single Bait Application, 1971-1972," Pesticides
Monitoring J., 8/2):135-139 (1974).
Sports Fishing Institute, "Overreaction in New York," SFI Bulletin
No. 280, (November-December 1976a).
Statistical Abstracts of the United States, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census (1975).
Statistical Abstracts of the United States, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census (1976).
Syracuse Herald-Journal, "Fish Near Massena Infected," (January 6, 1977).
Syracuse Herald-Journal, "PCB Test Due for Women" (January ;4, 1977).
Syrotynski, S., Personal Communications, New York State Health Depart-
ment (February 9, 1977).
Thorslund, T. W. and G. K. O'Mara, "Mathematical Evaluation of Kepone
Action Levels," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1977).
Toxic Materials News, "EPA Says Kepone Levels in James River, Chesapeake
Bay Cause for Concern" (December 27, 1976).
Toxic Materials News, "Kepone Defendent Pleads Guilty; Contaminated
Fish Found Along East Coast" (August 18, 1976).
Toxic Materials News, "A Weakened Mirex Regains Widespread Use Before
Final Expiration" (April 6, 1977).
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, "Protection of Environment," title 40,
par. 180.287 (1976).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Food and Nutrient Intake of Individuals
in the United States, Spring 1965," Household Food Consumption
Surveys 1965-1966, Report No. 1 (1972).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, "The Insecticide Mirex and Techniques
for its Monitoring," APHIS 81-3 (1972).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "CRPAR Checklist—Kepone" (1976a).
138
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Carcinogenic Risk Assessment of
Kepone," Prepared by: Internal Review/RPAR Section Head, Metabolic
Effects Branch (1976c).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA Compendium of Registered
Pesticides" (May 31, 1969).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA Compendium of Registered
Pesticides" (May 30, 1973).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Kepone (Chlordecone)," Federal
Register 41(59):12333-12335 (March 25, 1976b).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Kepone: Position Document 3,"
OPP-66019, Kepone Working Group, Unpublished (1976d).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs,
Criteria and Evaluation Division, Kepone - Unpublished Report (1975a).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Preliminary Report on Kepone Levels
Found in Environmental Samples from the Hopewell, Virginia Area,"
Unpublished Report, Health Effects Research Laboratory (1975b).
U.S. Public Health Service, "Radiological Health Handbook," U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, pp. 192-193 (I960).
U.S. House of Representatives Hearings, "Fire Ant Eradication Program,"
Committee on Agriculture, Serial No. 94-T (June 26, 1975).
Van Hove Holdrinet, M., R. Frank, R. L. Thomas, and L. J. Hetling,
"Mirex in the Sediments of Lake Ontario," International Joint
Commission (1977).
Van Middelman, C. M., G. Bakus, J.R.M. Innes, C. Lincoln, L. Newsom,
and J. Radmonski, "Report of the Mirex Advisory Committee to
William D. Ruckelhaus, Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency," Environmental Protection Agency (1972).
Wagner, R. E. and D. A. Revison, "Yellowjacket Control with a Specific
Mirex - Protein Bait," California Agriculture, 25^:8-10 (1971).
Weightwatchers Program Handbook for Ladies (1974).
Wolfe, J. L. and B. R. Norment, "Accumulation of Mirex Residues in
Selected Organisms After Aeral Treatment, Mississippi - 1971-1972,"
Pesticides Monitoring J. , _7(2): 112-116 (1973),
139
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO. 2
EPA-600/1-78-045
. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
HUMAN POPULATION EXPOSURES TO MIREX AND KEPONE
. AUTHOR(S)
Senjamin E. Suta
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
-enter for Resource & Environmental Systems Studies
Stanford Research Institute
fcnlo Park, California
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Dffice of Research and Development
J.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St. S.W.
Washington, B.C. 20h60
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION* NO.
5. REPORT DATE
5/78
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1HA630
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-U311*
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Criteria Document
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer - Alan P. Carlin
6. ABSTRACT
Human exposures to mirex and kepone are assessed in this study. Three major paths
of exposure are examined: ingestion through the food chain, inhalation of atmospheric
nirex and ker>one, and exposure through drinking water.
Exposure through the food chain appears to "be the most pressing current problem.
Various species of commercially caught fish in certain areas of the country have
seen found to contain slight amounts of the compounds. It is difficult to obtain
estimates of the human exposure from sport fish, but evidence seems to suggest that
sportsmen and their families may be exposed through fish. Also, game captured in
the southeastern U.S. has been found to contain the compounds. Kepone has been
found in mothers' milk in some areas of the country.
Atmospheric exposures are not considered terribly great nov, since the compounds
are no longer produced and the major atmospheric exposures are believed to be
occupational exposure at the producing factory and exposure to workers' families
from clothing, etc.
Human exposure to mirex and kepone from drinking water supplies does not
appear to be a problem, since both compounds are very insoluble in water.
Exposure through tobacco was also considered.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a - DESCRIPTORS
hazardous materials
insecticides
pest control
pesticides
poisons
pollution
19. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Distribution Unlimited - Available through:
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, Va. 22151
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
mirex
kepone
environmental exposure
19 SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20 SECURITY CLASS (This page )
Unclassified
c. COSATI Fierd/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
lU-3
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
4 US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1978—S6J-SSO/S3
------- |