oEPA
United States       Office of Science and Technology and
Environmental Protection  Office of Research and Development
Agency         Washington, DC 20460
Equilibrium Partitioning
Sediment Guidelines (ESGs)
for the Protection of Benthic
Organisms: Endrin
                                   >•.-;-: s
            f  •* * v*	* V T.': -*-^T~ ' '^ r

-------
&EPA
         United States
         Environmental Protection
         Agency
            Office of Science and Technology and
            Office of Research and Development
            Washington, DC 20460
Equilibrium Partitioning
Sediment Guidelines (ESGs)
for the Protection of Benthie
Organisms: Endrin


-------
Foreword
               Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
               States develop programs for protecting the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
               nation's waters. To meet the objectives of the CWA, EPA has periodically issued ambient water
               quality criteria (WQC) beginning with the publication of "Water Quality Criteria, 1972" (NAS,
               1973). The development of WQC is authorized by Section 304(a)(l) of the CWA, which directs
               the Administrator to develop and publish "criteria" reflecting the latest scientific knowledge on
               (1) the kind and extent of effects on human health and welfare, including effects on plankton, fish,
               shellfish, and wildlife, that may be expected from the presence of pollutants in any body of water,
               Including ground water; and (2) the concentration and dispersal of pollutants on biological
               community diversity,  productivity, and stability. All criteria guidance through late 1986 was
               summarized in an EPA document entitled "Quality Criteria for Water, 1986" (U.S. EPA, 1987).
               Updates on WQC documents for selected chemicals and new criteria recommendations for other
               pollutants have been more recently published as "National Recommended Water Quality Criteria-
               Correction" (U.S. EPA, 1999). EPA will continue to update the nationally recommended WQC
               as needed in the future.

               In addition to the development of WQC and to continue to meet the objectives of the CWA, EPA
               has conducted efforts to develop and publish equilibrium partitioning sediment guidelines (ESGs)
               for some of the 65 toxic pollutants or toxic pollutant categories.  Toxic contaminants in bottom
               sediments of the nation's lakes, rivers, wetlands, and coastal waters  create the potential for
               continued environmental degradation even where water column contaminant levels meet
               applicable  water quality standards.  In addition, contaminated sediments can lead to water quality
               impacts, even when direct discharges to the receiving water have ceased. These guidelines are
               authorized under Section 304(a)(2) of the CWA, which directs the Administrator to develop and
               publish information on, among other things, the factors necessary to restore and maintain the
               chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all navigable waters.

               The ESGs and associated methodology presented in this document are EPA's best recommendation
               as to the concentrations of a substance that may be present in sediment while still protecting
               benthic organisms from the effects of that substance. These guidelines are applicable to a variety
               of freshwater and marine sediments because they are based on the biologically available
               concentration of the substance in the sediments.  These ESGs are intended to provide protection to
               benthic organisms from direct toxicity due to this substance. In some cases, the additive toxicity
               for specific classes of toxicants (e.g., metal mixtures or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
               mixtures) is addressed. The ESGs do not protect against synergistic or antagonistic effects of
               contaminants or bioaccumulative effects to benthos. They are not protective of wildlife or human
               health endpoints.

               EPA recommends that ESGs be used as a complement to existing sediment assessment tools,  to
               help assess the extent of sediment contamination, to help identify chemicals causing toxicity,  and
               to serve as targets for pollutant loading control measures. EPA is developing guidance to assist in
               the application of these guidelines in water-related programs of the States and this Agency.

               This document provides guidance to EPA Regioas, States, the regulated community, and the
               public.  It is designed to implement national policy concerning the matters addressed.  It does not,
               however, substitute for the CWA or EPA's regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it
               cannot impose legally binding requirements on EPA, States,  or the regulated community. EPA
               and State decisionmakers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that
              differ from this guidance where appropriate. EPA may change this guidance in the future.
                                                                                                  ill

-------
                 This document has been reviewed by EPA's Office of Science and Technology (Health and
                 Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC) and Office of Research and Development (Mid-
                 Continent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN; Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI), and
                 approved for publication.
                                                                                        i
                 Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
                 recommendation of use.

                 Front cover image provided by Wayne R. Davis and Virginia Lee.
IV

-------
Contents
                 Acknowledgments	..!	be

               ~ Executive Summary	xi

                 Glossary	Xiii

                 Section 1
                 Introduction	11
                 1.1.   General Information	1-1
                 12   General Information: Endrin	1-2
                 13   Applications of Sediment Guidelines	1-4
                 1.4   Overview	.>.„	......:	1-4

                 Section 2
                 Partitioning	2-1
                 2.1   Description of EqP Methodology	2-1
                 22   Determination of KQvf for Endrin	2-2
                 23   Derivation of KQC from Adsorption Studies	2-2
                      23.1   AT0,, from Particle Suspension Studies	2-2
                      2.3.2   K^ from Sediment Toxicity Tests	2-3
                 2.4   Summary of Derivation of K^ for Endrin	....2-4

                 Section 3
                 Toxicity of Endrin in Water Exposures	3-1
                 3.1    Derivation of Endrin WQC	3-1
                 32   Acute Toxicity in Water Exposures	3-1
                 33   Chronic Toxicity in Water Exposures	3-1
                 3.4   Applicability of the WQC as the Effects Concentration
                      for Derivation of the Endrin ESG	3-5

                Section 4
                Actual and Predicted Toxicity of Endrin
                in Sediment Exposures	4-1
                4.1   Toxicity of Endrin in Sediments	4-1
                42   Correlation Between Organism Response and Interstitial Water Concentration	44
                43   Tests of the Equilibrium Partitioning Prediction of Sediment Toxicity	4-6

                Section 5
                Guidelines Derivation for Endrin	5-1
                5.1   Guidelines Derivation	5-1
                52   Uncertainty Analysis	5-2

-------
 Tables

 Table 2-1.    Endrin measured and estimated log,0ATow values	2-2

 Table 3-1.    Test-specific data for chronic sensitivity of freshwater and saltwater
             organisms to endrin	3.4

 Table 3-2.    Summary of freshwater and saltwater acute and chronic values, acute-chronic ratios, and
             derivation of final acute values, final acute-chronic ratios, and final chronic values for endrin	3-5

 Table 3-3.    Results of approximate randomization (AR) test for the equality of the freshwater and saltwater
             FAV distributions for endrin and AR test for the equality of benthic and combined benthic
             and water column (WQC) FAV distributions	3-6

 Table4-l.    Summary of tests with endrin-spiked sediment	4-2

 Table4-2.    Water-only and sediment LC50 values used to test the applicability of the EqP theory for endrin.... 4-7

 Table 5-1.    Equilibrium partitioning sediment guidelines (ESGs) for endrin	5-1

 Table 5-2.    Analysis of variance for derivation of confidence limits of the ESGs for endrin 	5-3

 Table 5-3.    Confidence limits of the ESGs for endrin	5-3



 Figures

 Figure 1-1.   Chemical structure and physical-chemical properties of endrin	1-3

 Figure 2-1.   Observed versus predicted partition coefficients for nonionic organic chemicals
             using Equation 2-4	2-3

 Figure2-2.    Organic carbon-normalized sorption isotherm for endrin and probability plot
             of AQJ, from sediment toxicity tests	2-4

 Figure 3-1.    Genus mean acute values from water-only acute toxicity tests using freshwater species
             versus percentage rank of their sensitivity	3-2

 Figure 3-2.    Genus mean acute values from water-only acute toxicity tests using saltwater species
             versus percentage rank of their sensitivity	3-3

 Figure 3-3.   Probability distribution of FAV difference statistics to compare water-only data from freshwater
            versus saltwater, benthic versus WQC freshwater, and benthic versus
            WQC saltwater data	3-7

 Figure4-1.   Percent mortality of amphipods in sediments spiked with acenaphthene or phenanthrene, endrin,
            or fluoranthene, and midge in sediments spiked with kepone relative to interstitial
            water toxic units	4-5

Figure 4-2.   Percent mortality of amphipods in sediments spiked with acenaphthene or phenanthrene,
            dieldrin, endrin, or fluoranthene, and  midge in sediments spiked with dieldrin relative
            to predicted sediment toxic units	4-8
                                                                                                       VII

-------
                  53   Comparison of Endrin ESG and Uncertainty Concentrations to Sediment
                       Concentrations that are Toxic or Predicted to be Chronically Acceptable	5-3
                  5.4   Comparison of Endrin ESG to STORET and Corps of Engineers,
                       San Francisco Bay Databases for Sediment Endrin	.5-6
                  55   Limitations to the Applicability of ESGs	t	5-9
                  Section 6
                  Guidelines Statement

                  Section 7
                  References	
6-1
7-1
                  Appendix A	A-i

                  Appendix B	B-i
VI

-------
 Figure 5-1.   Predicted genus mean chronic values calculated from water-only toxicity values
             using freshwater species versus percentage rank of their sensitivity	S4

 Figure 5-2.   Predicted genus mean chronic values calculated from water-only toxicity values
             using saltwater species versus percentage rank of their sensitivity	ป	5-5

 Figure 5-3.   Probability distribution of concentrations of endrin in sediments from streams, lakes,
             and estuaries in the United States from 1986 to 1990 from the STORET database compared
             with the endrin ESG values	5-7

 Figure 5-4.   Probability distribution of organic carbon-normalized sediment endrin concentrations from
             the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1991) monitoring program of San Francisco Bay	...5-8
VHl

-------
Acknowledgments
             Coauthors
             Walter J. Berry*

             David J. Hansen

             Dominic M.  Di Toro

             Laurie D, De Rosa
             Heidi E. Bell*
             Mary C. Re iky
             Frank E. Stancil, Jr.
             Christopher S. Zarba
             Robert L, Spehar
U.S. EPA, NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division,
Narragansett, RJ
HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, NJ; Great Lakes Environmental
Center, Traverse City, MI (formerly with U.S. EPA)
Manhattan College, Riverdale, NY; HydroQual, Inc.,
Mahwah, NJ
HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, NJ
U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC
U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC
U.S. EPA, NERL, Ecosystems Research Division, Athens, GA
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC
U.S. EPA, NHEERL, Mid-Continent Ecology Division,
Duluth, MN
             Significant Contributors to the Development of the Approach and Supporting Science
             Herbert E. Allen
             Gerald T. Ankley

             Christina E. Cowan
             Dominic M. Di Toro

             David J. Hansen

             Paul R. Paquin
             Spyros P. Pavlou
             Richard C. Swartz
             Nelson A. Thomas
University of Delaware, Newark, DE
U.S. EPA, NHEERL, Mid-Continent Ecology Division,
Duluth, MN
The Procter & Gamble Co., Cincinnati, OH
Manhattan College, Riverdale, NY; HydroQual, Inc.,
Mahwah, NJ
HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, NJ; Great Lakes Environmental
Center, Traverse City, MI (formerly with U.S. EPA)
HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, NJ
Ebasco Environmental, Bellevue, WA
Environmental consultant (formerly with U.S. EPA)
U.S. EPA, NHEERL, Mid-Continent Ecology Division,
Duluth, MN (retired)
             Christopher S. Zarba        U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC
             Technical Support and Document Review
             Patricia DeCastro          OAO Corporation, Narragansett, RI
             Robert A. Hoke            E.I. DuPont deNemours and Company, Newark, DE
             Heinz P. Kollig            U.S. EPA, NERL, Ecosystems Research Division, Athens, GA
             Tyler K. Linton            Great Lakes Environmental Center, Columbus, OH
             Robert L. Spehar           U.S. EPA, NHEERL, Mid-Continent Ecology Division,
                                     Duluth, MN
             *Principal U.S. EPA contact
                                                                                       IX

-------
Executive  Summary
               This equilibrium partitioning sediment guideline (ESG) document recommends a sediment
               concentration for the insecticide endrin that is EPA's best estimate of the concentration protective
               of the presence of benthic organisms. The equilibrium partitioning (EqP) approach was chosen
               because it accounts for the varying biological availability of chemicals indifferent sediments and
               allows for incorporation of the appropriate biological effects concentration. This provides for the
               derivation of a guideline that is causally linked to the specific chemical,  applicable across
               sediments, and appropriately protective of benthic organisms.

               EqP theory holds that a nonionic chemical in sediment partitions between sediment organic
               carbon, interstitial (pore) water and benthic organisms. At equilibrium, if the concentration in
               any one phase is known, then the concentration in the others can be predicted. The ratio of the
               concentration in water to the concentration in organic carbon is termed the organic carbon
               partition coefficient (K^), which is a constant for each chemical. The ESG Technical Basis
               Document (U.S. EPA, 2000a) demonstrates that biological responses of benthic organisms lo
               nonionic organic chemicals in sediments are different across sediments when the sediment
               concentrations are expressed on a dry weight basis, but similar when expressed on a ;^g
               chemical/g organic carbon basis (//g/g^). Similar responses were also observed across sediments
               when interstitial water concentrations were used to normalize biological  availability. The
               Technical Basis Document further demonstrates that if the effect concentration in water is known,
               the effect concentration in sediments on a ^g/g^ basis can be accurately  predicted by multiplying
               the effect concentration in water by the chemical's A^,.  Because the water quality criteria
               (WQC) is the concentration of a chemical in water that is protective of the presence of aquatic
               life, and is appropriate for benthic organisms, the product of the final chronic value (FCV) from
               the WQC and K^ represents the concentration in sediments that, on an organic carbon basis, is
               protective of beathic organisms.  For eodrin this concentration is 5.4 /j.g endrin/g^ for freshwater
               sediments and 0.99 MS/goc fฐr saltwater sediments. Confidence limits of 2.4 to li^g/g^ for
               freshwater sediments and 0.44 to 2.2 /^g/g,^ for saltwater sediments were calculated using the
               uncertainty associated with the degree to which toxicity could be predicted by multiplying the K^
               and the water-only effects concentration.  The ESG should be interpreted  as a chemical
               concentration below which adverse effects are not expected. In comparison, at concentrations
               above the ESG effects are likely, and above the upper confidence limit effects are expected if the
               chemical is bioavailable as predicted by EqP theory.  A sediment-specific site assessment would
               provide further information on chemical bioavailability and the expectation of toxicity relative to
               the ESG and associated uncertainty limits.

               These guidelines do not protect against additive, synergistic, or antagonistic effects of
               contaminants or bioaccumulative effects to aquatic life, wildlife, or human health.  The Agency
               and the EPA Science Advisory Board do not recommend the use of ESGs as stand-alone, pass-fail
               criteria for all applications; rather, exceedances of ESGs  could trigger additional studies at sites
               under investigation. This ESG applies only to sediments having iO.2% organic carbon.

               EPA has developed both Tier 1  and Tier 2 ESGs to reflect the differing degrees of data availability
               and uncertainty. Requirements for a Tier 1 ESG include a ATOW, FCV, and sediment toxicity tests to
               verify EqP assumptions.  In comparison, a Tier 2 ESG requires a Kovi and a FCV or secondary
               chronic value (SCV); sediment toxicity tests are recommended but not required. The ESGs derived
               for endrin in this document, as well as the ESGs for dieldrin, metal mixtures (Cd, Cu.Pb, Ni, Ag,
              Zn), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) mixtures  represent Tier 1 ESGs (U.S. EPA,
              2000d,e,f). Information on how EPA recommends ESGs be applied in specific regulatory programs
              is described in the "Implementation Framework for the Use of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment
              Guidelines (ESGs)" (EPA, 2000c),
                                                                                                 XI

-------
Glossary of  Abbreviations
              ACR

              ANOVA

              AR

              CFR

              CWA

              DOC

              EC50


              EPA

              EqP

              ESG(s)
             ESG
                 drywt
             ESG,
                 oc
              i
             FACR

             FAV

             FCV

             FDA

            /oc

             FRY

             GMAV

             Soc

             HECD

             HMAV

             IUPAC

             IWTU
            K.
              oc
            K,
              ow
 Acute-chronic ratio                                    i

 Analysis of variance

 Approximate randomization

 Code of Federal Regulations

 Clean Water Act

 Dissolved organic carbon

 Chemical concentration estimated to cause adverse effects to 50% of the test
 organisms within a specified time period

 United States Environmental Protection Agency

 Equilibrium partitioning

 Equilibrium partitioning sediment guideline(s); for nonionic organics, this term
 usually refers to a value that is organic carbon-normalized (more formally
 ESGo,-.) unless otherwise specified

 Dry weight-normalized equilibrium partitioning sediment guideline

 Organic carbon-normalized equilibrium partitioning sediment guideline

 First progeny generation

 Final acute-chronic ratio

 Final acute value

 Final chronic value

 U.S. Food and Drug Administration

 Fraction of organic carbon in sediment

 Final residue value

 Genus mean acute value

 Gram organic carbon

 U.S. EPA, Health and Ecological Criteria Division

 Habitat mean acute value

 International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry

 Interstitial water toxic unit

Organic carbon-water partition coefficient

Octanol-water partition coefficient
                                                                                      XIII

-------
 Kf

 LC50


 LC50
     S oc
 NAS

 NERL

 NHEERL


 NOEC

 NTIS

 OC

 OEC

 OST

 PAH

 PGMCV

 PSTU

 SE      '

 SMACR

 STORET


TOC

TU

WQC
                               Sediment-water partition coefficient

                               The concentration estimated to be lethal to 50% of the test organisms
                               within a specified time period

                                      Organic carbon-normalized LC50 from sediment exposure  *

                               LC50 from water-only exposure

                               National Academy of Sciences

                               U.S. EPA, National Exposure Research Laboratory

                               U .S. EPA, National Health and Environmental Effects Research
                               Laboratory

                               No observed effect concentration

                               National Technical Information Service

                               Organic carbon

                               Observed effect concentration

                               U.S. EPA, Office of Science and Technology

                               Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

                               Predicted genus mean chronic value

                               Predicted sediment toxic unit

                               Standard error

                               Species mean acute-chronic ratio

                               EP A ' s computerized database for STOrage and RETrieval of
                               water-related data

                               Total organic carbon

                               Toxic unit

                               Water quality criteria
XIV

-------
 Section  1
 Introduction
 1.1   General Information

     Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) the U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible
 for protecting the chemical, physical, and biological
 integrity of the nation's waters. In keeping with this
 responsibility, EPA published ambient water quality
 criteria (WQC) in 1980 for 64 of the 65 toxic pollutants
 or pollutant categories designated as toxic in the
 CWA.  Additional water quality documents that update
 criteria for selected consent decree chemicals and new
 criteria have been published since 1980. These WQC
 are numerical concentration limits that are EPA's best
 estimate of concentrations protective of human health
 and the presence and uses of aquatic life. Although
 these WQC play an important role in ensuring a
 healthy aquatic environment, they alone are not
 sufficient to ensure the protection of environmental or
 human health.

    Toxic pollutants in bottom sediments of the
 nation's lakes, rivers, wetlands, estuaries,  and marine
 coastal waters create the potential for continued
 environmental degradation even where water column
 concentrations comply with established WQC. In
 addition, contaminated sediments can be a significant
 pollutant source that may cause water quality
 degradation to persist, even when other pollutant
 sources are stopped.  The absence of defensible
 sediment guidelines makes it difficult to accurately
 assess the extent of the ecological risks of
 contaminated sediments and to identify, prioritize, and
 implement appropriate cleanup activities and source
 controls.

    As a result of the need for a procedure to assist
 regulatory agencies in making decisions concerning
 contaminated sediment problems, the EPA Office of
 Science and Technology, Health and Ecological
 Criteria Division (OST/HECD) established a research
 team to review alternative approaches (Chapman,
 1987). All of the approaches reviewed bad both
strengths and weaknesses, and no single approach was
 found to be  applicable for guidelines derivation in all
situations (U.S. EPA, 1989a). The equilibrium
 partitioning (EqP) approach was selected for nonionic
 organic chemicals because it presented the greatest
 promise for generating defensible, national, numerical
 chemical-specific guidelines applicable across a broad
 range of sediment types.  The three principal
 observations that underlie the EqP approach of
 establishing sediment guidelines are as follows:

 1.   The concentrations of nonionic organic chemicals
     in sediments, expressed on an organic carbon basis,
     and in interstitial waters correlate to observed
     biological effects on sediment-dwelling organisms
     across a range of sediments.

 2.   Partitioning models can relate sediment
     concentrations for nonionic organic chemicals on
     an organic carbon basis to freely-dissolved
     concentrations in interstitial water.

 3.   The distribution of sensitivities of benthic
     organisms to chemicals is similar to that of water
     column organisms; thus, the currently established
     WQC final chronic values (FCV) can be used to
     define the acceptable effects concentration of a
     chemical freely-dissolved hi interstitial water.

     The EqP approach, therefore, assumes that (1) the
 partitioning of the chemical between sediment organic
 carbon and interstitial water is at or near equilibrium;
 (2) the concentration in either phase can be predicted
 using appropriate partition coefficients and the
 measured concentration in the other phase (assuming
 the freely-dissolved  interstitial water concentration can
 be accurately measured); (3) organisms receive
 equivalent exposure from water-only exposures or from
 any equilibrated phase: either from interstitial water
 via respiration, from sediment via ingestion or other
 sediment-integument exchange, or from a mixture of
 exposure routes; (4)  for nonionic chemicals, effect
concentrations in sediments on an organic carbon basis
can be predicted using the organic carbon partition
coefficient (K^) and effects concentrations in water;
(5) the FCV concentration is an appropriate effects
concentration for freely-dissolved chemical hi
interstitial water; and (6) the equilibrium partitioning
                                                                                                   1-1

-------
  sediment guideline (ESG) derived as the product of the
  A^ and FCV is protective of benthic organisms. ESG
  concentrations presented in this document are
  expressed as /ig chemical/g sediment organic carbon
  O^g/goc) anc^not on an interstitial water basis because
  (1) interstitial water is difficult to sample and (2)
  significant amounts of the dissolved chemical may be
  associated with dissolved organic carbon; thus, total
  concentrations in interstitial water may overestimate
  exposure.

     Sediment guidelines generated using the EqP
  approach (i.e., ESGs) are suitable for use in providing
  guidance to regulatory agencies because they are:

  1.   Numerical values

 2.   Chemical specific

 3.   Applicable to most sediments

 4.   Predictive of biological effects

 5.   Protective of benthic organisms

 ESGs are derived using the available scientific data to
 assess the likelihood of significant environmental
 effects to benthic organisms from chemicals in
 sediments in the same way that the WQC are derived
 using the available scientific data to  assess the
 likelihood of significant environmental effects to
 organisms in the water column. As such, ESGs are
 intended to protect benthic organisms from the effects
 of chemicals associated with sediments and, therefore,
 only apply to sediments permanently  inundated with
 water, to intertidal sediment, and to  sediments
 inundated periodically for durations sufficient to permit
 development of benthic assemblages. ESGs should not
 be applied to occasionally inundated soils containing
 terrestrial organisms, nor should  they be used to
 address the question of possible contamination of upper
 trophic level organisms or the synergistic, additive, or
 antagonistic effects of multiple chemicals.  The
 application of ESGs under these conditions may result
 in values lower or higher than those presented in this
 document.
 not yet been reached, sediment chemical concentrations
 less than the ESG may pose risks to benthic organisms.
 This is because for spills, disequilibrium concentrations
 in interstitial and overlying water may be
 proportionally higher relative to sediment  *
 concentrations.  Research has shown that the source or
 "quality" of total organic carbon (TOC) in the
 sediment does not affect chemical binding (DeWitt et
 al., 1992).  However, the physical form of the chemical
 in the sediment may have an effect. At some sites,
 concentrations in excess of the ESG may not pose risks
 to benthic organisms because the compound may be a
 component of a particulate such as coal or soot, or
 exceed solubility such as undissolved oil or chemical.
 In these situations, the national ESG would be overly
 protective of benthic organisms and should not be used
 unless modified using the procedures outlined In
 "Methods for the Derivation of Site-Specific
 Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs)
 for the Protection of Benthic Organisms" (U.S. EPA,
 2000b). The ESG may be underprotective where the
 toxiciry of other chemicals are additive with the ESG
 chemical or where species of unusual sensitivity occur
 at the site.

     This document presents the theoretical basis and
 the supporting data relevant to the derivation of the
 ESG for eodiin.  The data that support the EqP
 approach for deriving an ESG for nonionic organic
 chemicals are reviewed by Di Toro et al. (1991) and
 EPA (U.S.  EPA, 2000a). Before proceeding through
 the following test, tables, and calculations, the reader
 should consider reviewing "Guidelines for Deriving
 Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the
 Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses"
 (Stephanetal., 1985), "Response to Public Comment"
 (U.S. EPA, 1985), and "Technical Basis for the
 Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment
 Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of Benthic
 Organisms: Nonionic Organics" (U.S. EPA, 2000a).
 Guidance for the acceptable use of the ESG values is
 contained in "Implementation Framework for Use of
 Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines  (ESGs)"
 (U.S.EPA,2000c).
    The ESG values presented herein represent EPA's
best recommendation of the concentration of endrin in
sediment that will not adversely affect most benthic
organisms. EPA recognizes that these ESG values may
need to be adjusted to account for future data. They
may also need to be adjusted because of site-specific
considerations.  For example, in spill situations, where
chemical equilibrium between water and sediments has
1.2  General Information: Endrin
    Endrin is the common name of a "broad spectrum"
organochlorine iosecticide/rodenticide. It was
formulated for use as an emulsifiable concentrate, as a
wettable or dusiable powder, or as a granular product.
It has been used with a variety of crops including
cotton, tobacco, sugar cane, rice, and ornamentals.
1-2

-------
One of its major uses in the United States was for
control of Lepidoptera larvae on cotton. During the
1970's and early 1980's its use was increasingly
restricted until it was banned on October 10, 1984, in
part as a result of its observed toxicity to non-target
organisms, bioaccumulation potential, and persistence
[49 CFR 42792 (October 24,1984)].

    Structurally, endrin is a cyclic hydrocarbon having
a chlorine substituted methanobridge structure (Figure
1-1). It is similar to dieldrin, an endo-endo
stereoisomer, and has similar physicochemical
properties, except that it is more easily degraded in the
environment (Wang, 1988). Endrin is a colorless
crystalline solid at room temperature, having a melting
point of about 235 ฐC and specific gravity of 1.7 g/cc at
                     20ฐC. It has a vapor pressure of 0.026 mPa (25ฐC)
                     (Hartley and Kidd, 1987).

                        Endrin is toxic to non-target aquatic organisms,
                     birds, bees, and mammals (Hartley and Kidd, 1987).
                     The acute toxicity of endrin ranges from genus mean
                     acute values (GMAVs) of 0.15 to 716.88 j/g/L for
                     freshwater organisms and 0.037 to 790 /^g/L for
                     saltwater organisms (Appendix A). There is little
                     difference between the acute and chronic toxicity of
                     endrin to aquatic species; acute-chronic ratios (ACRs)
                     range from 1.881 to 4.720 for three species (see Table
                     3-2 in Section 3.3). Endrin bioconcentrates in aquatic
                     animals from 1,450 to 10,000 times the concentration in
                     water (U.S. EPA, 1980). The WQC for endrin (U.S.
                     EPA, 1980) was derived using a Final Residue Value
                    MOLECULAR FORMULA
                    MOLECULAR WEIGHT
                    DENSITY
                    MELTING POINT
                    PHYSICAL FORM
                    VAPOR PRESSURE
                        380.93
                        1.70 g/cc (20ฐQ
                        235 ฐC
                        Colorless crystal
                        0.026 mPa (25ฐC)
           CAS NUMBER:
           TSL NUMBER:
           COMMON NAME:
           TRADE NAME:
           CHEMICAL NAME:
72-20-8
IO 15750
Endrin (also endrine and nendrin)
End rei (Shell); Hexadrin
1,2,3,4,10,10, hexachloro-lR, 4S, 4aS, 5nS, 6,7R, 8R, 8aR-
octahydro-6,7-epoiy-l, 4:5,8-dimethanonaphthalene (IUPAQ
or Hexachlorocpoxy-octahydro-endo-endo-di methanonaphthalene
Figure 1-1.  Chemical structure and physical-chemical properties of endrin (from Hartley and Kidd, 1987).
                                                                                                 1-3

-------
 (FRY) calculated using bioconcentration data and the
 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action level to
 protect marketability of fish and shellfish; therefore,
 the WQC is not "effects based," In contrast, the ESG
 for endrin is effects based. It is calculated from the
 FCV derived in Section 3.


 1.3  Applications of Sediment Guidelines

    ESGs are meant to be used with direct toxicity
 testing of sediments as a method of evaluation. They
 provide a chemical-by-chemical specification of what
 sediment concentrations are protective of benthic
 aquatic life. TheEqP method should be applicable to
 nonionic organic chemicals with a Kow above 3.0.
 Examples of other chemicals to which this methodology
 applies include dieldrin, metal mixtures (Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni,
 Ag, Zn), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
 mixtures.

    EPA has developed both Tier 1 and Tier 2 ESGs to
 reflect the differing degrees of data availability and
 uncertainty. The minimum requirements to derive a Tier
 1 ESG include (1) an octanol-water partitioning
 coefficient (Kow) of the chemical, measured with
 current experimental techniques, which appears to
 remove the large variation in reported values; (2)
 derivation of the FCV, which should also be updated to
 include the most recent lexicological information; and
 (3) sediment toxicity "check" tests to verify EqP
 predictions. Check experiments can be used to verify
 the utility of EqP for a particular chemical.  As such, the
 ESGs derived for nonionic organics, such as dieldrin
 and endrin, metal mixtures, and PAH mixtures represent
 Tier 1 ESGs (U.S. EPA, 2000d,e,f). In comparison, the
 minimum requirements for a Tier 2 ESG include a Kov
 for the chemical (as described  above) and the use of
 either a FCV or secondary chronic value (SC V). The
 performance of sediment toxicity tests is recommended,
 but not required for the development of Tier 2 ESGs.
 Therefore, in comparison to Tier 1 ESGs, the level of
 protection provided by the Tier 2 ESGs would be
 associated with more uncertainty due to the use of the
 SCV and absence of sediment toxicity tests. Examples
 of Tier 2 ESGs for nonionics are found in U.S. EPA
 (ZOOOg). Information on how EPA recommends ESGs be
 applied in specific regulatory programs is described in
 the "Implementation Framework for the Use of
 Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs)"
 (EPA,2000c).
 1.4  Overview
    Section 1 provides a brief review of the EqP
 methodology and a summary of the physical-chemical
 properties and aquatic toxicity of endrin. Section 2
 reviews a variety of methods and data useful in
 deriving partition coefficients for endrin and includes
 the Koc recommended for use in deriving the endrin
 ESG.  Section 3 reviews aquatic toxicity data
 contained in the endrin WQC document (U.S. EPA,
 1980) and new data that were used to calculate the
 FCV used in this document to derive the ESG
 concentration. In addition, the comparative sensitivity
 of benthic and water column species is examined, and
justification is provided for use of the FCV for endrin
 in the derivation of the ESG.  Section 4 reviews data
 on the toxicity of endrin in sediments, the need for
 organic carbon normalization of endrin sediment
 concentrations, and the accuracy of the EqP prediction
 of sediment toxicity using KQC and an effect
 concentration in water. Data from Sections 2, 3, and 4
 were used in Section 5 as the basis for the derivation of
 the ESG for endrin and its uncertainty. The ESG for
endrin is then compared with two databases on endrin's
 environmental occurrence in sediments. Section 6
concludes witi the guideline statement for endrin.
The references cited in this document are listed in
Section?.
1-4

-------
                                  „ __-^ซ.MM'uii
 Section 2
 Partitioning
 2.1   Description of EqP Methodology

     ESGs are the numerical concentrations of
 individual chemicals that are intended to be predictive
 of biological effects, protective of the presence of
 benthic organisms, and applicable to the range of
 natural sediments from lakes, streams, estuaries, and
 near-coastal marine waters. As a result, they can be
 used in much the same way as WQC", tbat is, the
 concentration of a chemical that is protective of the
 intended use, such as aquatic life protection.  For
 nonionic organic chemicals, ESGs are expressed as pg
 chemical/goc and  apply to sediments having iO.2 %
 organic carbon by dry weight. A brief overview
 follows of the concepts that underlie the EqP
 methodology for deriving ESGs. The methodology is
 discussed in detail in "Technical Basis for the
 Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment
 Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of Benthic
 Organisms: Nonionic Organics" (U.S. EPA, 2000a),
 hereafter referred to as the ESG Technical Basis
 Document.

     Bioavailability of a chemical at a particular
 sediment concentration often differs from one sediment
 type to another. Therefore, a method is necessary for
 determining ESGs based on the bioavailable chemical
 fraction in a sediment. For nonionic organic
 chemicals, the concentration-response relationship for
 the biological effect of concern can most often be
 correlated with the interstitial water (i.e., pore  water)
 concentration 0*g  chemical/L interstitial water) and
 not with the sediment chemical concentration 0/g
 chemical/g sediment) (Di Toro et al., 1991). From a
 purely practical point of view, this correlation suggests
 that if it were possible to measure the interstitial
 water chemical concentration, or predict it from the
 total sediment concentration and the  relevant sediment
properties, then that concentration could be used to
 quantify the exposure concentration for an organism.
Thus, knowledge of the partitioning of chemicals
between the solid and liquid phases in a sediment is a
necessary component for establishing ESGs. For this
reason, the methodology described below is called the
EqP method.
     The ESG Technical Basis Document shows that
 benthic species, as a group, have sensitivities similar to
 all benthic and water column species tested (taken as a
 group) to derive the WQC concentration for a wide
 range of chemicals. The data showing this for endrin
 are presented in Section 3.4. Thus, an ESG can be
 established using the FCV, calculated based on the
 WQC Guidelines (Stephan et al., 1985), as the
 acceptable effect concentration in interstitial or
 overlying water (see Section 5).  The partition
 coefficient can then be used to relate the interstitial
 water concentration (i.e., the calculated FCV) to the
 sediment concentration via the partitioning equation.
 This acceptable concentration in sediment is the ESG.

    The ESG is calculated as follows.  Let FCV
 O^g/L) be the acceptable concentration in water for the
 chemical of interest, then compute the ESG using the
 partition coefficient, Kf (L/kgsedjroent), between sediment
 and water
 ESG = KP FCV
(2-1)
This is the fundamental equation used to generate the
ESG. Its utility depends on the existence of a
methodology for quantifying Kf.

    Organic carbon appears to be the dominant sorption
phase for nonionic organic chemicals in naturally
occurring sediments and, thus, controls the
bioavailability of these compounds in sediments.
Evidence for this can be found hi numerous toxicity
tests, bioaccumulation studies, and chemical analyses
of interstitial water and sediments (Di Toro et
al., 1991). The evidence for endrin is discussed in
this section and in Section 4.  The organic carbon
binding of a  chemical in sediment is a function of
that chemical's K^-. and the weight fraction of organic
carbon (/Jx;) in the sediment.  The relationship is as
follows
^•p  "~ foe ^o

It follows that
(2-2)
                                                                                                  2-1

-------
                                               (2~3)
  where ESGOC is die ESG on a sediment organic carbon
  basis. For nonionic organics, "ESG" usually refers to a
  value that is organic carbon-normalized (more formally
  ESGoc) unless otherwise specified.

      KQC is not usually measured directly (although it
  can be done; see Section 2.3). Fortunately, X^ is
  closely related to the octanol-water partition
  coefficient (^ow) (Equation 2-5), which has been
  measured for many compounds and can be measured
  very accurately. The next section reviews the
  available information on the ATOW for endrin.
2.2
       Determination of Kovf for Endrin
     Several approaches have been used to determine
 •^ow ^or ^e derivation of an ESG, as discussed in the
 ESG Technical Basis Document. In an examination of
 the literature, primary references were found listing
 measured log10ATow values for endrin ranging from 4.40
 to 5.19 and estimated Iog1(fiovi values ranging from
 3.54 to 5 .60 (Table 2-1 ). Karickhoff and Long ( 1 995 ,
 1996) established a protocol for recommending ATQW
 values for uncharged organic chemicals based on the
 best available measured, calculated, and estimated
 data. The recommended log,,^^ value of 5.06 for
 endrin from Karickhoff and' Long (1995) will be used to
 derive the ESG for endrin.
 2.3   Derivation of Koc from Adsorption
       Studies

     Two types of experimental measurements of K^
 are available.  The first type involves experiments
 designed to measure the partition coefficient in particle
 suspensions. The second type is from sediment toxicity
 tests in which sediment endrin, sediment organic
 carbon (OC) and freely-dissolved endrin in interstitial
 water were used to compute K^; endrin associated
 with dissolved organic carbon (DOC) was nqt included.


 2.3.1 Kocfrom Particle Suspension Studies

    Laboratory studies to characterize adsorption are
 generally conducted using particle suspensions. The
 high concentrations of solids and turbulent conditions
 necessary to keep the mixture in suspension make data
 interpretation difficult as a result of the particle
 interaction effect.  This effect suppresses the partition
 coefficient relative to that observed for undisturbed
 sediments (Di Toro, 1985; Mackay and Powers, 1987).

    Based on analysis of an extensive body of
experimental data for a wide range of compound types
and experimental conditions, the particle interaction
model (Di Toro, 1985) yields the following relationship
for estimating K
                                                     Kf =
                                             (2-4)
                                                     where m is the particle concentration in the suspension
                                                     (kg/L) and ox, an empirical constant, is 1.4.  The KQC
                                                     is given by
                                                                          ฐ-983
                                                                                     ow
                                                                                                 (2-5)
                                                         Figure 2-1 compares observed partition coefficient
                                                     data for the reversible component with predicted values
                                                     estimated with the particle interaction model
                                                     (Equations 2-4 and 2-5) for a wide range of compounds
Table 2-1. Endrin measured
Method
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
and estimated log19Kow values
Log10A:ow
4.40
4.92
5.01
5.19
354
5.40
5.60

Reference
Rapaport and Eisenreich,


1984
Ellington and Stancil, 1988
Eadsforth, 1986
DeBruijnetai.,1989
Mabeyetal., 1982
Karickhoff et al., 1989
Neeley eta). ,1974





2-2

-------
 (DiToro, 1985).  The observed partition coefficient for
 endrin using adsorption data (Sharom et al.,  1980) is
 highlighted on this plot. The observed IogloKp of 2.04
 reflects significant particle interaction effects.  The
 observed partition coefficient is about nine times lower
 than the value expected in the absence of particle
 effects (i.e., log,^ = 2.98 fiomf^^ = 958 L/kg).
 In the absence of particle effects, KQ^. is related to KOVJ
 via Equation 2-5.  For log10ATow = 5.06 (see Section
 2.2),  this expression results in an estimate of log,
 = 4.97.
2.3.2  K^from Sediment Toxicity  Tests
    Measurements of K^ were available from the
sediment toxicity tests using endrin (Nebeker et al.,
1989; Schuytemaetal., 1989; Stehly, 1992).  These
tests used different freshwater sediments having a
range of organic carbon contents of 0.07% to 11.2%
(see Table 4-1; Appendix B). Endrin concentrations
were measured in the sediment and interstitial waters,
providing the data necessary to calculate the partition
coefficient for an undisturbed bedded sediment. In the
               case of the data reported by Schuytema et al. (1989),
               the concentration of endrin in the overlying water at
               the end of the 10-day experiment was used. Nebeker et
               al. (1989) demonstrated in their experiments, which
               were static and run hi the same way as those of
               Schuytema et al.  (1989), that overlying water and
               interstitial water  endrin concentrations were similar.
               Figure 2-2A is a plot of the organic carbon-normalized
               sorption isotherm for endrin, where the sediment endrin
               concentration (ug/goc) is plotted versus freely-dissolved
               interstitial water  concentration (^g/L). The data used
               to make this plot  are included in Appendix B. The line
               of unity slope corresponding to the log,^^ = 4.97
               derived from the endrin log10Kow of 5.06 from
               Karickhoff and Long (1995) is compared with the data.
               A probability plot of the observed experimental
               logjg/Toc values is shown in Figure 2-2B. The log^^,
               values were approximately normally distributed, with a
               mean of logj^^ — 4.67 and a standard error of the
               mean (SE) of 0.04.  This value agrees with the
               Iog10 XQC = 4.97, which was computed using the
               endrin log10Xow of 5.06 from Karickhoff and Long
               (1995) using Equation2-5.
                 &S
                        -2
024

 Predicted log, A (L/kg)
 Figure 2-1.  Observed versus predicted partition coefficients for nonionic organic chemicals using Equation 2-4
             (figure from DiToro, 1985).  Endrin datum is highlighted (Sharom et al., 1980).
                                                                                                    2-3

-------
2.4   Summary of Derivation of Koc for
      Endrin
    The XQC seated to calculate the ESG for endrin
was based on the regression of logj^^ to Iog10ฃ"ow
(Equation 2-5) using the endrin logI0^ow of 5.06 from
Karickhoff and Long (1995).  This approach, rather than
use of the AT^ from the toxicity tests, was adopted
                                   because the regression equation is based on the most
                                   robust dataset available that spans a broad range of
                                   chemicals and particle types, thus encompassing a wide
                                   range of ATOW and/^ values.  The regression equation
                                   yieldedalog10A"ocof4.97. This value was ta
                                   agreement with the log,^^ of 4.67 measured in the
                                   sediment  toxicity tests.
                    a
                    o
                    •a
                    2
                    u
                    a
                    o
                    U
                    u
o
•a

I
                         10000
                          1000
                          100
        10
                              -  A
                           0.1
                Nebeker et aL, 1989
                Schuytcma et aL, 1989
                Stehly, 1992
                                                                             T 11 nra
                                 I  I  I U
                                                                              I  I I 11111
         0.91
                                        9.1          1          10          100

                                         Interstitial Water Concentration
                                                                                    1000
                           6.0
                           5.5
                           5.0
                           4.5 -
                           4.0
                           3.0
                               TTTtTIffl  TTT

                                 B
                                                                  !•••
                                                                         U_i_JWULLL
                             0.1      1         19   29     50     89   99        99

                                                      Probability
        Figure 2-2.   Organic carbon-normalized sorption isotherm for endrin (A) and probability plot of
                    K^. (B) from sediment toxkity tests (Nebeker ct aL, 1989; Schuytema et aL, 1989;
                    Stehly, 1992).  The solid line represents the relationship predicted with a logJT^,
                    of 4.97.
2-4

-------
 Section 3
 Toxicity of Endrin  in
 Water  Exposures
 3.1   Derivation of Endrin WQC

     The EqP method for derivation of the ESG for
 endrin uses the WQC FCV and K^ to estimate the
 maximum concentration of nonionic organic chemical
 in sediments, expressed on an organic carbon basis,
 that will not cause adverse effects to benthic
 organisms. For this document, life-stages of species
 classified as benthic are either species that live in the
 sediment (infaunal) or on the sediment surface
 (epibenthic) and obtain their food from either the
 sediment or water column (U.S. EPA, 2000a). In this
 section, the FCV from the endrin WQC document
 (U.S. EPA, 1980) is revised using new aquatic toxicity
 test data, and the use of this FCV is justified as the
 effects concentration for the endrin ESG derivation.
 3.2  Acute Toxicity in Water Exposures

    A total of 104 standard acute toxicity tests with
 endrin have been conducted on 42 freshwater species
 from 34 genera (Figure 3-1; Appendix A). Overall
 GMAVs ranged from 0.15 to 180 ^g/L. Fishes,
 stoneflies, caddisflies, dipterans, mayflies, glass
 shrimp, isopods, ostracods, amphipods, and damselflies
 were most sensitive; overall GMAVs for the most
 sensitive genera of these taxa range from 0.15 to 4.6
 Hg/L. This database contains 39 tests on the  benthic
 life-stages of 25 species from 22 genera (Figure 3-1;
 Appendix A). Benthic organisms were among both the
 most sensitive and the most resistant freshwater
 species to endrin.  Of the epibenthic species,
 stoneflies, caddisflies, fish, mayflies, glass shrimp,
 damselflies, amphipods, and dipterans were most
 sensitive; GMAVs ranged from >0.18 to 12 ^g/L.
 Infaunal species tested included stoneflies, mayflies,
 dipterans, a midge, an oligochaete worm, and an
 ostracod; GMAVs ranged from 0.83 ,ug/L for the
 midge, Tanytarsus, to > 165 /j.g/L for the oligochaete,
iMmbriculus.

    A total of 37 acute toxicity tests were conducted
on 21 saltwater species from 19 genera (Figure 3-2;
Appendix A). Overall GMAVs ranged from 0.037 to
790 A*g/L.  Fishes and a penaeid shrimp were most
 sensitive; however, only 7 of the 21 species tested were
 invertebrates. Results from 25 tests on benthic life-
 stages of 13 species from 1 1 genera are contained in
 this database (Figure 3-2; Appendix A). Benthic
 organisms were among both the most sensitive and most
 resistant saltwater genera to endrin.  The most
 sensitive benthic species was the commercially
 important pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, with a
 measured flow-through 96-hour LC50 of 0.037 ^g/L.
 The LC50 represents the chemical concentrations
 estimated to be lethal to 50% of the test organisms
 within a specified time period. Other benthic species
 for which there are data appeared less sensitive, with
 GMAVs ranging from 0.094 to
 3.3  Chronic Toxicity in Water Exposures

    Life-cycle toxicity tests have been conducted with
 the freshwater flagfish (Jordanella floridae) and fathead
 minnow (Pimephales promelas) and with the saltwater
 sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) and grass
 shrimp (Palaemonetespugio).  Each of these species,
 except for P. promelas, has one or more bendiic life-
 stages.

    Two life-cycle toxicity tests have been conducted
 with /. floridae (Table 3-1). The concentration-
 response relationships were almost identical among the
 tests.  Hermanutz (1978) observed an 8% reduction in
 growth (length) and a 79% reduction in number of eggs
 spawned per female in 0.30 pg/L endrin relative to
 response of control fish; progeny were unaffected
 (Table 3 - 1 ) .  Neither parental nor progeny (F,)
 generation /, floridae were significantly affected when
 exposed to endrin concentrations from 0.051 to 0.22 /ig/
 L. The chronic value from this test was 0.2569.
 Combined with the 96-hour companion acute value of
 0. 85 ptg/L (Hermanutz etal., 1985), the acute-chronic
 ratio (ACR) for this test is 3.309 (Table 3-2).

    In the second life-cycle test, Hermanutz et al.
(1985) observed a 51 % decrease in reproduction hi
parental fish exposed to 0.29 //g/L endrin, and
reductions of 73% in survival, 18% in (growth) length,
                                                                                             3-1

-------
1000


100
~

I
3
J 10
rฃ
1
u
8
4)
s. ป
M
a
4)
O


0.1





\
A Arthropods
- • Other Invertebrates Pwdocrisw
• Fish and Amphibians Lumbiiculta* (A) mr>
Bufo(L)/
- Hexagenia (J) J
Daphnia (L) br
Simocephalus (X) A
li Orconectes (J)
_ y* Tipala (J)
: /* Rana (L)
y Atherix (J)
X Gammarus (A)
Jonltmdla (J) . .^'^ Wi^Cv^^(A)
\/'^O€CJ*WJ fj\/Q j^ Jf r \ j*
- Tanylarsvs (I^^.^or Palaemonetes (A)
~ Gambusia (J) cr^ \ Carassius (J)
Panepholes (J)-Y.n-.jฃ Baetis (J)
Brackycentna (X) <^Cr\^ Pleronarcella (L)
Microptenu (J)fy^.Jr\, Oncorhyncfna (J)
^ฑ~i(~ \ Ictalurvs (J)
n^S]] \ CyprinusfJ)
Y 1 1 I Pleronarcys (A)
_ 1 1 ' Claassenia (A)
| Lepomis(J)
| Acroneuria * (L)
Perca(J)
i 1 . ! i 1 , ! i


t.
I



















0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage Rank of Freshwater Genera
    Figure 3-1.   Genus mean acute values from water-only acute toxicity tests using freshwater species versus
                percentage rank of their sensitivity.  Symbols representing benthic species are solid; those
                representing water column species are open. Asterisks indicate greater than values. A = adult,
                J = juvenile, L = larvae, X = unspecified life-stage.
 and 92% in numbers of eggs per female in 0.39 /ug/L.
 No significant effects were detected in parental or
 progeny generation flagfish in 0.21 ^g/L. The chronic
 value from this test was 0.2468.  Combined with the
 96-hour companion acute value of 0.85 //g/L
 (Hermanutz et al., 1985), the ACR for this test  is
 3.444.  The geometric mean of these two ACRs is
 3.376.

    The effect of endrin on P. promelas in a life-cycle
 test was only marginally enhanced when exposure was
 via water and diet versus water-only exposures
 (Jarvinen and Tyo, 1978).  Parental fish in 0.25 ^g/L in
 water-only exposures exhibited about 60% mortality
 relative to controls. Mortality of Fj progeny was 70%
 in 0.14 ^g/L, the lowest concentration tested, and 85 %
 in0.25/ig/L. Tissue concentrations increased
 marginally in fish exposed to the water and diet
 treatment relative to fish in water-only exposures.
 Effects were observed at all concentrations tested, so
 the chronic value for this test is considered to be
 < 0.14 fj.g/L. No ACR from this test can be calculated
 because no acute value from matching dilution water is
 available.

    One saltwater invertebrate species, P. pugio, has
 been exposed to endrin in a partial life-cycle toxicity
 test (Tyler-Schroeder, 1979). Mortality of parental
 generation shrimp generally increased as endrin
concentrations increased from 0.11 to 0.
3-2

-------
                   1000
                    100
              3
              I
              a
              8
              1
              o
10
                    0.1
                                 A  Arthropods
                                 •  Other Invertebrates
                                 •  Fish and Amphibians
                                                                               Crassostrea (EJ.)
                                                           Psguras (A)
                                                                         SphaeroiJes (A)
                                                           Gasterosteus (J)
                    MugU(A)
            Micrometres (A)
                                 Anguilla (J)
                             Funduho (A)
                                                         Cyprinodon (J,A)
                                                     Cymatogaster (J)
                                                             /Crangon (A)

                                                           Palaemon (A)
       Palaemonetes (A)
1 PoeciUa (A)
                             Morone (J)
                      Th&lassoma (A)
                                    Msnidia (J)
                               Oncorhynchus (J)
                           Penaeus (A)
                                    20
                                                  40
                                                                60
                                                                             SO
                                                                                           ISO
                                        Percentage Rank of Saltwater Genera
  Figure 3-2.  Genus mean acute values from water-only acute toxicity tests using saltwater species versus
              percentage rank of their sensitivity. Symbols representing benthic species are solid; those
              representing water column species are open. A - adult, E = embryo, J = juvenile, L = larvae.
 Onset of spawning was delayed, duration of spawning
 was lengthened, and the number of female P. pugio
 spawning was less in all exposure concentrations from
 0.03 to 0.79 ngfL. These effects on reproduction may
 not be important because embryo production and
 hatching success were apparently not affected.  Larval
 mortality and time to metamorphosis increased and
 growth of juvenile progeny decreased in endrin
 concentrations ^0.11 Mg/L- The chronic value from this
 test was 0.07416. Combined with the 96-hour
 companion acute value of 0.35 /ug/L (Tyler-Schroeder,
 1979), the ACR for this test is 4.720.

     C. variegatus exposed to endrin in a life-cycle
toxicity test (Hansen et al., 1977) were affected at
endrin concentrations similar to those affecting the two
freshwater fishes described above. Embryos exposed to
0.31 and 0.72 (*g/L endrin hatched early, and all fry
                                   exposed to 0.72 /ug/L and about half of those exposed to
                                   0.31 //g/L died. Females died during spawning, fewer
                                   eggs were fertile, and survival of exposed progeny
                                   decreased in 0.31 /^g/L.  No significant effects were
                                   observed on survival, growth, or reproduction in fish
                                   exposed to 0.027 to 0.12 yug/L endrin.  The chronic
                                   value from this test was 0.1929. Combined with the 96-
                                   hour companion acute value of 0.3629 Mg/L (Hansen et
                                   al.,  1977; Schimmeletal., 1975), the ACR for this test
                                   is 1.881.

                                       The difference between acute and chronic toxicity
                                   of endrin was small (Table 3-2). ACR values were
                                   3.309 and 3.444 forJ.floridae, 4.720 fotP.pugio, and
                                   1.881 for C. variegatus.  The final ACR (FACR) was
                                   3.106 for both freshwater and saltwater species. Long-
                                   term exposures, not classed as "chronic" in the
                                   National WQC Guidelines (Stephanet al., 1985), also
                                                                                                      3-3

-------
  Table 3-1. Test-specific data for chronic sensitivity of freshwater and saltwater organisms to endrin
Common
Name,
Scientific
Name

Habitat
(life-
Test stage)


Duration
(days)


NOECs0
O^g/L)


OECsฐ
Og/L)
Observed
Effects
(relative to
controls)

Chronic
Value
O^g/L)


*
Reference
   Freshwater Species

   Flagfish,          LC      E(E,L)      110       0.051-      0.30
   Jordanella                 W (J,A)                0.22
   floridae
   Flagfish,          LC     E(E,L)      140       0.21       0.29,
   Jordanella                W (J,A)                           0.39
   floridae
   Fathead          LC        W         300       <0.14      0.14-
   minnow,                 (E,L,J,A)                          0.25
   Pimephales
   promelas
   Saltwater Species
              8% reduction in
              growth,
              79% reduction
              in reproduction

              51-92%
              reduction in
              reproduction,
              73% decrease in
              survival,
              18% reduction
              in growth

              60% decrease in
              adult survival,
              70-85%
              decrease in
              progeny
              survival
0.2569     Hermanutz,
           1978
0.2468    Hermanutz
          et al., 1985
<0.14     Jarvinen and
          Tyo, 1978
Grass shrimp,
Palaemonetes
pugio



Sheepshead
minnow,
Cyprinodon
variegatus






PLC W (L) 145
E,W
(E,J,A)



LC E(E) 175
E,W (J,A)








0.03, 0.11- 38-100%
0.05 0.79 decrease in
adult survival.
26-94%
reduction in
progeny growth
0.027- 0.31, 48-100%
0.12 0.72 decrease in
survival;
15% reduction
in growth and in
adult
reproduction;
87% decrease in
progeny
survival
0.07416 Tyler-
Schroeder,
1979



0.1929 Hansenet
al., 1977








"Test: LC = life-cycle, PLC  = partial life-cycle, ELS = early life-stage.
 Habitat: I = infauna, E = epibenthic, W = water column. Life-stage: E = embryo, L = larvai, J
cNOECs = no observed effect concentrations; OECs = observed effect concentrations.
                         ; juvenile, A = adult.
indicated little difference between acute and chronic
toxicity of endrin. These include tests with the
caddisfly, Brachycentrus americanus; stonefly,
Pteronarcys dorsata (Anderson and DeFoe, 1980);
bhintaose minnow, Pimephales notatus (Mount, 1962);
fathead minnow, P. promelas (Jarvinen et al.,  1988);
brown bullhead, Ictalurus meias (Anderson and DeFoe,
1980); largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides
(Fabacher, 1976); spot, Leiostomm xanlhurus (Lowe,
1966); and mummichog, Funchdus heteroclitus (Eisler,
1970a).

    The final acute value (FAV) derived from the
overall GMAVs (Stephan et al., 1985) for freshwater
organisms was 0.1803 Mg/L. The FAV for saltwater
species was 0.03282 /j.g/L (Table 3-2). The FCVs were
used as the effect concentrations for calculating the
ESG for protection of benthic species. The FCV of
3-4

-------
 Table 3-2.  Summary of freshwater and saltwater acute and chronic values, acute-chronic ratios, and derivation of
            final acute values, final acute-chronic ratios, and final chronic values for endrin
    Common Name,
    Scientific Name
Acute Value
  Og/L)
                                          Species Mean
Chronic Value       Acute-Chronic Ratio     Acute-Chronic Ratio
   0
-------
  FAV, computed from the freshwater (combined water
  column and benthic) species LC50 values, and the
  saltwater FAV, computed from the saltwater (combined
  water column and benthic) species LC50 values (Table
  3-3). In the AR method, the freshwater LC50 values
  and the saltwater LC50 values (see Appendix A) were
  combined into one dataset. The dataset was shuffled,
  then separated backrso that randomly generated
  "freshwater" and "saltwater" FAVs could be
  computed. The LC50 values were separated back such
  that the number of LC50 values used to calculate the
  sample FAVs was the same as the number used to
  calculate the original FAVs. These two FAVs were
  subtracted and the difference used as the sample
  statistic.  This was done many times so that the sample
  statistics formed a distribution representative of the
  population of FAV differences (Figure 3-3 A). The test
  statistic was compared with this distribution to
  determine its level of significance. The null hypothesis
  was that the LC50 values composing the saltwater and
  freshwater databases were not different.  If this were
  true, the difference between the actual freshwater and
  saltwater FAVs should be common to the majority of
  randomly generated FAV differences. For endrin, the
  test statistic occurred at the 99th percentile of the
  generated FAV differences. Because the probability
  was greater than 95 %, the hypothesis of no significant
 difference in sensitivity for freshwater and saltwater
 species was rejected (Table 3-3). Note that greater
 than (>)  values for GMAVs (see Appendix A) were
 omitted from the AR analyses for both freshwater
 versus saltwater and benthic versus combined water
 column and benthic organisms. This resulted in two
 endrin freshwater benthic organisms being omitted.

     Because freshwater and saltwater species did not
 show similar sensitivity,  separate tests were conducted
                 for freshwater and saltwater benthic species. For the
                 species from each water type, a test of difference in
                 sensitivity for benthic and all (benthic and water
                 column species combined, hereafter referred to as
                 "WQC") organisms, was performed using the AR
                 method. For this purpose, each life-stage of each test
                 organism was assigned a habitat (Appendix A) using the
                 criteria described in U.S. EPA (2000a).  The test
                 statistic in this case was the difference between the
                 WQC FAV, computed from the WQC LC50 values, and
                 the benthic FAV, computed from the benthic organism
                 LC50 values. This was slightly different from the
                 previous test for saltwater and freshwater species in
                 that saltwater and freshwater species represented two
                 separate groups. In this test, the benthic organisms
                 were a subset of the WQC organisms set.  In the AR
                 method for this test, the number of data points
                 coinciding with the number of benthic organisms was
                 selected from the WQC dataset and the "benthic" FAV
                 was computed.  The original WQC FAV and the
                 "benthic" FAV were then used to compute the
                difference statistic. This was done many times, and
                the resulting distribution was representative of the
                population of FAV difference statistics. The test
                statistic was compared with this distribution to
                determine its level of significance. The probability
                distribution of the computed FAV differences is shown
                in Figures 3-3B and 3-3C. The test statistic for this
                analysis occurred at the 7th percentile for  freshwater
                organisms and die 68th percentile for saltwater
                organisms, and the hypothesis of no difference in
                sensitivity was accepted (Table 3-3). This analysis
                suggests that the FCV for endrin based on data from all
                tested species was an appropriate effects concentration
                for benthic organisms.
 Table 3-3.  Results of approximate randomization (AR) test for the equality of the freshwater and saltwater FAV
           distributions for endrin and AR test for the equality of benthic and combined benthic and water column
           (WQC) FAV distributions
Comparison
Freshwater vs Saltwater
Freshwater: Benthic vs Water
rViInmซ -L RontKis* f\JJf~\f~'\
Habitat
Fresh (32)
Benthic (21)
or Water T>pe
Salt (19)
WQC (32)
AR StatisticC
0.149
0.042
Probability
99
7
    Saltwater: Benthic vs Water
    Column + Benthic (WQC)
Benthic (11)
WQC (19)
                                        0.012
                                                                                                  68
"Values in parentheses are the number of LC50 values used in the comparison.
bNote thai in both the freshwater vs. saltwater and beothic vs. WQC comparisons, greater than (>) values in Appendix A were omitted.
 This resulted in two endrin freshwater benthic organisms being omitted from the AR analysis.
CAR statistic = FAV difference between original compared groups.
 Probability that the theoretical AR statistic s the observed AR  statistic, given lhat the samples came from the same population.
3-6

-------


y™s
1 u

ti
u 9.1
a

;ซ! -03
to
-0.4

~ฎ.$
* f
W.5
0.4
9> 0.2
3
ซ> 0.1
u
5 0.9
hi
U n <
is -*1
Q -93
^ -ซ3
a c
-0.5
0.1


_ 1 1 lllllll MM Hill 1 1 1 1 1 1"
: A
Freshwater vs Saltwater
-
_
„




QOGDCC**^
lo

~ 1 1 lllllll 1 1 1 I 1 1111 1 1 1 1 I 1

_ 1 1 lllllll 1 1 1 1 1 Illl 1 1 I 1 1 1
: B
: Benthic vs WQC
Freshwater

_ rplJ 1 ft j ', "i,"-1 a • ' ••••••
h QQcpocxrca****111^
_o




~ 1 1 IHIIH 1 1 I 1 Hill | | | 1 I |

_ 1 1 lllllll 1 1 1 1 1 Illl 1 1 1 1 1 1
: c
: Benthic vs WQC
Saltwater


	 .


I ฐ
~o

* i i mini i i i 1 1 mi i i i i i i
1 10 20 50
Probability

i "" mill 1 1 i nun H i -
-
-
n o-
^^^^-pjpCDCDO CT0



—
-
~"

-
1 HIM) 1 1 1 lllllll 1 1 ~

i inn 1 1 i i mini i i
-
• -
-
iimTtTimiim i ll'OOOOOO O~

-
_
ซ
_
~
-
i nun i i i IHIIH i i "

i mil 1 1 i i mini i i
-
-
—



_
—
_
! l||lll 1 1 1 lllllll I 1 ~
8fl 90 99 993

Figure 3-3.  Probability distribution of FAV difference statistics to compare water-only data from freshwater
            versus saltwater (A), benthic versus WQC freshwater (B), and benthic versus WQC saltwater
            (C) data. The solid lines in the figure correspond to the FAV differences measured for endrin.
                                                                                                    3-7

-------
 Section  4
 Actual  and  Predicted Toxicity  of
 Endrin in  Sediment  Exposures
 4.1  Toxicity of Endrin in Sediments

     The toxicity of endrin-spiked sediments was tested
 with four freshwater species (two oligochaetes—a
 lumbriculid worm and a tubificid worm—and two
 amphipods) and two saltwater species (a polychaete and
 the sand shrimp) (Table 4-1). The most common
 endpoint measured was mortality; however, impacts
 have been reported on sublethal endpoints such as
 growth, sediment avoidance, and sediment reworking
 rate. All concentrations of endrin in sediments or
 interstitial water where effects were observed were
 greater than ESG or FCV concentrations reported in
 this document.  Details about exposure methodology
 are provided because sediment testing methodologies
 have not been standardized in the way that water-only
 toxicity  test methodologies have. Generalizations
 across species or sediments are limited because of the
 limited number  of experiments.

    Keilty et al. (1988a,b) and Keilty and Stehly (1989)
 studied the effects on oligochaete worms of Lake
 Michigan sediments spiked with endrin. For all tests,
 sediments were  dried, passed through a 0.25 mm sieve,
 reconstituted with lake water, spiked with endrin
 dissolved in acetone, and stirred for 24 hours.  The
 water (containing the carrier) was aspirated off, new
 overlying water added, and sediments placed into
 individual beakers for 72 hours before the worms were
 added.

    Keilty et al. (1988a) examined the effects of
 endrin-spiked sediment on sediment avoidance and
 mortality of two species of oligochaete worms in
 replicate 4-day exposures (Table 4-1).  Four-day LC50
 values for four tests with Stylodrilus heringianus
 averaged 2,110 >ig endrin/g dry weight sediment and
 ranged from 1,050 to 5,400 ng endrin/g dry weight
sediment. Four-day LC50 values for three tests with
Umnodrilus hoffmeisteri averaged 3,390 jig/g dry
weight sediment and ranged from 2,050 to 5,600 /ug/g
dry weight sediment. Four-day LC50 values from
these tests averaged  194,000 ^g/grx- for L. hoffmeisteri
and 121,000 ^glg^ for 5. heringianus.  Data using this
test method have demonstrated laboratory variabilities
 by a factor of 3 to 5 for the same sediment. Sediment
 avoidance was seen at much lower concentrations.
 Over all tests, burrowing was markedly reduced at
 211.5 /ig/g dry weight sediment and possibly at ^0.54
 jjg/g dry weight sediment. EC50s, based on sediment
 avoidance, were 59.0 fig/g dry weight (3,371 ^g/goc) for
 L. hoffmeisteri and 15.3 and 19.0 ngJg dry weight (874
 and 1,086 ^glg^ sediment for two tests using Sr
 heringianus. The EC50 represents the chemical
 concentration estimated to cause effects to 50% of the
 test organisms within a specified time period. Keilty et
 al.  (1988b) observed 18% mortality of 5. heringianus in
 11.5 Mg/g dry weight sediment after a 54-day exposure
 and 26% mortality in 42.0 /^g/g dry weight sediment.
 The sediment reworking rate was reported to be
 significantly different from the control in sediments
 containing ;:0.54 uglg dry weight sediment. Dry
 weights of worms in 2:2.33 uglg dry weight sediment
 were reduced after 54 days. Keilty and Stehly (1989)
 observed no effect of a single, nominal concentration of
 50 Mg/g dry weight sediment on protein utilization by S.
 heringianus over a 69-day exposure period. However,
 dry weights of worms were significantly reduced.

    Nebeker et al. (1989) and Schuytema et al. (1989)
 exposed the amphipod Hyalella atfeca to two endrin-
 spiked sediments, one with a TOC of 11 % and the other
 a 3 % TOC. Nebeker et al. (1989) mixed these two
 sediments to obtain a third sediment with a TOC of
 6.1%.  Sediments were shaken for 7 days in endrin-
 coated flasks, and subsequently for 62 days in clean
 flasks.  The 10-day LC50 values for amphipods in the
 three sediments tested by Nebeker et al. (1989) did not
 differ when endrin concentration was on a dry weight
 basis. The LC50 values decreased with increase in
 organic carbon when the concentration was on an
 organic carbon basis (Table 4-1). The authors
 concluded that endrin data do not support equilibrium
partitioning theory. LC50 values normalized to dry
weight (4.4 to 6.0 uglg) or wet weight (0.9 to 1.
differed by less than a factor of 1.5 over a 3.7 fold
range of TOC. In contrast, the organic carbon-
normalized LC50 values ranged from 53.6 to 147
Mg/gf)C, a factor of 2.7 (Table 4-1).
                                                                                           4-1

-------
Table 4-1. Summar



y of tests with endrin-spiked sediment

Sediment Endrin LC50 Interstitial
Common Name,
Scientific Name
Freshwater Species
Lumbriculid worm,
Stylodrilus
heringianus
Lumbriculid worm,
Stylodrilus
heringianus
Lumbriculid worm,
Stylodrilus
heringianus
Lumbriculid worm,
Stylodrilus
heringianus
Lumbriculid worm,
Stylodrilus
heringianus
Lumbriculid worm,
Stylodrilus
heringianus
Lumbriculid worm,
Stylodrilus
heringianus
Lumbriculid worm,
Stylodrilus
heringianus
Lumbriculid worm,
Stylodrilus
heringianus
Lumbriculid worm,
Stylodrilus
heringianus

Lumbriculid worm,
Stylodrilus
heringianus
Tubificid worm,
Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri
Tubificid worm,
Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri
Tubificid worm,
Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri
Tubificid worm,
Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri
TOC
Sediment Source (%)

Lake Michigan; 1.75b
0.25mm sieved
Lake Michigan; 1.75
0.25mm sieved
Lake Michigan; 1.75b
0.25mm sieved
Lake Michigan; 1.75
0.25mm sieved
Lake Michigan; 1.75b
0.25mm sieved
Lake Michigan; 1.75
0.25mm sieved
Lake Michigan; i.75b
0.25mm sieved
Lake Michigan; 1.75b
0.25mm sieved
Lake Michigan ; 1.75
0.25mm sieved
Lake Michigan; 1.75
0.25mm sieved

Lake Michigan; 1.75b
0.25mm sieved
Lake Michigan; 1.75b
0.25mm sieved

Lake Michigan; 1.75b
0.25mm sieved

Lake Michigan; 1.75b
0.25mm sieved

Lake Michigan; 1.75b
0.25mm sieved

Method,2
Duration
(days)

S,M/4
S.M/4
S.M/4
S.M/4
S.M/4
S.M/4
S.M/54
S.M/54
S.M/54
S.M/54

S.N/69
S.M/4

S.M/4

S.M/4

S.M/4

Drywt
Response Cซg/g)

LC50 1,400
LC50 1,050
LC50 2,500
LC50 5,400
EC50 19.0
sediment
avoidance
EC50 15.3
sediment
avoidance
26% 42.0
mortality
18% 11.5
mortality
Weight 2.33
loss
Decreased 0.54
sediment
reworking
rate
Weight 50.0
loss
LC50 2,050

LC50 3,400

LC50 5,600ฐ

EC50 59.0
sediment
avoidance
Water
OC LC50 ซ
(pg/g) O^g/L) Reference

80,000 — Keilty et a!.,
1988a
60,000 — Keilty et a!.,
1988a
143,000 — Keilty et al.,
1988a
309,000 -— Keilty etal.,
1988a
1,086 — Keilty etal.,
1988a
874 — Keilty et al.,
1988a
2,400 — Keilty et al.,
1988b
657 — Keilty et al.,
1988b
133 — Keilty etal.,
1988b
30.8 — Keilty et al.,
1988b

2,860 — Keilty and Stehly,
1989
117,000 — Keilty etal.,
1988a

194,000 — Keilty etal.,
1988a

320,000ฐ — Keilty et al.,
1988a

3,371 — Keilty etal.,
1988a

4-2

-------
Table 4-1 . Summary of tests with endrin-spiked
sediment

(continued)

Sediment Endrin LCSO Interstitial

Common Name,
Scientific Name
Amphipod,
Diporeia sp.
Amphipod,
Diporeia sp.
Amphipod,
Diporeia sp.
Amphipod,
Hyalella azteca
Amphipod,
Hyalella azteca
Amphipod,
Hyalella azteca
Amphipod,
Hyalella azteca
Amphipod,
Hyalella azteca
Amphipod,
Hyalella azteca
Amphipod,
Hyalella azteca
Amphipod,
Hyalella azteca
Amphipod,
Hyalella azteca
Saltwater Species
Polychaete worm,
Nereis virens
Sand shrimp,
Crangon
septemspinosa

TOC
Sediment Source (%)
Cake Michigan; 0.07
depth 29m
Lake Michigan; 0.55
depth 45m
Lake Michigan; 1.75
depth 100m
Soap Creek 3.0
Pond No. 7, OR
1 : 1 mixture of 6. 1
Soap Creek and
Mercer Lake, OR
Mercer Lake, OR 11.2
Soap Creek Pond 3
No. 7, OR;
refrigerated
Soap Creek Pond 3
No. 7, OR; frozen
Mercer Lake, OR; 11
refrigerated
Mercer Lake, OR; 1 1
frozen
Mercer Lake, OR; 1 1
refrigerated
Mercer Lake, OR; 1 1
frozen

17% sand, 83% 2
silt and clay
Sand, wet- 0.28
sieved
between l-2mm
d
sieves
Method,3
Duration
(days)
S.M/4
S,M/4
S.M/4
S.M/10
S,M/10
S.M/10
S.M/10
S,M/10
S.M/10
S,M/10
S.M/10
S,M/10

R.M/12
R.M/4

Dry wt
Response (wg/g)
LCSO 0.012
LCSO 0.172
LCSO 0.224
LCSO 4.4
LCSO 4.8
LCSO 6.0
LCSO 5.1
LCSO 7.7
LCSO 19.6
LCSO 21.7
LCSO 10.3
LCSO 9.8

2 of 5 28
worms
died
LCSO 0.047
Water
OC LCSO 5
C^g/g) (^g/L) Reference
17.0 1.07 Stehly, 1992
31.3 2.2 Stehly, 1992
12.8 0.63 Stehly, 1992
147 2.1 Nebekeretal.,
1989
78.7 1.9 Nebekeretal.,
1989
53.6 1.8 Nebekeretal.,
1989
170 — Schuytema et al.,
1989
257 — Schuytema et al.,
1989
178 — Schuytema et al.,
1989
197 — Schuytema et al.,
1989
93.6 — Schuytema et al.,
1989
89.1 — Schuytema et al.,
1989

1,400 — McLeese et al.,
1982
16.8 — McLeese and
Metcalfe, 1980
aS = static, R = renewal, M  = measured, N = nominal.
"Value from Landrum (1991).
CL. hoffmeisteri and S. heringianus tested together.
 Clean sediment placed in endrin-coated beakers  at beginning of exposure.
                                                                                                                       4-3

-------
     Schuytema et al. (1989) stored an aliquot of
 sediments dosed by Nebeker et al. (1989) for an
 average of 9 months and then froze one-half for 2
 weeks; the other half was stored at 4ฐC for 2 weeks.
 The toxicity of endrin to H. azteca did not differ in
 refrigerated and frozen sediments from Mercer Lake,
 OR, and differed minimally (LC50 = 5.1 vs 7.7 ^g/g
 dry weight) in sediments from Soap Creek Pond. In
 contrast to the findings of Nebeker et al.  (1989),
 Schuytema et al. (1989) used the same test sediments
 and observed higher LC50 values in four tests with
 Mercer Lake sediments (9.8,10.3,19.6, and 21.7/ig/g
 dry weight), which had a TOC of 11 %, than LC50
 values from two tests using Soap Creek sediments (5.1
 and 7.7 ^g/g dry weight) where TOC was 3 %.

     The only saltwater experiments that  tested endrin-
 spiked sediments were conducted by McLeese et al.
 (1982) and McLeese and Metcalfe (1980). These began
 with clean sediments that were added to endrin-coated
 beakers just before addition of test organisms. This
 was in marked contrast to  tests using freshwater
 sediments spiked with endrin days or weeks before  test
 initiation (Nebeker et al.,  1989; Schuytema et al.,
 1989). As a result, the endrin concentrations in the
 sediment and overlying water varied greatly over the
 course of these experiments. In addition,  the transfer of
 test organisms to freshly prepared beakers every 48
 hours  adds to the uncertainty associated with the
 exposure conditions and complicates interpretation of
 the results of McLeese et al. (1982).

     McLeese et al. (1982) tested the effects of endrin
 on the polychaete worm, Nereis virens, in sediment
 with 2% TOC (17% sand and  83 % silt and clay) in  12-
 day toxicity tests.  Only two of five worms died at the
 highest concentration tested, 28 ng endrin/g dry weight
 sediment or 1,400 /^g endrin/goc. McLeese and
 Metcalfe (1980) tested the effects of endrin in sand
 with a TOC content of 0.28% on the sand shrimp,
 Crangon septemspinosa.  The 4-day LC50 was 0.047 /^g/
 g dry weight sediment or 16.8 ^g/Eoc- Concentrations
 of endrin in water overlying the sediment were
 sufficient to explain the observed mortalities of sand
 shrimp in sediments.

    The need for organic carbon normalization of the
 concentrations of nonionic organic chemicals in
 sediments is presented in the ESG Technical Basis
 Document. For endrin, mis need is supported by the
 results of the spiked-sediment toxicity tests described
 above. When examined individually, experiments in
 which H, azteca were exposed to the same sediments by
both Nebeker et al.  (1989) and  Schuytema et al, (1989)
 provide contradictory data concerning the need for
 organic carbon normalization (Table 4-1). Nebeker et
 al. (1989) observed no change in toxicity with
 increasing TOC when endrin was expressed on a dry
 weight basis, whereas Schuytema et al. (1989) observed
 a decrease in toxicity with increasing TOC when endrin
 was expressed on a dry weight basis. However, mean
 LC50 values calculated for individual experiments from
 both studies were similar when concentrations were
 normalized by organic carbon content.  The mean
 (geometric) LC50 values were 109 A^g/g^ (5 tests) for
 sediments from Mercer Lake having a TOC of 1 1 % and
 186 /^g/goc (3 tests) for sediments from Soap Creek
 Pond having 3 % organic carbon. The lack of consistent
 evidence supporting organic carbon normalization in
 the individual  tests reported by Nebeker et al. (1989) is
 in contrast with evidence supporting normalization
 overall for tests with other nonionic chemicals.  The
 results for sediments spiked with endrin were most
 likely observed because organic carbon concentrations
 differed by less than a factor of four and variability
 inherent in these tests limited the capacity for
 discrimination. Additional tests by Stehly (1992)
 provide further support for the need to normalize endrin
 concentrations in sediments (Table 4-1). The organic
 carbon concentrations for these sediments ranged from
 0.07% to  1 .75% (a factor of 25). On a dry weight
 basis, 4-day LC50 values forDiporeia sp. ranged from
 0.012 to 0,224 ,ug/g (a factor of 18.7). The organic
 carbon-normalized LC50 values were within a factor of
 2.4 and ranged from 12.8 to 31 .
     Although it is important to demonstrate that
organic carbon normalization is necessary if ESGs are
to be derived using the EqP approach, it is
fundamentally more important to demonstrate that K^.
and water-only effects concentrations can be used to
predict the effects concentration for endrin and other
nonionic organic chemicals on an organic carbon basis
for a range of sediments. Evidence supporting this
prediction for endrin and other nonionic organic
chemicals follows in Section 4. 3.
4.2   Correlation Between Organism
      Response and Interstitial Water
      Concentration

    One corollary of the EqP theory is that freely-
dissolved interstitial water LC50 values for a given
organism should be constant across sediments of
varying organic carbon contents (U.S. EPA, 2000a).
Appropriate interstitial water LC50 values are
available from two studies using endrin (Table 4-1).
Nebeker et al. (1989) found 10-day LC50 values for
4-4

-------
 endrin, based on interstitial water concentrations,
 ranged from 1.8 to 2.1 ng/L for H. azteca exposed to
 three sediments. Overlying water LC50 values from
 these static tests (Nebeker et al.,  1989) and those
 conducted using the same sediments by Schuytema et
 al. (1989) were similar; 1.1 to 3.9 pg/L. Stehly (1992)
 found that 4-day interstitial water LC50 values for
 Diporeia sp. rangedfrom 0.63 to 2.2 /zg/L (a factor of
 3.5); this is considerably less than the range in LC50
 values  expressed as dry weight, 0.012 to 0.224 //g/g (a
 factor of 18.7), for three sediments from Lake
 Michigan having 0.07 % to 1.75 % organic carbon.

    A  more detailed evaluation of the degree to which
 the response of benthic organisms can be predicted
 from toxic units (TUs) of substances in interstitial
water can be made utilizing results from toxicity tests
with sediments spiked with a variety of nonionic
compounds, including acenaphthene and phenanthrene
(Swartz, 1991), endrin (Nebeker etal., 1989;
Schuytema et al., 1989), fluoranthene (Swartz et al.,
1990; DeWitt et al., 1992), and kepone (Adams et al.,
                                                   1985) (Figure 4-1). The endrin data included in this
                                                   analysis were from tests conducted at laboratories or
                                                   from tests that utilized designs at least as rigorous as
                                                   those conducted at EPA laboratories.  Note that
                                                   dieldrin data from Hoke et al. (1995) were aot used in
                                                   the interstitial water TU plot either because interstitial
                                                   water was not measured or because of inconsistencies
                                                   in the mortality results that have been attributed to
                                                   DOC complexing in the interstitial water. This is
                                                   discussed in Hoke et al. (1995) and in the EPA dieldrin
                                                   ESG document (U.S. EPA, 2000d). Tests with
                                                   acenaphthene and phenanthrene used two saltwater
                                                   amphipods (Leptocheints plwnulosus and Eohaustorius
                                                   estuarius) and saltwater sediments. Tests with
                                                   fluoranthene used a saltwater amphipod (Rhepoxynius
                                                   abronius) and saltwater sediments.  Freshwater
                                                   sediments spiked with endrin were tested using the
                                                   amphipod H.  azteca, and kepone-spiked sediments were
                                                   tested using the midge,  C. tertians.

                                                      Figure 4-1 presents the percent mortalities of the
                                                   benthic species tested in individual treatments for each
i
           1W
           80
            60
           •
           20
              + Endrin
              D
              A Fluoranthciac
              \7 Acenaphthene
              O Kepone
                                 LJ_J_
                                                                  _t__l	l_J_ULlJ_
             8.81
                                  0.1
                                                                             18
                                                                                                  100
                                          Interstitial Water Toxic Units
  Figure 4-1. Percent mortality of amphipods in sediments spiked with acenaphthene or phenanthrene (Swartz,
             1991), endrin (Nebeker et al., 1989; Schuytema et al., 1989), or fluoranthene (Swartz et al., 1990;
             DeWitt et al., 1992), and midge in sediments spiked with kepone (Adams et al., 1985) relative to
             interstitial water toxic units.
                                                                                                    4-5

-------
  chemical versus interstitial water TUs (IWTUs) for all
  sediments. IWTUs are the concentration of the
  chemical in interstitial water Gug/L) divided by the
  water-only LC50 (ngfL). Theoretically, 50% mortality
  should occur at 1IWTU. At concentrations below 1
  IWTU, there should be less than 50% mortality, and at
  concentrations above 1 IWTU there should be greater
  than 50% mortalityr Figure 4-1 shows that, at
  concentrations below 1 IWTU, mortality was generally
  low and increased sharply at approximately 1  IWTU,
  Therefore, this comparison supports the concept that
  interstitial water concentrations can be used to make a
  prediction that is not sediment-specific of the response
  of an organism to a chemical. This interstitial water
  normalization was not used to derive the ESG in this
  document because of the complexation of nonionic
  organic chemicals with interstitial water DOC (Section
  2) and the difficulties of adequately sampling
  interstitial waters.


 4.3  Tests of the Equilibrium Partitioning
       Prediction of Sediment Toxicity

     Sediment guidelines derived using the EqP
 approach utilize partition coefficients and FCVs from
 updated or final WQC documents to derive the ESG
 concentration that is protective of benthic organisms.
 The partition coefficient A^ Is used to normalize
 sediment concentrations and predict biologically
 available concentrations across sediment types. The
 data required to test the organic carbon normalization
 for endrin in sediments were available for only one
 benthic species. Data from tests with water column
 species were not included in this analysis.  Testing of
 this component of the ESG derivation required  three
 elements: (1) a water-only effects concentration, such
 as a 10-day LC50 value, in^g/L; (2) an identical
 sediment effect concentration on an organic carbon
 basis,  in /^g/g^; and (3) a partition coefficient for the
 chemical, K^, in L/kg^. This section presents
 evidence that the observed effect concentration in
 sediments (2) can be predicted utilizing the water-only
 effect concentration (1) and the partition coefficient (3).

     Predicted sediment 10-day LC50 values from
 endrin-spiked sediment tests with H. azteca (Nebeker
 et al.,  1989; Schuytema et ah, 1989) were calculated
 (Table 4-2) using the logj^^ value of 4,97 from
 Section 2 of this document and the geometric mean of
 the water-only LC50 value (4.1 ngfL).  Overall, ratios
 of actual to predicted sediment LC50 values for endrin
 averaged 0.33 (range 0.13 to 0.67) in nine tests with
 three sediments.
     A more detailed evaluation of the accuracy and
 precision of the EqP prediction of the response of
 benthic organisms can be made using the results of
 toxicity tests with amphipods exposed to sediments
 spiked with acenaphthene, phenanthrene,'dieldrin,
 endrin, or fluoranthene. The data included in this
 analysis were from tests conducted at EPA laboratories
 or from tests that utilized designs at least as rigorous
 as those conducted at EPA laboratories.  Data from the
 kepone experiments were not included because the
 recommended ATQW for kepone obtained from Karickhoff
 and Long (1995) was evaluated using only one
 laboratory measured value, whereas the remaining
 chemical KOVf values are recommended based on
 several laboratory measured values.  Swartz (1991)
 exposed the saltwater amphipods E. estuarius and L.
 plumulosus to acenaphthene in three marine sediments
 having organic carbon contents ranging from 0.82% to
 4.2% and to phenanthrene in three marine sediments
 having organic carbon contents ranging from 0.82% to
 3.6%.  Swartz et al. (1990) exposed the saltwater
 amphipod R. abronius to fluoranthene in three marine
 sediments having 0.18%, 0.31 %, and 0.48% organic
 carbon. Hoke et al. (1995) exposed the amphipod H.
 azteca to three dieldrin-spiked freshwater sediments
 having 1.7%, 2.9%, and8.7% organic carbon, and also
 exposed the midge C. tertians to two freshwater
 dieldrin-spiked sediments having 2.0% and 1.5%
 organic carbon. Nebeker et al. (1989) and Schuytema
 et al. (1989) exposed H. azteca to three endrin-spiked
 sediments having 3.0%, 6.1 %, and 11.2% organic
 carbon. Figure 4-2 presents the percent mortalities of
 amphipods in individual treatments of each chemical
 versus predicted sediment TUs (PSTUs) for each
 sediment treatment. PSTUs are the concentration of
 the chemical in sediment G^g/goc) divided by the
 predicted sediment LC50 (i.e., the product of K^ and
 the 10-day water-only LC50 expressed in ^glg^. In
 this normalization, 50% mortality should occur at 1
 PSTU.  Figure 4-2 shows that, at concentrations below
 1 PSTU, mortality was generally low and increased
 sharply at 1 PSTU. Therefore, this comparison
 supports the concept that PSTU values also can be used
 to make a prediction, that is not sediment-specific, of
 the response of an organism to a chemical. The means
 of the LC50 values for these tests, calculated on a
 PSTU basis, were 1.55 for acenaphthene, 0.73 for
 dieldrin, 0.33 for endrin, 0.75 for fluoranthene, and
 1.19 for phenanthrene. The mean value for the five
chemicals was 0.80. The fact that this value is so
close to the theoretical value of 1.0 illustrates that the
EqP method can account for the effects of different
sediment properties and properly predict the effects
4-6

-------
 concentration in sediments using effects concentrations
 from water-only exposures.

     Data variations in Figure 4-2 reflect inherent
 variability in these experiments and phenomena that
 have not been accounted for in the EqP model. The
uncertainty of the model is calculated in Section 5.2
of this document. There is an uncertainty of
approximately ฑ2.  The error bars shown in Figure 4-2
are computed as ฑ 1.96 x (ESG uncertainty). The
value of 1.96 is the t statistic, which provides a 95 %
confidence interval around the ESG.
 Table 4-2.  Water-only and sediment LC50 values used to test the applicabUity of the EqP theory for endrin


Common Water-
Name, Method, Only
Scientific Duration LC50
Name (days) (A
-------
100
so
I" ซ
i -

20
0
O.fi

	 ' ' ' i ' i '
• EBdrin
O DfeWrin
D PhtDanthrtne
A Flซoroanthene
V Acenaphthene
1. 	 ^
o o *
& .y
+ A*. ^ฎ ^fa_fl
^ jj^ j*iP>- vj^y^^i^s

• . i . 1 1 i
i
*lf%
1 o'
J^JfiLSL
47 ^
f ^
.....1 .
o
v
3
•
1





1 0.1 1 10 100
Predicted Sediment Toxic Units with Uncertainty Bars
  Figure 4-2.  Percent mortality 0f amphipods in sediments spiked with acenapbthene or phenanthrene (Swartz,
              1991), dieldrin (Hoke et al., 1995), endrin (Nebeker et a!., 1989; Schuytema et al., 1989), or
              fluoranthenc (Swartz et al,, 1990; DeWitt et al., 1992), and midge in sediments spiked with dieldrin
              (Hoke et al., 1995) relative to predicted sediment toxic units.
4-8

-------
 Section 5
 Guidelines Derivation  for  Endrin
 5.1   Guidelines Derivation

     The WQC FCV (see Section 3), without an
 averaging period or return frequency, is used to
 calculate the ESG because the concentration of
 contaminants in sediments is probably relatively stable
 over time. Thus, exposure to sedentary benthic species
 should be chronic and relatively constant. This
 contrasts to the situation in the water column, where a
 rapid change hi exposure and exposures of limited
 durations can occur from fluctuations in effluent
 concentrations, from dilutions in receiving waters, or
 from the free-swimming or planktonic nature of water
 column organisms.  For some particular uses of the
 ESG, it may be appropriate to use the areal extent and
 vertical stratification of contamination at a sediment
 site in much me same way that averaging periods or
 mixing zones are used with WQC.

    The FCV is the value that should protect 95 % of
 the tested species included in the calculation of the
 WQC from chronic effects of the substance. The FCV
 is the quotient of die FAV and the FACR for the
 substance. The FAV is an estimate of the acute LC50
 or EC50 concentration of the substance corresponding
 to a cumulative probability of 0.05 from eight or more
 families for the genera for which acceptable acute
 tests have been conducted on the substance. The ACR
 is the mean ratio of acute to chronic toxicity for three
 or more species exposed to the substance that meets
 minimum database requirements. For more
 information on the calculation of ACRs, FAVs, and
 FCVs, see Section 3 of this document and the National
 Water Quality Criteria Guidelines (Stephan et  al.,
 1985). The FCV used in this document differs  from the
 FCV in the endrin WQC document (U.S. EPA, 1980)
 because it incorporates recent data not included in that
 document and omits some data that do not meet the data
 requirements established in the WQC Guidelines.

    The EqP method for calculating ESGs is based on
 the following procedure (also described in Section
 2-1).  If the FCV Cug/L) is the chronic concentration
 from die WQC for the chemical of interest, then the
 ESG (Mg/g sediment) is computed using the partition
 coefficient, Kp (L/g sediment), between sediment and
 interstitial water
ESG = Kp FCV
(5-D
can
    The organic carbon partition coefficient,
be substituted for Kf, because organic carbon is die
predominant sorption phase for nonionic organic
chemicals in naturally occurring sediments (salinity,
grain size, and other sediment parameters have
inconsequential roles in sorption; see Sections 2. 1 and
4.3). Therefore, on a sediment organic carbon basis,
the organic carbon-normalized ESG (ESG^ in
is
                                          (5-2)
And because KQ^. is presumably independent of
sediment type for nonionic organic chemicals, so too is
ESGoc.  Table 5-1 contains the calculation of the endrin
ESG.
    The ESGoc is applicable to sediments
iO.2%.  For sediments with/oc <0.2%, organic
carbon normalization and the ESGs do not apply.

    Because organic carbon is the factor controlling the
bioavailability of nonionic organic compounds in
 Table 5-1. Equilibrium partitioning sediment guidelines (ESGs) for endrin
Type of Water Body
Freshwater
Saltwater
Log K0w
(L/kg)
5.06
•5.06
(L/kg)
4.97
4.97
FCV
0.05805
0.01057
ESGoc
(Pg/goc)
5.4a
0.99b
 ESGOC = (10* 97 L/kgo,-) x (1CT3 kgw./gor) x (0.05805 Mg endrin/L) = 5.4 /^g endrm/goc.
bESGoc = (lO^'L/kgoc) x (10ฐ kgo.Jgoc-) x (0.01057 ,/g endrin/L) = 0.99 ^g endrin/g(K,
                                                                                             5-1

-------
  sediments, ESGs have been developed on an organic
  carbon basis, not on a dry weight basis .  When the
  chemical concentrations in sediments are reported as
  dry weight concentrations and organic carbon data are
  available, it is best to convert the sediment
  concentrations to /^g chemical/go^.. These
  concentrations can then be directly compared with the
  ESG value. This facilitates comparisons between the
  ESG and field concentrations relative to identification
  of hot spots and the degree to which sediment
  concentrations do or do not exceed the ESG values.
  The conversion from dry weight to organic carbon-
  normalized concentration can be done using the
  following formula
                               •*• (% TOC + 100)
              = jug chemical/g^ ^ x 100 •*•  % TOC

     For example, a freshwater sediment with a
 concentration of 0. 1 ng endrin/g .  M and 0.5 % TOC has
 an organic carbon-normalized concentration of 20 /ug/
 goc (= 0.1 ^g/g.^ X  100 -r 0.5), which exceeds the
 freshwater endrin ESG of 5 .4 fj.g/goc. Another
 freshwater sediment with the same concentration of
 endrin (0. 1 /ig/g^ OT) but a TOC concentration of 5 . 0 %
 would have an organic carbon-normalized concentration
 of2.0Mg/goc(=0.lMg/gdrywt x 100 * 5,0), which is
 below the freshwater ESG for endrin.

     In situations where TOC values for particular
 sediments are not available, a range of TOC values
 may be used in a "worst case" or "best case" analysis.
 In this case, the ESG^ values may be "converted" to
 dry weight-normalized ESG values (ESG
 "conversion" for each level of TOC is
                                    drv wt-
                                        ,).  This
ESG
       w,
                            X (% TOC + 100)
 For example, the ESG,^ M value for freshwater
 sediments with 1 % organic carbon is 0.054 jug/g
                     1%TOC ^ 100 = 0.
This method is used in the analysis of the STORET
data in Section 5. 4.
5.2  Uncertainty Analysis

    Some of the uncertainty of the endrin ESG can be
estimated from the degree to which the available
sediment toxicity data are predicted using the EqP
model, which serves as the basis for the guidelines. In
 its assertion, the EqP model holds that (1) the
 bioavailability of nonionic organic chemicals across
 sediments is equal on an organic carbon basis and (2)
 the effects concentration in sediment G^g/gor) can be
 estimated from the product of the effects concentrations
 from water-only exposures, FCV (^g/L), and the
 partition coefficient, K^ (L/kg). The uncertainty
 associated with the ESG can be obtained from a
 quantitative estimate of the degree to which the
 available data support these assertions.

     The data used in the uncertainty analysis are from
 the water-only and sediment toxicity tests that were
 conducted to fulfill the minimum database requirements
 for development of the ESG (see Section 4.3 and the
 ESG Technical Basis Document). These freshwater
 and saltwater tests span a range of chemicals, and
 organisms, they include exposures using water-only  and
 a number of sediments and are replicated within each
 chemical-organism-exposure media treatment. These
 data are analyzed using an analysis of variance
 (ANOVA) to estimate the uncertainty (i.e., the
 variance) associated with the varying exposure media
 and that associated with experimental error. If the  EqP
 model were perfect, then there would be experimental
 error only. Therefore, the uncertainty associated with
 the use of EqP is the variance associated with varying
 exposure media.

    The data used in the uncertainty analysis are
 illustrated in Figure 4-2. The data for endrin are
 summarized in Appendix B. LC50 values for sediment
 and water-only tests were computed from these data.
 The EqP model can be used to normalize the data in
 order to put it on a common basis. The LC50 values
 from water-only exposures (LC50W; //g/L) are related
 to the organic carbon-normalized LC50 values from
 sediment exposures (LC50S ^ ^g/goc) via the
partitioning equation
                                                     LC50SOC —
                                             (5-3)
                                                     As mentioned above, one of the assertions of the EqP
                                                     model is that the toxicity of sediments expressed on an
                                                     organic carbon basis equals the toxicity in water tests
                                                     multiplied by the Xoc. Therefore, both LC50S   and
                                                     KQC x LC50W are estimates of the true LC50Q,, for
                                                     each chemical-organism pair. In this analysis, the
                                                     uncertainty of K^ is not treated separately. Any error
                                                     associated with K^ will be reflected in the uncertainty
                                                     attributed to varying the exposure media,

                                                         In order to perform an analysis of variance, a
                                                     model of the random variations is required. As
5-2

-------
 discussed above, experiments that seek to validate
 Equation 5-3 are subject to various sources of random
 variations. A number of chemicals and organisms have
 been tested.  Each chemical-organism pair was tested
 in water-only exposures and in different sediments.  Let
 a represent the random variation due to this source.
 Also, each experiment was replicated. Let e represent
 the random variation due to this source. If the model
 were perfect, there would be no random variations
 other than those from experimental error, which is
 reflected in the replications. Hence, a represents the
 uncertainty due to the approximations inherent in the
 model and e represents the experimental error. Let
 (o^ and (a^ be the variances of these random
 variables. Let i index a specific chemical-organism
 pair. Let j index the exposure media, water-only, or
 the individual sediments. Let k index the replication of
 the experiment.  Then the equation that describes this
 relationship is
                                              (54)
where ln(LC50y k) is either ln(LC50w) or ln(LC50s <><,),
corresponding to a water-only or sediment exposure,
and ^ is the population ln(LC50) for chemical-organism
pair i. The error structure is assumed to be log normal
which corresponds to assuming that the errors are
proportional to the means (e.g., 20%), rather than
absolute quantities (e.g., 1 Mg/goc). The statistical
problem is to estimate ^, (oa)2, and (oe)2. The
maximum likelihood method is used to make these
estimates (U.S. EPA, 2000a). The results are shown in
Table 5-2. The last line of Table 5-2 is the uncertainty
               associated with the ESG; i.e. , the variance associated
               with the exposure media variability.

                   The confidence limits for the ESG are computed
               using this estimate of uncertainty for the ESG. For the
               95% confidence interval limits, the significance level
               is 1.96 for normally distributed errors.
               Hence,
                                                                               + 1 .960
                                                 ^
                                                            (5-5)
                                          - 1 .960
                                                 ^
               The confidence limits are given in Table 5-3.
                             is applicable to sediments with/^,
               2 0 . 2 % .  For sediments with/^ < 0. 2 % , organic
               carbon normalization and ESGs do not apply.  ~


               5.3   Comparison of Endrin ESG and
                    Uncertainty Concentrations to
                    Sediment Concentrations that are
                    Toxic or Predicted  to be Chronically
                    Acceptable
                  Insight into the magnitude of protection afforded to
              benthic species by ESG concentrations and 95 %
              confidence intervals can be inferred using effect
              concentrations from toxicity tests with benthic species
              exposed to sediments spiked with endrin and sediment
              concentrations predicted to be chronically safe to
              organisms tested hi water-only exposures (Figures 5-1
Table 5-2. Analysis of variance for derivation of confidence limits of the ESGs for endrin
Source of Uncertainty

Exposure media

Replication

ESG sediment guidelines
                                     Parameter
                                 Value (Aig/goc)
                                                                        0.41

                                                                        0.29

                                                                        0.41
     5-3.  Confidence limits of the ESGs for endrin
  Type of Water Body
                                                         95% Confidence Limits lug/goc)
                  Lower
                                                                               Upper
  Freshwater

  Saltwater
5.4

0.99
                                                       2.4

                                                       0.44
12

2.2
                                                                                                   5-3

-------
 greater than the upper 95% confidence interval of the
 ESG (12 ^g/goc). The PGMCVs for eight genera,
 including four water column fish and four benthic
 arthropod genera, are below the ESG upper 95 %
 confidence interval.  This illustrates why the slope of
 the species sensitivity distribution is important.  It also
 suggests that if the extrapolation from water-only acute
 lethality tests to chronically acceptable sediment
 concentrations is accurate, these or similarly  sensitive
 genera may be chronically affected by sediment
 concentrations marginally less than the ESG and
 possibly less than the 95 % upper confidence interval.
 For endrin, the PGMCVs ranged over three orders of
 magnitude from the most sensitive to the most tolerant
 genus. A sediment concentration 10 times the ESG
 would exceed the PGMCVs of 10 of the 22 benthic
 genera tested including stoneflies, caddisflies,
 mayflies, dipterans, isopods, and fish. Tolerant benthic
 genera such as the annelid Lumbriculus may not be
 chronically affected in sediments with endrin
 concentrations almost 1 ,000 times the ESG. Data from
 lethality tests with two freshwater amphipods and two
 freshwater annelids exposed to endrin-spiked sediments
 substantiate this range of sensitivity. The LC50 values
 from these tests range from 2.4 to 59,000 tunes the
     The saltwater ESG for endrin (0.99 Mg/g^) is less
 than any of the PGMCVs for saltwater genera (Figure
 5-2). The PGMCVs for the penaeid shrimp Penaeus
 (1 . 1 ^g/goc) and the fishes Oncorhynchus (1 .44 ^g/goc)
 and Menidia (1 .50 jug/g^) are lower than the upper
 95 % confidence interval for the ESG (2 . 2 ngig^ • For
 endrin, PGMCVs from the most sensitive to the most
 tolerant saltwater genus range over two orders of
 magnitude. A sediment concentration 20 times the
 ESG would exceed the PGMCVs of 6 of the 1 1 benthic
 genera tested including 1  arthropod and 5 fish genera.
 The hermit crab Pagurus is less sensitive and might not
 be expected to be chronically affected in sediments
 with endrin concentrations 300 times the ESG.


 5.4  Comparison of Endrin ESG to
      STORET  and  Corps of  Engineers,
      San Francisco Bay Databases for
      Sediment Endrin

    Endrin is frequently measured when samples are
 taken to measure sediment contamination, and endrin
 values are frequently reported in databases of sediment
contamination. This means that it is possible that many
of the sediments from the nation's waterways might
exceed the endrin guidelines. ID order to investigate
this possibility, the endrin guidelines were compared
 with data from several available databases of sediment
 chemistry.

     The following description of endrin distributions in
 Figure 5-3 is somewhat misleading because it includes
 data from most samples in which the endrin
 concentration was below the detection limit. These
 data are indicated on the plot as "less than" symbols
 (<), but are plotted at the reported detection limits.
 Because these values represent upper bounds, not
 measured values, the percentage of samples in which
 the ESG values were actually exceeded may be less
 than the reported percentage. Very few of the measured
 values from either of the databases exceeded the ESGs.

     A STORET (U.S. EPA, 1989b) data retrieval was
 performed to obtain a preliminary assessment of the
 concentrations of endrin in the sediments of the nation's
 water bodies. Log probability plots  of endrin
 concentrations on a dry weight basis in sediments are
 shown in Figure  5-3. Endrin was found at significant
 concentrations in sediments from rivers, lakes, and
 near-coastal water bodies in the United States.  This is
 because of its widespread use and the quantity applied
 during the 1970s  and 1980s.  It was banned on October
 10,1984.  Median concentrations were generally at or
 near detection limits in most water bodies. There is
 significant variability in endrin concentrations in
 sediments throughout the country. Lake samples in EPA
 Region 9 appear  to have had relatively high endrin
 levels (median = 0.030 /ig/g) prior to 1986. The upper
 10% of the concentrations were disproportionally found
 in streams, rivers, and lakes in EPA Region 7 and in
 streams, rivers, lakes, and estuaries in Region 9 prior
 to 1986. In some streams and rivers in Region 7,
 concentrations remained high after 1986 (Figure 5-3).

     The ESG for endrin can be compared to existing
 concentrations of endrin in sediments of natural water
 systems in the United States as contained in the
 STORET database (U.S. EPA, 1989b).  These data
 were generally reported on a dry weight basis rather
 than an organic carbon-normalized basis. Therefore,
 ESG values corresponding to sediment organic carbon
 levels of 1 % to 10% were compared with endrin's
 distribution in sediments as examples only. For
 freshwater sediments, ESG values were 0.054 ng/g dry
 weight in sediments having 1 % organic carbon and 0.54
Aig/g dry weight in sediments having 10% organic
carbon; for marine sediments, the ESGs were 0.0099
^g/g dry weight and 0.099 Mg/g dry weight,
respectively.  Figure 5-3 presents the comparisons of
these ESGs with probability distributions of observed
sediment endrin levels for streams and lakes
5-6

-------


i!
3
C
S
"O

CO
C
• ^*
•o
w


w>
bfl
3
C
a
•o

co
C
I*
•o
C
fd




'SB
"5D
3
-*•ป
w
S
"2
CO
C
1-
•o
fi
W



10'

0
10"

10*

10*

10J

10"
10*


0
10'

10*

10

10"*

10*
m4

10'

o
lft-1
1U
1fiJ

10*

10'

10"
Irt"4
0.]



;. A: Stream ^
'r ซซซ,
: _^*wc<^
r JBS*W**aป -i
: .^
•WSSSSS^SSSK^
r -,*Wซ*r n
! ^
?
r • ซ*3*C
-------
  (freshwater systems, A and B) and estuaries (marine
  systems, C).

      For streams (n = 2,677), the ESGs of 0.054 ptg/g
  dry weight for 1 % organic carbon sediments and 0.54
  Aig/g dry weight for 10% organic carbon freshwater
  sediments were exceeded in less than 1 % of the
  samples. For lakes (n = 478), the ESG of 0.054 ^g/g
  dry weight for 1 % organic carbon sediment was
  exceeded in about 2 % of the samples, and the ESG of
  0.54 /ig/g dry weight for 10% organic carbon
  freshwater sediments was exceeded in less than 1 % of
  the samples. In estuaries,  the data (n = 150) indicate
  that the ESG of 0.0099 ^g/g dry weight sediment for
  1 % organic carbon sediments was exceeded in about
  8% of the samples, and the ESG of 0.099 vg/g dry
  weight for 10% organic carbon freshwater sediments
  was not exceeded by any of the samples.

     A second set of data was analyzed, from the U.S.
  Army Corps of Engineers (1991) monitoring program,
  for a number of locations in various parts of San
  Francisco Bay.  For a listing of locations sampled,  the
  number of observations at each site, and the period
 during which the results were obtained, see U.S. EPA
 (2000a).  These data were collected to examine the
 quality of dredged sediments in order to determine
 their suitability for open water disposal. The database
 did not indicate what determinations were made
 concerning their acceptability for this purpose.

     Investigators compared the frequency of occurrence
 of a given sediment endrin concentration (in individual
 samples, not dredge sites) with the ESG developed
 using the EqP methodology. A major portion (93 %) of
 the samples analyzed had/^ > 0.2%, for which the
 ESG concentrations are applicable. The concentrations
 of endrin measured in sediments were normalized by
 the organic carbon content, and the results are
 displayed as a probability plot hi Figure 5-4 to
 illustrate the frequency at which different levels are
 observed. Nearly all of the samples were less than the
 varying detection limits of the analytical tests. Each of
 the samples for which an actual measurement was
 obtained was at least an order of magnitude lower than
 the ESG. An estimate of the possible frequency
 distribution of sediment concentrations of endrin. was
 developed by the application of an analysis technique
 that accounts for the varying detection limits and the
presence of nondetected observations (El-Sharrawi and
Dolan, 1989).  The results are illustrated by the
straight line, which suggests that no appreciable
         *>
         s
                                        10    20        50        80    90

                                                  Probability
                              99
99.9
   Figure 5-4.  Probability distribution of organic carbon-normalized sediment endrin concentrations from the
               U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1991) monitoring program of San Francisco Bay.  Sediment
               endrin concentrations less than the detection limits are shown as open triangles (v); measured
               concentrations are shown as solid circles (•).  The solid line is an estimate of the  distribution
               developed by accounting for nondetected observations.
5-8

-------
  number of exceedences is expected. However, the
  virtual absence of detected concentrations makes the
  distribution estimates unreliable. They are presented
  only to suggest the probable relationship between the
  levels of these two pesticides in relation to sediment
  guidelines.

      Regional-specific differences in endrin
  concentrations may affect the above conclusions
  concerning expected guidelines exceedences. This
  analysis also does not consider other factors such as the
  type of samples collected (i.e., whether samples were
  from surficial grab samples or vertical core profiles) or
  the relative frequencies and intensities of sampling in
  different study areas. It is presented as an aid in
  assessing the range of reported endrin sediment
  concentrations and the extent to which they may exceed
  the ESG.


  5.5  Limitations to the Applicability of
       ESGs

     Rarely,  if ever, are contaminants found alone in
  naturally occurring sediments.  Obviously, the fact that
  the concentration of a particular contaminant does not
 exceed the ESG does not mean that other chemicals,
  for which there are no ESGs available, are not present
 in concentrations sufficient to cause harmful effects.
 Furthermore, even if ESGs were available for all of
 the contaminants in a particular sediment, there might
 be additive or synergistic effects that the guidelines do
 not address.  In this sense the ESG represents a "best
 case" guideline.

     It is theoretically possible that antagonistic
 reactions between chemicals could reduce the toxicity
 of a given chemical such that it might not cause
 unacceptable effects on benthic organisms at
 concentrations above the ESG when it occurs with the
 antagonistic chemical. However, antagonism has
 rarely been demonstrated.  More common would be
 instances where toxic effects occur at concentrations
 below the ESG because of the additive toxicity of many
 common contaminants such as heavy metals and
 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Alabaster
 and Lloyd, 1982), and instances where other toxic
 compounds for which no ESGs exist occur along widi
 ESG chemicals.

     Care must be used in the application of EqP-
derived guidelines in disequilibrium conditions. In
some instances, site-specific ESGs may be required to
address disequilibrium. The ESGs assume that
  nonionic organic chemicals are in equilibrium with the
  sediment and interstitial water and are associated with
  sediment primarily through adsorption to sediment
  organic carbon. In order for these assumptions to be
  valid, the chemical must be dissolved in interstitial
  water and partitioned into sediment organic carbon.
  Therefore, the chemical must be associated with the
  sediment for a sufficient length of time for equilibrium
  to be reached.  In sediments where particles of
  undissolved endrin occur, disequilibrium exists and the
  guidelines are overprotective.  In liquid chemical spill
  situations, disequilibrium concentrations in interstitial
  and overlying water may be proportionately higher
  relative to sediment concentrations. In this case the
  guidelines may be underprotective.

     Note that the K^ values used in the EqP
  calculations described in this document assume that the
  organic carbon in sediments is similar in partitioning
  properties to "natural" organic carbon found inmost
  sediments. While this has proven true for most
  sediments EPA has studied, it is possible that some
  sites may have components of sediment organic carbon
  with different properties. This might be associated
  with sediments whose composition has been highly
  modified by industrial activity, resulting in high
 percentages of atypical organic carbon such as rubber,
 animal processing waste (e.g., hair or hide fragments),
 coal particles, or wood processing wastes (bark, wood
 fiber,  or chips). Relatively undegraded woody debris
 or plant matter (e.g., roots, leaves) may also contribute
 organic carbon that partitions differently from typical
 organic carbon (e.g., Iglesias-Jimenez et al., 1997;
 Grathwohl, 1990; Xing et al., 1994). Sediments with
 substantial amounts of these materials may exhibit
 higher concentrations of chemicals in interstitial water
 than would be predicted using generic K^ values,
 thereby making the ESG underprotective.  If such a
 situation is encountered, the applicability of literature
 AOC values can be evaluated by analyzing for the
 chemical  of interest in both sediment and interstitial
 water.  If the  measured concentration in interstitial
 water is markedly greater (e.g., more than twofold)
 than that predicted using  the AT^ values recommended
 herein (after accounting for DOC binding in the
 interstitial water), then the national ESGs would be
 underprotective and calculation of a site-specific ESG
 should be considered (see U.S. EPA, 2000b).

    The presence of organic carbon in large particles
may also influence the apparent partitioning. Large
particles may  artificially inflate the effect of the
organic carbon because of their large mass, but
                                                                                                      5-9

-------
 comparatively small surface area; they may also
 increase variability in TOC measurements by causing
 sample heterogeneity. The effect of these particles on
 partitioning can be evaluated by analysis of interstitial
 water as described above, and site-specific ESGs may
 be used if required.  It may be possible to screen large
 particles from sediment prior to analysis to reduce
 their influence on the'interpretation of sediment
 chemistry relative to ESGs.

     In very dynamic areas, with highly erosional or
 depositional bedded sediments, equilibrium may not be
 attained with contaminants. However, even high ^Tow
 nonionic organic compounds come to equilibrium in
clean sediment in a period of days, weeks, or months.
Equilibrium times are shorter for mixtures of two
sediments that each have previously been at
equilibrium.  This is particularly relevant in tidal
situations where large volumes of sediments are eroded
and deposited, even though near equilibrium conditions
may predominate over large areas. Except for spills
and paniculate chemical, near equilibrium is the rule
and disequilibrium is less common.  In instances where
it is suspected that EqP does not apply for a particular
sediment because of the disequilibrium discussed
above, site-specific methodologies may be applied
(U.S. EPA, 2000b).
5-10

-------
 Section 6
 Guidelines  Statement
    The procedures described in the ESG Technical
Basis Document indicate that benthic organisms should
be acceptably protected in freshwater sediments
containing <,5.4 /zg endrin/goc and saltwater sediments
containing <.0.99 /^g endrin/g^, except possibly where
a locally important species is very sensitive or sediment
organic carbon is <0.2%.

    Confidence limits of 2.4 to 12/jg/g^^ for freshwater
sediments and 0.44 to 2.2 Pg/goc for saltwater
sediments are provided as an estimate of the
uncertainty associated with the degree to which the
observed concentration in sediment (wg/g,^), which
may be toxic, can be predicted using the T^, and the
water-only effects concentration. Confidence limits do
not incorporate uncertainty associated with water
quality criteria. An understanding of the theoretical
basis of the equilibrium partitioning methodology,
uncertainty, and the partitioning and toxicity of endrin
are required in the regulatory use of ESGs and their
confidence limits.
    The guidelines presented in this document are
 EPA's best recommendation of the concentrations of a
 substance that may be present in sediment while still
 protecting benthic organisms from the effects of that
 substance. These guidelines are applicable to a variety
 of freshwater and marine sediments because they are
 based on the biologically available concentration of the
 substance in those sediments.  These guidelines do not
 protect against additive, synergistic, or antagonistic
 effects of contaminants or bioaccumulative effects to
 aquatic life, wildlife or human health. The Agency and
 the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board do not
 recommend the use of ESGs as stand-alone, pass-fail
 criteria for all applications; rather, exceedances of ESGs
 could trigger additional studies at sites under
 investigation.  The ESG should be interpreted as a
 chemical concentration below which adverse effects are
 not expected.  In comparison, at concentrations above
 the ESG effects are likely, and above the upper
confidence limit effects are expected if the chemical is
bioavailable as predicted by EqP theory. A sediment-
specific site assessment would provide further
information on chemical bioavailability and the
expectation of toxicity relative to the ESG and
associated uncertainty limits.
                                                                                               6-1

-------


 Section  7
 References
 Adams WJ, Kimerle RA, MosherRG. 1985. Aquatic
 safety assessment of chemicals sorbed to sediments.
 In Cardwell RD, Purdy R, Bahner RC, eds, Aquatic
 Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Seventh
 Symposium. STP 854. American Society for Testing and
 Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp 429-453.

 Alabaster JS, Lloyd R, eds. 1982. Mixtures of toxicants.
 In Water Quality Criteria for Freshwater Fish.
 Butterworth Scientific, London, UK.

 Anderson RL, DeFoe DL. 1980. Toxicity and
 bioaccumulation of endrin and methoxychlor in aquatic
 invertebrates and fish. Environ Pollut (Ser A) 22:111-
 121.

 Brooke LT. 1993. Acute and chronic toxicity testing of
 several pesticides to five species of aquatic organisms.
 Final Report. Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.

 Brungs WA, Bailey GW. 1966. Influence of suspended
 solids on the acute toxicity of endrin to fathead
 minnows. Proceedings, 2la Annual Purdue Indiana
 Waste Conference, Part 1.50:4-12.

 Chapman, GA. 1987. Establishing sediment criteria for
 chemicals—Regulatory perspective. In Dickson KL,
 Maki AW, Brungs WA, eds, Fate and Effects of
 Sediment-Bound  Chemicals in Aquatic Systems.
 Pergamon Press, New York, NY, pp 355-376.

 Davis HC, Hidu H. 1969. Effects of pesticides on
 embryonic development of clams and oysters and on
 survival and growth of the larvae. Fisheries Bull
 67:393-404.

 De Bruijn J, Busser F, Seinen W, Hermens J.1989.
 Determination of octanol/water partition coefficients
 for hydrophobic organic chemicals with the slow-
 stirring method. Environ Toxicol Chern 8:499-512.

 DeWitt TH, Ozretich RJ, Swartz RC, Lamberson JO,
 Shults DW, Ditsworth GR, Jones JKP, Hoselton L,
 Smith LM. 1992. The influence of organic matter quality
on the toxicity and partitioning of sediment-associated
 fluoranthene. Environ Toxicol Chem  11:197-208.
 Di Toro DM. 1985. A particle interaction model of
 reversible organic chemical sorption. Chemosphere
 14:1503-1538.

 Di Toro DM, Zarba CS, Hansen DJ, Berry WJ, Swartz
 RC, Cowan CE, Pavlou SP, Allen HE, Thomas NA,
 Paquin PR. 1991. Technical basis for establishing
 sediment quality criteria for nonionic organic chemicals
 using equilibrium partitioning. Environ Toxicol Chem
 10:1541-1583.

 Eadsforth CV. 1986. Application of reverse-phase HPTLC
 for the determination of partition coefficients. Pest Sci
 17:311-325.

 Earnest RD, Benville PE Jr. 1972. Acute toxicities of four
 organo-chlorine insecticides to two species of surf
 perch. Calif Fish Game 58:127-132.

 EislerR. 1969. Acute toxicities of insecticides to marine
 decapod crustaceans. Crustaceana 16:302-310.

 Eisler R. 1970a. Factors affecting pesticide-induced
 toxicity in an estuarine fish. Technical Paper 45. Bureau
 of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Department of the
 Interior, Washington, DC.

 Eisler R. 1970b. Acute toxicities of organochlorine and
 organophosphorous insecticides to estuarine fishes.
 Technical Paper 46. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
 Wildlife. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
 DC

 Ellington JJ, Stancil FE Jr. 1988. Octanol/water partition
 coefficients for evaluation of hazardous waste land
 disposal: Selected chemicals. EPA/600/M-88/010.
 Environmental Research Brief. Environmental Research
 Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
 Athens,  GA.

El-Shaarawi AH, Dolan DM. 1989. Maximum likelihood
estimation of water quality concentrations from
censored data. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 47:1033-1039.

Fabacher DL. 1976. Toxicity of endrin and endrin-methyl
parathion formulation to largemouth bass fingerlings.
Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 16:376—378.
                                                                                                 7-1

-------
 GrathwohlP. 1990. Influence of organic matter from
 soils and sediments from various origins on the
 sorption of some chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons:
 Implications on KQC correlations. Environ Sci Technol
 24:1687-1693.

 Hall RJ, Swineford D. 1980. Toxic effects of endrin and
 toxaphene on the southern leopard frog, Rana
 sphenocephala. Environ Pollut (Ser A) 23:53-65.

 Hansen DJ, Schimmel SC, Forester!. 1977. Endrin:
 Effects on the entire life-cycle of a saltwater fish,
 Cyprinodon variegatus. J Toxicol Environ Health
 3:721-733.

 Hartley D, Kidd H, eds.  1987. The Agrochemicals
 Handbook. 2nd ed. Royal Society of Chemistry,
 University of Nottingham, England.

 Henderson C, Pickering QH, Tarzwell CM. 1959. Relative
 toxicity often chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides to
 four species of fish. Trans Am Fish Soc 88:23-32.

 Hermanutz RO. 1978. Endrin and malathion toxicity to
 flagfish (Jordanellafloridae). Arch Environ Contam
 Toxicoll-.159-168.

 Hermanutz RO, Eaton JG, Mueller LH. 1985. Toxicity of
 endrin and malathion mixtures to  flagfish (Jordanella
floridae). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 14:307-314.

 Hoke R, Kosian PA, Ankley GT, Cotter AM,
 Vandermeiden FM, Phipps GL, Durban EJ. 1995. Check
 studies with Hyalella azteca and  Chironomous tentans
 in support of the development of a sediment quality
 criterion for dieldrin. Environ Toxicol Chem 14:435-443.

 Iglesias- Jimenez E, Poveda E, Sanchez-Martin MJ,
 Sanchez-Camazano M. 1997. Effect of the nature of
 exogenous organic matter on pesticide sorption by the
 soil Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 33:117-124.

Jarvinen AW, Tyo RM. 1978. Toxicity to fathead
minnows of endrin in food and water. Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol 7:409-421.

Jarvinen AW, Tanner DK, Kline ER. 1988. Toxicity of
chlorpyrifos, endrin or fenvalerate to fathead minnows
following episodic or continuous exposure. Ecotoxico!
Environ Saf 15:78-95.
  Karickhoff SW, Carreira LA, Melton C, McDaniel VK,
  Vellino AN, NuteDE. 1989. Computer prediction of
  chemical reactivity—The ultimate SAR. EPA/600/M-89/
  017. Environmental Research Brief. Environmental
  Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency, Athens, GA.

  Karickhoff SW, Long JM. 1995. Internal report on
  summary of measured, calculated, and recommended
  log A"ow values. Internal Report. Environmental
  Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency, Athens, GA.

  Karickhoff SW, Long JM. 1996. Protocol for setting
  KOVJ values. Internal Report. Environmental Research
  Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
  Athens, GA.

  Katz M. 1961. Acute toxicity of some organic
  insecticides to three species of salmonids and the
  threespine stickleback. Trans Am Fish Soc 90:264-269.

 Katz M, Chadwick GG. 1961. Toxicity of endrin to some
 Pacific Northwest fishes. Trans Am Fish Soc 90:394—
 397.

 Keilty TJ, Stehly GR. 1989. Preliminary investigation of
 protein utilization by an aquatic earthworm in response
 to sublethal stress. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol
 43:350-354.

 Keilty T, White DS, Landrum PF. 1988a. Short-term
 lethality and sediment avoidance assays with endrin-
 contaminated sediments and two oligochaetes from
 Lake Michigan. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 17:95—
 101.

 Keilty TJ, White DS, Landrum PF. 1988b. Sublethal
 responses to endrin in sediment by Stylodrilus
 heringianus (Lumbriculidae) as measured by a cesium
 marker layer technique. Aquat Toxicol 13:251-270.

 Korn S, Earnest RD. 1974. Acute toxicity of 20
 insecticides to striped bass, Morone saxatilis. Calif
 Fซ/iGa/ne60:128-131

Landrum, P. 1991. Memorandum to W. Berry, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI,
May 13, 1991,  1pp.

Lowe JI. 1966. Some effects of endrin on estuarine
fishes. Proceedings, 19th Annual Conference S.E.
Association Game Fish Commission, Tulsa, OK.
October 10-13,1965.
7-2

-------
 Mabey WR, Smith JH, Podoll RT, Johnson HL, Mi!) T,
 Chou TW, Gates J, Partridge IW, Jaber H, Vandenberg
 D. 1982. Aquatic fate process data for organic priority
 pollutants. EPA-440/4-81-041. FinalReport. Office of
 Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

 Macek KJ, Hutchinson C, Cope OB. 1969. Effects of
 temperature on the susceptibility of bluegills and
 rainbow trout to selected pesticides. Bull Environ
 ContamToxicol 4:174-183.

 Mackay D, Powers B. 1987. Sorption of hydrophobic
 chemicals from water: A hypothesis for the mechanism
 of the particle concentration effect. Chemosphere
 16:745-757.

 Mayer FL, Ellersieck MR. 1986- Manual of acute
 toxicity: Interpretation and database for 410 chemicals
 and 66 species for freshwater animals. Resource
 Publication 160. Fish and Wildlife  Service, U.S.
 Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

 McCorkle FM, Chambers JE, Yarbrough JD. 1977. Acute
 toxicities of selected herbicides to fingerling channel
 catfish, Ictalurus punctatus. Bull Environ Contam
 Toxicol 18:267-270.

 McLeeseDW.Metcalfe CD.  1980. Toxicities of eight
 organochlorine compounds in sediment and seawater
 to Crangon septemspinosa. Bull Environ Contam
 Toxicol 25:921-928.

 McLeeseDW,BurridgeLE,DinterDJ. 1982. Toxicities
 of five organochlorine compounds in water and
 sediment to Nereis virens. Bull Environ Contam
 Toxicol 28:216-220.

 Mount DI. 1962. Chronic effects of endrin on bluntnose
 minnows and guppies. Resource Report 58. Fish and
 Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
 Washington, DC.

 National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1973. Water
 Quality Criteria, 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. National
 Academy of Sciences, U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency, Washington, DC.

Nebeker AV, Schuytema GS, Griffis WL, Barbitta JA,
Carey LA. 1989. Effect of sediment organic carbon on
survival of Hyalella azteca exposed to DDT and endrin.
Environ Toxicol Chem 8:705-718.
 Neely WB, Branson DR, Blau GE. 1974. Partition
 coefficient to measure bioconcentration potential of
 organic chemicals in fish. Environ Sci Technol 8:1113—
 1115.
                                       i
 Moreen EW. 1989. Computer Intensive Methods for
 Testing Hypotheses: An Introduction. John Wiley and
 Sons, New York, NY.

 Poirier S, Cox D. 1991. Memorandum to R. Spehar,
 Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN, March
 11,1991.7pp.

 Rapaport RA, Eisenreich SJ. 1984. Chromatographic
 determination of octanol-water partition coefficient
 (#ows) for 58 polychlorinated biphenyls congeners.
 Environ Sci Technol 18:163-170. - -

 Sanders HO. 1972. Toxicity of some insecticides to
 four species of malacostracan crustaceans.  Technical
 Paper 66. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S.
 Department of the Interior, Washington,  DC.

 Sanders HO, Cope OB. 1966. Toxicities of several
 pesticides to two species of cladocerans. Trans Am Fish
 Soc 95:165-169.

 Sanders HO, Cope OB. 1968. The relative toxicities of
 several  pesticides to naiads of three species of
 stoneflies. Umnol Oceanogr 13:112-117.

 Schimmel SC, Parish PR, Hansen DJ, Patrick JM Jr,
 Forester J.  1975.  Endrin: Effects on several estuarine
 organisms.  Proceedings, 28th Annual Conference S .E.
 Association Game Fish Commission. White Sulphur
 Springs, WV, November 17-20,1974.

 SchoettgerRA. 1970.  Fish-pesticide research
 laboratory, progress in sport fishery research. Resource
 Publication 106. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
 Wildlife, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
 DC.

 Schuytema GA, Nebeker AV, Griffis WL, Miller CE.
 1989. Effects of freezing on toxicity of sediments
contaminated with DDT and endrin. Environ Toxicol
 Oie/n 8:883-891,

Sharom MS, Miles JR, Harris CR, McEwenFL.  1980.
Persistence  of 12 insecticides in water. Water Res
 14:1089-1093.
                                                                                                  7-3

-------
 Stehly GR. 1992. Results of toxicity tests wilhDiporeia
 sp. exposed to endrin-contaminated sediments.
 Memorandum to W. Berry. U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency, Atlantic Ecology Division,
 Narragansett, RI, January 8,1992.  1 p.

 Stephan CE, Mount DI, Hansen DJ, Gentile JH,
 Chapman GA, Brungs WA. 1985. Guidelines for
 deriving numerical national water quality criteria for
 the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses.
 PB85-227049. National Technical Information Service,
 Springfield, VA.

 Swartz RC. 1991. Acenaphthene and phenanthrene
 files. Memorandum to D. Hansen, HydroQual, Inc.,
 Mahwah.NJ, June 26,1991. 160pp.

 Swam RC, Schults DW, DeWitt TH, Ditsworth GR,
 LambersonJO. 1990. Toxicity of fluoranthene in
 sediment to marine amphipods: A test of the
 equilibrium partitioning approach to sediment quality
 criteria. Environ Toxicol Chem 9:1071-1080.

 Thurston RV, Gilfoil TA, Meyn EL, Zajdel RK, Aoki
 TI, Veith GD. 1985. Comparative toxicity of ten
 organic chemicals to ten common aquatic species.
 Water Res 19:1145-1155.

 Tyler-SchroederDB. 1979. Use of grass shrimp,
 Palaemonetespugio in a life-cycle toxicity test. In
 Marking LL, Kimerle RA, eds, Aquatic Toxicology and
 Hazard Evaluation: Second Symposium STP 667.
 American Society for Testing and Materials,
 Philadelphia, PA, pp 159-170.

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 1991.
 Monitoring Program for San Francisco Bay Sediments.
 1988 to 1990. Memorandum to D. Di  Toro, HydroQual,
 Inc., Mahwah,NJ, 1991.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient
 water quality criteria for endrin. EPA 440/5-80-047.
 Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
 Washington, DC.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Appendix
 B—Response to public comments on "Guidelines for
 deriving numerical national water quality criteria for
 the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses."
 July 19,1985. Federal Register 50:30793-30796.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987. Quality
criteria for water, 1986. EPA 440/5-86-001. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a.
  Sediment classification methods compendium. PB92-
  231679. National Technical Information Service,
  Springfield, VA.
                                     *
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b.
  Handbook: Water quality control information system,
  STORET. Office of Water and Hazardous Materials,'
  Washington, DC.

  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. National
  recommended water quality criteria—Correction. EPA-
  822-2-99-001. April 1999. Washington, DC.

  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000a.
  Technical basis for the derivation of equilibrium
  partitioning sediment guidelines (ESGs) for the
 protection of benthic organisms: Nonionic organics.
  EPA-822-R-00-001. Office of Science and Technology,
 Washington,  DC.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000b.
 Methods for the derivation of site-specific equilibrium
 partitioning sediment guidelines (ESGs) for the
 protection of benthic organisms: Nonionic organics.
 EPA-822-R-00-002. Office of Science and Technology,
 Washington, DC.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000c.
 Implementation framework for use of equilibrium
 partitioning sediment guidelines (ESGs).  Office of
 Science and Technology, Washington, DC.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000d.
 Equilibrium partitioning sediment guidelines (ESGs) for
 the protection of benthic organisms: Dieldrin. EPA-
 822-R-00-003. Office of Science and Technology,
 Washington, DC.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000e.
 Equilibrium partitioning sediment guidelines (ESGs) for
 the protection of benthic organisms: Metal mixtures
 (cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc). EPA-
 822-R-OO-OOS. Office of Science and Technology,
 Washington, DC.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000f.
Equilibrium partitioning sediment guidelines (ESGs) for
the protection of benthic organisms: PAH mixtures.
Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
7-4

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2000g.
Equilibrium partitioning sediment guidelines (ESGs) for
the protection of benthic organisms: Nonionics
compendium. EPA-822-R-00-06. Office of Science and
Technology and Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.

Wang YS. 1988. The contamination and
bioconeentration of aldrin, dieldrin and endrin in lower
lakes at Rocky Mountain Arsenal. PhD thesis.
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Xing B, McGill WB, Dudas MJ. 1994. Cross-correlation
of polarity curves to predict partition coefficients of
nonionic organic contaminants. Environ Sci Technol
28:1929-1933.
                                                                                                 7-5

-------
     Appendix A
Summary of Acute Values for Endrin
for Freshwater and Saltwater Species

-------



Common Name, 3 (, c
Scientific Name stage Habitat Method Cone

FRESHWATER SPECIES
Oligochaete A I FT
worm,
Lumbriculus
variegatus
Oligochaete A I FT
worm,
Lumbriculus
variegatus
Cladoceran, X W,E S
Simocephalus
serrulalus



Cladoceran, X W,E S
Simocephalus
serrulalus



Cladoceran, L W S
Daphnia
magna
Cladoceran, L W S
Daphnia
magna
Cladoceran, L W S
Daphnia
magna
Cladoceran, L W FT
Daphnia
magna


LC50/EC506 (ME/L)
HMAV
•- ' wVCJtUl
entration Test Species Genus GMAV Reference
*

M > 165.1 — — — Poirierand
Cox, 1991


M >165.0 >165.0 >165.0 >165.0 Brooke,
1993


U 26 — — — Sanders
and Cope,
1966;
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
U 45 34.20 34.20 34.20 Sanders
and Cope,
1966;
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
U 4.2 — — — Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
U 74 — — — Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
U 41 — — — Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
M 230 — — — Thurston et
al., 1985

Cladoceran, L W FT M 88 142.3 — — Thurston et
Daphnia
magna
Cladoceran, L W S
Daphnia
pulex
Ostracod, A I,E S
Cypridopsis
sp.
al., 1985

U 20 20 53.35 53.35 Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
U 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
Sowbug, A E S U 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Sanders,
Asellus
brevicaudus


1972;
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
A-l

-------
  Common Name,
  Scientific Name
life-
stage    Habitat    Method    Concentration
                                                                  LC50/ECSO Qjg/L)
                                                                           HMAV
                                                                                          Overall
           Test     Species    Genus8   GMAv     Reference
  Scud,
  Gammarus
  fasciatus
  Scud,
  Gammarus
  fasciatus
  Scud,
  Gammarus
  fasciatus

  Scud,
  Gammarus
  lacustris
  Glass shrimp,
  Palaemonetes
  kadiakensis
  Glass shrimp,
  Palaemonetes
  kadiakensis
  Crayfish,
  Orconectes
  immunis

  Crayfish,
  Orconectes
  nais
  Crayfish,
  Orconectes
  nais
  Mayfly,
  Baetis sp.
  Mayfly,
  Hexagenia
  bilineala

  Mayfly,
  Hexagenia
  bilineata
 X
           E        FT
                                       FT
                   FT
                                 U
U
U
                                U
                                U
                                U
                                                   M
                                U
                               U
                                                   U
                                                               4.3
                                                                1.3
                                                               5.5     3.133     —
           3.0
                                                               3.2
                                                              3.2
3.0      3.066     3.066
                                                               0.5      1.265    1.265     1.265
                                           >S9      >S9      —
          320
                                                    3.2      3.2
                                      16.88
                                                              0.90      0.90     0.90      0.90
                                           64
                                                   62.99     62.99      62.99
                            Sanders,
                            1972;
                            Mayer and
                            Ellersieck,
                            1986

                            Sanders,
                            1972;
                            Mayer and
                            Ellersieck,
                            1986

                            Sanders,
                            1972
Sanders,
1972;
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986

Sanders,
1972;
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986

Sanders,
1972;
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986

Thurston et
al., 1985
                           Sanders,
                           1972;
                           Mayer and
                           Ellersieck,
                           1986

                           Sanders,
                           1972;
                           Mayer and
                           Ellersieck,
                           1986

                           Mayer and
                           Ellersieck,
                           1986

                           Mayer and
                           Ellersieck,
                           1986

                           Sanders,
                           1972
A-2

-------



Common Name, &\ b c d
Scientific Name stage Habitat Method Concentration
Stonefly, L W.E S U
Acroneuria sp.

Stonefly, L I,E S U
Pleronarcella
badia



Stonefly, A I,E S U
Pteronarcys
califomica



Stonefly, J W,E S U
Claassenia
sabulosa
Stonefly, J W,E S U
Claassenia
sabulosa
Caddis fly, X E FT M
Brachycentrus
americanus
Damesfly, X W.E S U
Ischnura
verticalus
Damesfly, J W,E S U
Ischnura
verticalus
Damesfly, J W.E S U
Ischnura
verticalus
Midge, L I FT M
Tanytarsus
dissimilis
Diptera, J I,E S U
Tipula sp.

Diptera, J I,E S U
Atherix
variegata
Coho salmon, J W S U
Oncorhynchus
kisulch



LC50/EC50e (MK/L)
liMAV Overall
———————-" 	 — WVCI all
Test Species Genus8 GMAv" Reference
>0.18 >0.18 >0.18 >0.18 Mayerand
Ellersieck,
1986
0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 Sanders
and Cope,
1968;
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sanders
and Cope,
1968i
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
0.76 — — — Sanders
and Cope,
1968
0.76 0.2403 0.2403 0.2403 Mayerand
Ellersieck,
1986
0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 Anderson
and DeFoc,
1980
1.8 — — — Sanders,
1972

2. 1 — — — Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
2.4 2.086 2.086 2.086 Mayerand
Ellersieck,
1986
0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Thurston et
a!., 1985

12 12 12 12 Mayerand
Ellersieck,
1986
4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
0.51 — — — Katz, 1961


A-3

-------
Common Name,
Scientific Name
Coho salmon,
Oncorhynchus
kisutch
Coho salmon,
Oncorhynchus
kisutch
Cutthroat trout,
Oncorhynchus
clarki
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
Chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
ishawylscha
LC50/EC506 (Mg/L)
Life HMAV Overall
stage Habitat Method0 Concentration Test Species Genus8 GMAv Reference
J W S U 0.089 — — — Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
J W S U 0.27 0.2306 — — Katzand
Chadwick,
1961
J W S U >1.0 >1.0 — — Mayerand
Ellersieck,
1986
J W S U 0.74 — — — Mayerand
Ellersieck,
1986
J W S U 0.75 — — — Mayerand
Ellersieck,
1986
J W S U 0.75 — — — Mayerand
Ellersieck,
1986
J W S U 2.4 — — — Mayerand
Ellersieck,
1986
JWS U 1.4— — — Mayerand
Ellersieck,
1986
JWS U 1.11 — — — Mayerand
Ellersieck,
1986
JWS U 1.1 — — — Maceket
al., 1969
JWS U 0.58 — — — Katz, 1961
JWS U 0,90 — — — Katzand
Chadwick,
1961
J W FT M 0.33 0.33 — — Thurstonet
al., 1985
JWS U 1.2 — — — Katz, 1961
A-4

-------
^^M^^^f^^^^l^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^S

%$w f^-^^^r ^#^^7f;^^^3sซ^js^^^^^l?^P^S^^^^^^^^^^^^OTl^ฎ^ ^ %iiฎliSas&ir&i$3Jfmฎt



LC50/EC50e (Mg/L)
Common Name, a be d
Scientific Name stage Habitat Method Concentration Test
Chinook J W S U 0.92
salmon,
Oncorhynchus -
ishawytscha
Goldfish, J W S U 2.1
Carassius
auratus
Goldfish, J W FT U 0.44
Carassius
auratus
Goldfish, J W FT M 0.95
Carassius
auratus
Carp, J W FT U 0.32
Cyprinus
carpio
Fathead J W S U 1.1
minnow,
Pimephales
promelas
Fathead J W S U 1.4
minnow,
Pimephales
promelas
Fathead L W S U 0.7
minnow,
Pimephales
promelas
Fathead J W S U 1.8
minnow,
Pimephales
promelas
Fathead J W FF U 0.24
minnow,
Pimephales
promelas
Fathead J W FT M 0.50
minnow,
Pimephales
promelas
Fathead U — FT M 0.49
minnow,
Pimephales
promelas
Fathead J W FF M 0.40
minnow,
Pimephales
promelas
HMAV 0-crall
••••'"••- WYCJaJI
Species Genus GMAV Reference
ป
1.051 XX5318 X>.5318 Katzand.
Chadwick,
1961
— — — Henderson
etal., 1959
— — — Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
0.95 0.95 0.95 Thurston et
al., t985

0.32 0.32 0.32 Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
— — — Henderson
etal., 1959
— — — Henderson
etal., 1959
— — — Jarvinen et
al., 1988
— — — Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
— — — Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
— — — Brungs and
Bailey,
1966
— — — Brungs and
Bailey,
1966
— — — Brungs and
Bailey,
1966
A-5

-------
Common Name,
Scientific Name
Fathead
minnow,
Pimephales
promelas
Fathead
minnow,
Pimephales
promelas
Black
bullhead,
Ictalurus
melas
Black
bullhead,
Ictalurus
melas
Channel
catfish,
Ictalurus
punctatus
Channel
catfish,
Icialunts
punctatus
Channel
catfish,
Ictalurus
punctatus
Channel
catfish,
Ictalurus
punctatus
Channel
catfish,
Ictalurus
punctatus
Flagfish,
Jordanella
floridae
Mosquitofish,
Gambusia
affinis
Mosquitofish,
Gambusia
affinis
LC50/EC50e Oig/L)
Life HMAV Ova 11
j^iic- ___^____™— — ^^venm
stage Habitat Method Concentration Test Species Genus GMAv Reference
J W FT M 0.45 — — — Brungsand
Bailey, 1966
J W FT M 0.64 0.4899 0.4899 0.4899 Thurston et
al., 1985
J W,E S U 1.13 — — — Mayerand
Ellersieck,
1986
J W.E FT M 0.45 0.45 _ _ Anderson
and DeFoe,
1980
J W,E S U 0.32 — — — Mayerand
Ellersieck,
1986
J W,E S U 1.9 — — — Mayerand
Ellersieck,
1986
J W,E S U 0.8 — — — McCorkleet
al., 1977
J W,E FT M 0.43 — — — Thurston et
al.. 1985
J W,E FT M 0.41 0.4199 0.4347 0.4347 Thurston et
al., 1985
J W FT M 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hermanutz,
1978;
Hermanutz
et al., 1985
J W S U 1.1 — — — Mayerand
Ellersieck,
1986
X W S U 0.75 — — — Katzand
Chad wick,
1961
A-6

-------



Common Name, a b c
Scientific Name stage Habitat Method Concentration
Mosquitofish, J W FT M
Gambusia
affinis
Guppy, X W S U
Poecilia
reticulata
Guppy, X W S U
Poecilia
reticulata
Bluegill, J W S U
Lepomis
macrochirus
Bluegill, J W S U
Lepomis
macrochirus
Bluegill, J W S U
Lepomis
macrochirus
Bluegill, J W S U
Lepomis
macrochirus
Bluegill, J W S U
Lepomis
macrochirus
Bluegill, J W S U
Lepomis
macrochirus
Bluegill, J W S U
Lepomis
macrochirus
Bluegill, J W S U
Lepomis
macrochirus
Bluegill, J W S U
Lepomis
macrochirus
Bluegill, J W S U
Lepomis
macrochirus
>


LC50/EC50e OiR/L)
HMAV _ ,
Test Species Genus8 GMAv Reference
0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 Thurston et
al., 1985
0.90 — — — Katzand
Chadwick,
1961
1.6 1.200 1.200 1.200 Henderson
etal., 1959
0.60 — — — Katzand
Chadwick,
196T
8.25 — — - — Katzand
Chadwick,
1961
5.5 — — — Katzand
Chadwick,
1961
2.4 — — — Katzand
Chadwick,
1961
1.65 — — — Katzand
Chadwick,
1961
0.86 — — — Katzand
Chadwick,
1961
0.33 — — — Katzand
Chadwick,
1961
0.61 — — — Maceket
al., 1969;
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
0.41 — — — Maceket
al., 1969;
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
0.37 — — — Maceket
al., 1969;
Mayer and
EUcrsicck,
1986
A-7

-------


LC50/EC50e C*g/L)
HMAV
l_Jfc iuปi^v Overall
Common Name, a b c d f e h
Scientific Name stage Habitat Method Concentration Test Species Genus GMAv
Bluegill, J W S U 0.53 — — —
Lepomis
macrochirus
Bluegill, J W S U 0.73 — — —
Lepomis
macrochirus
Bluegill, J W S U 0.68 — —
Lepomis
macrochirus
Bluegill, J W S U 0,19 — — —
Lepomis
macrochirus
Bluegill, J W S U 0.66 — — —
Lepomis
macrochirus
BluegilJ, U — S U 0.61 — — —
Lepomis
macrochirus
Bluegill, J W FT M 0.19 — — —
Lepomis
macrochirus
Bluegill, J W FT M 0.23 — — —
Lepomis
macrochirus
Largemouth J W S U 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31
bass,
Micropterus
dolomieu
Yellowperch, J W FT V 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Perca
flavescens
Tilapia, J W S U <5.6 <5.6 <5.6 <5.6
Tilapia
mossambica
Bullfrog, L E FT M 2.5 2.5 — —
Rana
catesbiana
Southern E W FT M 25 25 2.5(E) 7.906
leopard frog, 25(W)
Rana
sphenocephala
Fowler's toad, L E S V 120 120 120 120
Bufofawleri
— — 	 	 , — _
Reference
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
Henderson
et al., 1959
Sanders,
1972
Thurston et
al., 1985
Thurston et
al., 1985
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
Thurston et
al., 1985
Hall and
Swineford,
1980
Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986
A-8

-------




LC50/EC50C CUS/L)
Life HMAV (
Common Name, a b c d f g
Scientific Name stage Habitat Method Concentration Test Species Genus C
Western L E S U 180 180 180
chorus frog,
Psuedocris
triseriata
SALTWATER SPECffiS
Eastern oyster, E.L W S U 790* 790 790
Crassostrea
virginica
Sand shrimp, A E S U 1.7 1.7 1.7
Crangon
septemspinosa
Hermit crab, A E S U 12 12 12
Pagurus
longicarpus
Korean A W,E S U 4.7 — —
shrimp,
Palaemon
macrodactylus
Korean A W,E FT U 0.3 1.187 1.187
shrimp,
Palaemon
macrodactylus
Grass shrimp, L W FT M 1.2 — —
pugio
Grass shrimp, J W FT M 0.35 — —
Palaemonetes
pugio
Grass shrimp, A W,E FT M 0.69 — —
Palaemonetes
pugio
Grass shrimp, A W.E FT M 0.63 0.6536 —
Palaemonetes
pugio
Grass shrimp, A W,E S U 1.8 1.8 1.085
Palaemonetes
vulgaris
Pink shrimp, A I,E FT M 0.037 0.037 0.037
Penaeus
duorarum
American eel, J E S U 0.6 0.6 0.6
Anguilla
roslrata
>verall
MAY Reference
180 Mayer and
Ellersieck,
1986

790 Davis and
Hidu, 1969
1.7 Eisler,
1969
" 12 Eisler,
1969
— Schoettger,
1970
1.187 Schoettger,
1970
— Tyler-
Scnroeder,
1979
— Tyler-
Schroeder,
1979
— Tyler-
Schroeder,
1979
— Schimmel
etal., 1975
1.085 Eisler,
1969
0.037 Schimmel
et al., 1975
0.6 Eisler,
1969
A-9

-------
Common Name,
Scientific Name
Chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
Sheepshead
minnow,
Cyprinodon
variegatus
Sheepshead
minnow,
Cyprinodon
variegatus
Sheepshead
minnow.
Cyprinodon
variegatus
Sheepshead
minnow,
Cyprinodon
variegatus
Mummichog,
Fundulus
heteroclitus
Mummichog,
Fundulus
heteroclitus
Striped
killifish.
Fundulus
majalis
Sailfin molly,
Poecilia
latipinna
Atlantic
silverside,
Menidia
menidia
Threespine
stickleback.
Gasterosteus
aculeatus
Threespine
stickleback,
Gasterosteus
aculeatus
LC50/EC506 fcg/L)
Life HMAV Ov -rill
i^nc- _ซ — ___~_~_™_ uverajl
stage Habitat Method Concentration Test Species Genus GMAv Reference
J W FT U 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 Schoettger,
1970
._

J W.E FT M 0.37 — — — Hansenet
al., 1977


J W,E FT M 0.34 — — — Hansenet
al., 1977

__
A W,E FT M 0.36 — — — Hansenet
al., 1977


J W,E FT M 0.38 0,3622 0.3622 0.3622 Schimmel
etal.,1975


A W.E S U 0.6 — — — Eisler,
1970b

A W,E S U 1.5 0.9487 — — Eisler,
1970b

J W,E S U 0.3 0.3 0.5334 0.5334 Eisler,
1970b


A W FT M 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 Schimmel
etal., 1975

J W S U 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Eisler,
1970b


J W,E S U 1.65 — — — Katzand
Chadwick,
1961

J W,E S U 1.50 — — — Katzand
Chadwick,
1961

A-10

-------




LC50/EC50C (pg/L)
Common Name, a j, c j
Scientific Name stage Habitat Method Concentration Test
Threespine J W,E S U 120
stickleback,
Gasterosteus
aculeatus
Threespine J W,E S U 1.57
stickleback,
Gaslerosteus
aculeatus
Threespine J W,E S U 1.57
stickleback,
Gasterosteus
aculeatus
Threespine J W,E S U 0.44
stickleback,
Gasterosteus
aculeatus
Threespine J W,E S U 050
stickleback,
Gasterosleus
aculeatus
Striped bass, J E FT U 0.094
Morone
saxatilis
Shiner perch, J W S U 0.8
Cymatogaster
aggregala

Shiner perch, J W FT U 0.12
Cymatogaster
aggregata

Dwarf perch, A W S U 0.6
Micrometrus
minimus

Dwarf perch, A W FF U 0.13
Micrometrus
minimus

Bluehead, AW S U 0.1
Thalassoma
bifasciatum
HMAV 0 „
\_/ VC1 till
Species Genus GMA1/1 Reference
$
— — — Katz and
Chad wick.
1961

— — — Katz and
Chad wick,
1961

— — — Katz and
Chadwick,
1961

_ _ _ Katz, 1961



1.070 1.070 1.070 Katz, 1961



0.094 0.094 0.094 Kom and
Earnest,
1974
— — — Earnest
and
Benville,
1972
0.3098 0.3098 0.3098 Earnest
and
Benville,
1972
— — — Earnest
and
Benville,
1972
0.2793 0.2793 0.2793 Earnest
and
Benville,
1972
0.1 0.1 0.1 Eisler,
1970b

A-ll

-------
LC50/EC50e Og/L)
Common Name, a be d
Scientific Name stage Habitat Method Concentration Test
Striped mullet, A E S U 0.3
Mugil
cephalus
Northern A W S U 3.1
puffer,
Sphaeroides
maculatus
HMAV
Species' Genus8 GMAV* Reference
0-3 0.3 0.3 Eisler,
1970b

3.1 3.2 3.1 Eisler,
1970b


 aLife-stage: A = adult, J = juvenile, L = larvae, E = embryo, U = life-stage and habitat unknown, X = life-stage unknown but habitat
  known.
  Habitat: I = infauna, E = epibenthic, W  = water column.
 cMethod: S = static, R = renewal,  FT = flow-through.
  Concentration: U =  unmeasured (nominal), M =  chemical measured.
 eAcute value: 96-hour LC50 or EC50, except for 48-hour EC50 for cladocera, barnacles, and bivalve molluscs (Stephan et al., 1985).
  HMAV species: Habitat Mean Acute Value - Species is the geometric mean of acute values by species by habitat (epibenthic", infaunal,
  and water column).
 gHMAV genus: Geometric mean of HMAV for species within a genus.
 _ Overall GMAV: Geometric mean of acute values across species, habitats, and life-stages within the genus.
 'Abnormal  development of oyster larvae.
A-12

-------
                        Appendix B
 Summary of Data from Sediment-Spiking Experiments with Endrin. Data from
these experiments were used to calculate K  values (Figure 2-2) and to compare
   mortalities of amphipods with interstitialwater toxic units (Figure 4-1) and
                predicted sediment toxic units (Figure 4-2).

-------
Sediment Concentration Cng/g)
Sediment Source,
Species tested
Soap Creek Pond
No. 7, OR
Hyalella azteca


1 : 1 Mixture Soap
Creek Pond And
Mercer Lake, OR
Hyalella azteca

Mercer Lake, OR
Hyalella azteca



Soap Creek
Pond, OR
Hyalella azteca


Mercer Lake, OR
Hyalella azteca



Mercer Lake, OR
Hyalella azteca




Lake Michigan
Diporeia sp.


Mortality
20
32
90
100
- 100
9
44
95
100
100
5
2
52
100
100
1.5
8.5
100
100
100
10
5
25
45
100
100
2.5
12.5
10
100
100
	
—
	

Dry
Weight
2.2
3.4
8.1
17.9
45.9
1.1
4.9
17.7
31.7
56.4
1.1
1.3
6.7
26.8
73.8
3.0
8.7
19.6
40.4
62.1
2.0
5.3
13.3
13.3
100
267
1.3
1.3
8.0
20.0
66.7
0.012b
0.171b
b
0.224
Organic Carbon
73
113
270
597
1,530
18
80
290
520
924
10
12
60
239
659
100
290
653
1,350
2,070
18
48
121
121
909
2,430 .
12
12
73
182
606
17b
31b

13b
Interstitial Water
Concentration
1.1
1.5
4.7
9.8
23.8
0.5
1.7
6.8
10.6
24.5
0.3
0.3
2.3
7.2
15.6
1.1 *
3.1
6.1
13.9
22.2
0.4
1.0
2.4
3.2
20.1
65.0
0.3
0.2
0.8
3.9
10.8
1.07
2.20
0.63

TOC
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
0.07
0.55
1.75

LogKoc"
4.82
4.88
4.76
4.78
4.81
4.56
4.67
4.63
4.69
4.58
4.59
4.60
4.42
4.52
4.63
4.96
4.97
5.03
4.99
4.97
4.65
4.68
4.70
4.58
4.66
4.57
4.60
4.60
4.96
4.67
4.75
4.20
4.15
4.31

	 — 	 	
References
riebeker et al.,
1989



Nebekeret al.,
1989



Nebeker et al.,
1989


.- - -
Schuytema et
al., 1989



Schuytema et
al., 1989



Schuytema et
al., 1989




Stehly, 1992



                                                                                         MEAN = 4.67

                                                                                             SE = 0.04
Interstitial water concentrations from Schuytema et a]. (1989) are concentrations of "soluble" endrin in water overlying sediments.
 Sediments were refrigerated prior to testing.
= sediment concentration
                                             "•" calculated free interstitial water concentration C^g/L)  X 10^ g/kg.
                                                                                                                         B-l

-------