United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
.EPA-735-R-03-001
Promoting Safety for
America's Future
-------
Letter from the Director
Office of Pesticide Programs
Executive Summary
Introduction
Section 1: The Pesticide Program Promotes Safety
in America
Section 2: New Active Ingredients, Uses, and
Alternatives Reinforce Public Safety in
Registration Actions
Section 3: Reregistration and Tolerance
Reassessment Assure Older Pesticides Meet
Current Safety Standards
Section 4: Outreach and Education Are Key
to Safety
Section 5: Partnerships Help Ensure Safe
Practices
Appendix: FY 2002 Registration and
Reregistration Actions
-------
Promoting Safety
for America's Future
Dear Readers:
Americans today have become accustomed to an extraordinary quality of
life that is unparalleled elsewhere in the world. We have a vast supply of
high-quality, low-cost food available to us year in and year out. We rely on
public health agencies to take action when diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and
other pests may threaten our health and safety. We also expect our homes and our
children's schools to be free from harmful insects and other pests. None of these
expectations could be met without effective pest management techniques and prop-
er stewardship of our nation's resources.
This year's annual report, "Promoting Safety for America's Future," illustrates the
work of EPA's "Pesticide Program." The "Pesticide Program" represents the collec-
tive efforts of the Office of Pesticide Programs, along with our partners in the EPA
regional offices and the state and tribal pesticide regulatory agencies, to promote
safety for all people who are exposed to pesticides in their daily lives. These include
agricultural workers and pesticide applicators and handlers who are exposed to pes-
ticides on the job; school children who spend much of their time in buildings,
parks, and playgrounds where pesticides may be used; and all of us who count on
EPA to ensure that the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe are
clean and safe.
Fiscal Year 2002 was a demanding, yet auspicious, time for the Pesticide Program.
Early in the year, as the nation was recovering from the aftermath of September 11,
anthrax contamination was discovered in our nation's capital and other locations.
We played a key role in identifying and evaluating existing pesticide products that
would be safe and effective for response to contamination by anthrax spores. The
security of materials held by pesticide manufacturers, distributors, and applicators
became an ongoing homeland security concern. By summer, West Nile virus had
-------
taken a considerable toll across more than 30 states. The Pesticide Program had sig-
nificant roles in all these public health and safety issues.
While facing these challenges during the year, our hard-working professionals suc-
ceeded in developing both the Preliminary and the Revised Organophosphate
Cumulative Risk Assessment—a major scientific and regulatory achievement and
the very first tisk assessment based on a group of chemicals that can affect health
through the same toxic characteristics. On August 3, 2002, we reached yet another
milestone as we completed the second phase of a 10-year effort of safety evaluations
by completing teevaluation of 66 percent of existing pesticide tolerances, ensuring
that pesticide residues on food meet tough new food safety standards. Further, we
met critical deadlines by issuing several key risk management decisions for currently
used pesticides, e.g., diazinon, phosmet, and azinphos methyl. We also secured the
voluntary cancellation of CCA (chromated copper arsenate) for treatment of wood
used in residential settings by January 2004, which will reduce millions of
Americans' exposure to arsenic, a known human carcinogen.
What is truly remarkable about this fiscal year is that, in addition to successfully
addressing the daunting workload brought about by the critical Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA), the Pesticide Program also met and often exceeded its
many other important regulatory commitments, including registering new lower-
risk pesticides, reevaluating older pesticides, working with partners, and communi-
cating regularly with our stakeholders and the public to ensure pesticide safety for
all Americans.
We ask for your continued cooperation and support to help us bring about greater
protection of public health and safety and in protecting the natural environment
from pesticide risks. On behalf of all the dedicated public servants across the
country who work on pesticide issues, I am honored to be able to provide you with
this report.
Marcia E. Mulkey
Director
Office of Pesticide Programs
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This annual report focuses on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's commitment to pesticide
safety—enhancing testing requirements for new pesticide products, continuing reassessment of
older products using updated data, and current science, building strong partnerships with stake-
holders, and reaching out to communicate with the public. By their very nature, most pesticides create some
risk of harm to humans, animals, or the environment because they are designed to kill or otherwise adversely
affect certain living organisms. At the same time, pesticides are critical to society because of their ability to
kill potential disease-causing organisms and control insects, weeds, and other pests. Biologically based pesti-
cides, such as pheromones and microbial pesticides, are becoming increasingly popular and often are safer
than traditional chemical pesticides. The Pesticide Program regulates the more than 18,000 pesticide prod-
ucts licensed for use in this country, continues to protect public health and the environment from the risks
posed by pesticides, and promotes safer means of pest control.
Promoting Safety
To ensure the quality of the U.S. food supply, the Pesticide Program completed a comprehensive safety eval-
uation of 66 percent of existing pesticide tolerances, as mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA). Altogether, EPA has reassessed more than 6,400 tolerances for pesticide residues on food, revoking
more than 1,900 tolerances. Nearly two-thirds of the tolerances assessed were for foods commonly consumed
by children. We have evaluated 71 percent of the 5,543 tolerances in the first-priority group including:
• 100 percent of organochlorines
• 56 percent of carbamates
• 67 percent of organophosphates (OPs)
• 64 percent of carcinogens
• 92 percent of other tolerances included in this group
The Pesticide Program worked diligently to meet a variety of other challenges, including delivery of critical
support in the aftermath of terrorist attacks and in response to public health threats such as anthrax.
Registering New Active Ingredients, Uses, and Alternatives
In FY 2002, the Pesticide Program registered 26 new active ingredients, including antimicrobials, biopesti-
cides, conventional reduced-risk pesticides, and conventional pesticides. We also registered 720 new uses for
previously registered active ingredients. In addition, the Pesticide Program reviewed requests for emergency
exemptions in an average processing time of 35 days.
-------
26 ACTIVE INGREDIENTS REGISTERED
• 3 antimicrobials • 4 conventional reduced-risk pesticides (1 OP alternative)
• 11 biopesticides • 8 conventional chemicals
Evaluating Older Pesticides Against Current Standards
Through reregistration, EPA is ensuring that older pesticides meet current health and safety standards and
product labeling requirements and that their risks are appropriately managed so that the general population
is not at risk. We look at aggregate exposure to pesticides—from food, drinking water, and home and garden
use—in determining allowable levels of pesticide residues in food. We consider whether pesticides may have
a cumulative effect because they share a common mechanism of toxicity.
RISK MANAGEMENT DECISIONS MADE FOR ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
• 7 Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) issued
(total since Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1988: 214)
• 8 Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs)
• 21 Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Interim Risk Management Decisions (TREDs)
Reaching Out and Educating the Public
An important part of the Pesticide Program's work to promote safety is developing communication tools and
establishing outreach programs to help educate stakeholders about safe pesticide use and Integrated Pest
Management (IPM). Highlights of FY 2002 include:
• Issued 200 Pesticide Program Updates
• Responded to more than 600 Webmails and 600 letters
• Responded to more than 25,000 telephone inquiries through the National Pesticide Information
Center
• Stepped up efforts to promote IPM in schools by funding new pilot programs, providing support
through IPM Technical Resource Centers, and issuing new IPM in Schools brochure to all U.S.
public schools
-------
Building Partnerships with Stakeholders
Building partnerships with a variety of stakeholders helps ensure that the Pesticide Program stays in touch
with the needs of its stakeholders, promotes efficiencies through the exchange of information and other
resources, and encourages the adoption of reduced-risk pest management practices. Important FY 2002
accomplishments include:
• Agricultural Initiative projects such as Washington State's corn earworm pilot project
• Projects sponsored by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Technical Working
Group and U.S.-Mexico Pesticide Information Exchange to promote safety across national borders
• Certification and Training Assessment Group's Web project to enhance quality of information states
provide to EPA on activities carried out under state-managed certification and training plans
Each year in the United States, more than 2 billion pounds of pesticides are applied to food crops, homes,
schools, parks, and forests. In the United States, annual expenditures for pesticides account for $11 billion.
The economic investment in pesticides is significant, as is the potential economic impact of pest infestations.
We achieve a balance by employing the best science and by keeping human health and safety foremost at all
times. Our decisions must ensure that pesticide users in the United States have access to adequate pest man-
agement tools that will not put our nation's health or safety at risk.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Each year in the United States, over 2 billion pounds of pesti-
cides are applied to food crops, homes, schools, parks, and
forests. Worldwide, pesticide expenditures exceed $33.5 bil-
lion per year. In the United States, annual expenditures for pesticides
account for $ 11 billion—or about one-third of the world total. The
economic investment in pesticides is significant, and the potential
economic impact of pest infestations is also quite steep. For example,
the National Pest Management Association estimates that termites
cause $1.5 billion worth of damage to property in the United States
each year.
EPA's Pesticide Program has been entrusted with the responsibility of
registering pesticides while safeguarding public health and the environ-
ment from risks that may be posed by them. We must also make sure
that effective and safer means for controlling pests are available. In car-
rying out this mission of safety, we regulate the more than 18,000 pes-
ticide products licensed for use in this country. Pesticides differ from
other classes of chemicals regulated by EPA because they are intention-
ally applied, rather than released into the environment as by-products
of industry or other human activity. Pesticides are released into nature
for the purpose of killing, repelling, or mitigating pests that can ruin
crops, contaminate the food supply, transmit disease, and cause struc-
tural damage to homes, schools, and other buildings. While the use of
pesticides can provide social and economic benefits, by their very
nature, most pesticides pose some degree of risk because they are
designed to have a negative effect on living organisms.
-------
One of our greatest challenges is achieving the right balance so that the
benefits pesticides offer society outweigh the risks they pose to human
health and the environment. We seek this balance using the latest tools
science has to offer, keeping health and safety foremost at all times.
This report is a summary of EPA achievements that underscore our
commitment to safety—rigorous testing requirements for new pesti-
cide products, continuing reassessment of older products, building
partnerships with stakeholders, and communicating with the public.
In FY 2002, EPA's budget for its Pesticide Program was $144.7 mil-
lion. Of these funds, $121.5 million were allocated to activities man-
aged by our headquarters in Washington, DC. The remaining $23.2
million were allocated to EPA's 10 regional offices.
Of the total budget, $89.3 million were used to cover payroll, travel,
and other administrative expenses, while $45.3 million were spent on
grants and contracts. The Pesticide Program's budget is partially self-
sustaining in that revenues—13 percent of the budget—come from
fees levied on registrants of pesticide products.
PESTICIDE PROGRAM
FY 2002 BUDGET
$144.7 MILLION
Regions
Offices
JS23-2 milJIor
16%
Program Administratie
and Implementation
Grants & Contracts
$45.3 million
Other
$10.1 million
-------
&** 'J
^- ^ a,
»tt %.
ijj,**- » |* „
* ^^ ^t *• i- *
5
SECTION 1: THE PESTICIDE PROGRAM
PROMOTES SAFETY IN AMERICA
The Pesticide Program's work to promote safety for the
American public took many forms in Fiscal Year 2002. We
continued to enhance safety through many activities designed
to eliminate high-risk pesticide exposures. We developed a cumulative
risk assessment for organophosphate pesticides. This groundbreaking
scientific achievement facilitates the assessment of health risk associat-
ed with multiple pesticides and routes of exposure. The program
worked to ensure that all pesticides on the market meet federal health-
based safety standards. We continued to register reduced-risk pesti-
cides, encouraging a move away from the use of older, potentially
more risky pesticides.
Prompted by new and emerging public health threats including
anthrax contamination and the vector-borne West Nile virus, we
adopted a more systematic approach to addressing significant public
health pests. This approach involved a range of activities: from setting
priorities for new product registration that address these public health
challenges to increasing coordination with other federal and state agen-
cies. Recognizing the particular vulnerability of children to potential
health effects arising from exposures to chemicals, we continued to
emphasize the review of pesticides used on foods most frequently eaten
by children. Finally, we strengthened our public outreach efforts,
focusing on segments of the population considered to be at greatest
risk and providing them with information on how to avoid pesticide
poisonings, how to use pesticides safely, and how to eliminate unneces-
sary uses of pesticides.
-------
The Food We Eat
Many of the fruits and vegetables we eat are grown in fields where pes-
ticides are applied to reduce the risk of pest infestations. Pesticides are
often applied after the food is harvested as well, to ensure that it reach-
es the grocer in an acceptable condition. EPA sets standards for pesti-
cide tolerances—the maximum amount of pesticide residue allowed to
remain in or on food—to ensure that pesticide residues on food meet a
"reasonable certainty of no harm" standard.
In a tremendous undertaking by the Pesticide Program, we completed
the second phase of tolerance reassessment, an intensive 10-year scien-
tific and regulatory effort mandated by the Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA) to ensure that all existing pesticide tolerances meet a
tougher food safety standard. In keeping with FQPA, EPA completed
the comprehensive safety evaluation of 66 percent of existing pesticide
tolerances by the August 3, 2002, deadline.
Altogether, EPA has reassessed more than 6,400 tolerances for pesti-
cide residues on food, including nearly two-thirds of the tolerances for
foods commonly consumed by children. During the reassessment
process, EPA revoked more than 1,900 tolerances. Acceptable toler-
ances must be both high enough to cover residues that could be left
when the pesticide is used in accordance with its labeling and low
enough to protect public health. In conducting safety evaluations, EPA
gave priority to classes of pesticides posing the greatest risk—
organophosphates, carbamates, organochlorines, and pesticides that
show evidence of carcinogenicity.
-------
EPA has reassessed 71 percent of the 5,543 tolerances in the first-pri-
ority group. This includes 100 percent of the organochlorines, 56 per-
cent of the carbamates, 67 percent of the organophosphates, 64 per-
cent of the carcinogens, and 92 percent of other tolerances included in
this group.
In addition, we registered 15 new, reduced-risk active ingredients,
bringing the total number of reduced-risk pesticides to 80. In many
cases, these reduced-risk pesticides are alternatives to older, more risky
pesticides.
The Water We Drink
In FY 2002, the results of a two-year drinking water monitoring study
were released. This study was a joint effort of the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) and EPA, in which USGS analyzed 186 pesticides and
degradation products from 12 water-supply reservoirs and community
water systems throughout the United States. Data obtained from this
monitoring study will help the Pesticide Program more effectively
characterize human exposure to pesticide residues in drinking water
derived from surface-water sources. The results of this study were
incorporated into the Revised Cumulative Organophosphate Risk
Assessment.
Our Homes
In February 2002, EPA announced its receipt or the CCA (chromated
copper arsenate) registrants' request for voluntary cancellation of CCA
products for treating wood used in residential settings. Wood treated
with CCA contains arsenic, a known carcinogen. CCA-treated wood
has been used widely in residential settings including play structures,
10
-------
decks, picnic tables, landscaping timbers, residential fencing posts,
patios, walkways, and boardwalks. Use of CCA to treat wood for these
residential purposes will not be legal after December 31, 2003. We
have provided information to consumers on alternatives to CCA-treat-
ed wood including untreated wood (e.g., cedar and redwood) and
nonwood alternatives such as plastics, metal, and composite materials.
An expanded consumer information program, developed by the
American Wood Preservers Institute and reviewed by EPA, includes
end-tag labeling on all pieces of CCA-treated lumber, in-store bin
stickers and signs, and a new Web site and toll-free hotline.
The Anthrax Challenge
When the anthrax crisis arose, EPA responded quickly. Since there are
no pesticides registered to kill anthrax spores, the Pesticide Program
allowed emergency use of certain registered products that were effec-
tive in killing the spores but would not harm humans or the environ-
ment. Our Microbiology Lab conducted efficacy performance tests of
pesticides selected for cleanup efforts. We issued 17 emergency exemp-
tions for products that were used to decontaminate at least 10 build-
ings. We also assisted in the development of national decontamination
policies and procedures.
Critical Support in Aftermath of Terrorist Attacks
Soon after the attack on the Pentagon, the U.S. Army asked EPA for
emergency assistance to analyze cleanup wipe samples. The Dioxin
Analytical Team at the Pesticide Program's Environmental Chemistry
Lab was charged with testing for chlorinated dioxins, furans, and diox-
in-like PCBs. Incineration is a major source of these chemicals. The
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman
"EPA IS USING ITS
EXPERIENCE IN
ANTHRAX DECON-
TAMINATION TO
DEVELOP
APPROACHES TO
HANDLING FUTURE
BIOLOGICAL AND
CHEMICAL EXPO-
SURES, SHOULD
THEY OCCUR,"
11
-------
V
work of the Lab was instrumental in helping guide the Army to specif-
ic areas in the Pentagon where cleanup of toxic chemicals was needed.
Within days of conducting tests for the Pentagon, EPA received a
request from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) to analyze personal air monitors worn by workers at the
World Trade Center site. OSHA was concerned about the concentra-
tion of chlorinated dioxins and furans in the air. The Dioxin Team
provided prompt, high-quality data to ensure the safety of workers.
Security of Our Homeland
The Pesticide Program played an important role in helping develop
EPA's Homeland Security Strategic Plan. We assisted national security
authorities in enhancing national preparedness and prevention against
potential threats of terrorism. In announcing the Agency's plan on
October 2, 2002, Administrator Christine Todd Whitman provided a
blueprint for strengthening homeland security. The plan includes pro-
tection of the nation's critical infrastructure; preparedness, response,
and recovery; communication and information; and protection of
EPA's personnel and infrastructure.
The Pesticide Program's homeland security team also worked with
other EPA offices to develop the details for these goals and identified
initiatives to improve pesticide security. These included strengthening
the pesticide applicator certification and training program and pesti-
cide storage requirements, enhancing the program's laboratory capabili-
ties, and collaborating with other stakeholders to expand communica-
tion networks and strategies. We also shared critical information with
authorities and issued security alerts to the pesticide industry.
-------
Tools for Controlling Mosquitoes
West Nile virus cases increased dramatically in 2002, spreading across
38 states and the District of Columbia. As of October 17, 2002, 172
deaths were linked to West Nile and 3,104 human cases of the virus
were reported in the United States. In areas with new West Nile virus
detections, our regional offices reported heightened concern about the
pesticides used for mosquito control. EPA provided outreach and tech-
nical assistance to state agencies and the public about the safe and
responsible use of pesticides in mosquito control programs. We also
permitted registrants of DEET products to simplify their labels by
using the easily recognized name
DEET instead of the chemical
name, N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide.
In addressing these concerns, we
encouraged the use of Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) approaches
for mosquito control, including
early detection and use of larvicides
that help prevent higher populations
of adult mosquitoes. Because much
of the outreach and technical sup-
port is provided through our Web
site, we updated our "EPA and
Mosquito Control" pages to provide
the most current information about
mosquito control and pesticides that
may be used in control programs.
UNIT
i — \
Credit: Center for Disease Control, http-JAww.aic.gov/
nddod/dvbidAvestr,ile/iurv&control.htm
13
-------
Regional offices met with schools and other institutions to provide
education and outreach materials about using IPM for mosquito con-
trol. Regional office activities included monitoring product composi-
tion, environmental monitoring of water bodies close to pesticide
applications, and surveillance of ground and aerial applications of pes-
ticides to ensure they were carried out according to label directions.
EPA's New York office worked with local authorities to alert the public
well in advance of planned pesticide applications and to ensure that
residents were inside their homes when applications occurred.
New Approach for Tick Control
Lyme disease, transmitted by the blacklegged tick, is a serious public
health concern. It can lead to problems such as arthritis, neurological
abnormalities, and inflammation of the brain. In extreme cases, it can
kill. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
more than 17,000 cases of Lyme disease were reported in the United
States in 2000. In 2002, EPA granted emergency exemptions for the
use of rodent bait boxes containing the pesticide fipronil for
Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, three states with particularly
high incidences of Lyme disease. Fipronil kills immature ticks that live
and feed on rodent hosts but is not lethal to the rodent. During the
tick season in spring and summer, bait stations were placed in parks,
campgrounds, hiking trails, and other community common areas. The
bait stations deposited fipronil on the coats of rodents such as mice
and chipmunks as they entered and made contact with the stations.
Human exposure risks associated with bait stations tend to be much
lower than for broadcast applications, the method most often used to
control ticks.
-------
*K, *
^"3&:
T.% * >
«;. ^*//' 4>^J
* ' ifcf re *"
*~-3S,> <*--
'«f -if'^tr*
3 *i ^ * ^ ^
,/-.x, -v
-------
more than $ 1 million. Products whose composition differs from what
is indicated on the label can be ineffective or may cause unreasonable
adverse effects. In this case, the products were sold and used in both
agricultural and residential settings.
In a second case, EPA took action after a misbranded pesticide was
sold for use in public swimming pools in Covington, KY. Application
of pool chemicals in either higher or lower concentrations than neces-
sary can pose serious public health threats. This product contained a
sodium hypochlorite antimicrobial pesticide. The manufacturer, how-
ever, had removed all pesticidal claims and its EPA registration as a
pesticide-producing establishment from the label. Pesticide labels con-
tain valuable use instructions and safety precautions, and their removal
from a registered product is illegal.
EPA Fulfills Antimicrobial Provisions of FQPA
During FY 2002, EPA continued its efforts to ensure that sound sci-
ence underpins all decisions on antimicrobial pesticides, and that
stakeholders have ample opportunity to provide input and voice con-
cerns through numerous monthly and issue-specific meetings. The
Agency continues to maintain a zero backlog in its FQPA registration
actions and has met all of its FQPA registration deadlines.
ANTIMICROBIAL REGISTRATION ACTIONS IN FY 2002
3 new active ingredients
17 new uses of either new or previously registered active ingredients
1,335 fast track amended registrations
-------
95 nonfast track amended registrations
120 old chemical fast track registrations
129 old chemical nonfast track registrations
Phaseout of TBT Promotes Ecological Health
Tributyltin (TBT) is a pesticide used in antifouling paints to prevent
the buildup of organisms such as bacteria, algae, and mollusks on
ships' hulls. TBT antifouling paints are associated with adverse effects
in marine life, particularly shellfish. The U.S. Government and many
other countries took action to restrict the use of TBT antifouling
paints in the late 1980s. More recently, the Pesticide Program con-
tributed to the development of an international agreement for the
phaseout of TBT under the auspices of the International Maritime
Organization.
When ratified by 25 member nations who control one-fourth of the
world shipping tonnage, the agreement will enter into force as an
international treaty. To be prepared for ratification, the Pesticide
Program worked with TBT registrants this year to promote the volun-
tary cancellation of antifouling registrations and to register alternative
products. In FY 2002, we registered 16 alternatives.
melons, cotton,
to «mtr»J
17
-------
**fcfc—*- .-—..
SECTION 2: NEW ACTIVE INGREDIENTS,
USES, AND ALTERNATIVES REINFORCE
PUBLIC SAFETY IN REGISTRATION ACTIONS
Before EPA registers a pesticide, the producer of the pesticide
product typically must provide data from more than 100 dif-
ferent studies done according to EPA guidelines. We look at
the pesticide's ingredients; the site or crop where it will be used; the
amount, frequency, and timing of its use; and storage and disposal
practices. EPA evaluates pesticides to ensure they will meet federal
safety standards that protect human health and the environment and
nontarget species. Registering a pesticide is a considerable investment
of resources for both the registrant and EPA. We place high priority on
registering lower-risk pesticides, pesticides with public health benefits,
and pesticides that are of particular economic importance to users.
In FY 2002, the Pesticide Program registered 26 new active ingredi-
ents, including antimicrobials, biopesticides, conventional reduced-risk
pesticides, and conventional pesticides. We also registered 720 new
uses for previously registered active ingredients. In addition, the
Pesticide Program received 503 requests for emergency exemptions and
reviewed each, averaging a record-low processing time of 35 days.
Examples of Pesticide Registration Actions
TRITICONAZOLE REGISTERED FOR USE AS A SEED TREATMENT FOR WHEAT AND
BARLEY
Triticonazole can be used to control various seed-borne plant diseases
such as true loose smut in barley, as well as loose smut and common
bunt in wheat.
-------
NEW CONVENTIONAL "REDUCED-RISK" FUNGICIDE, FENAMSDONE, REGISTERED
FOR USE ON LETTUCE
Fenamidone is a broad spectrum foliar fungicide that has the capability
to replace some use of maneb, a carcinogenic pesticide.
NEW USES REGISTERED FORTHIOPHANATE-METHYL
Following the registration of thiophanate-methyl for use on canola, we
registered thiophanate-methyl for use on grapes, pears, and pistachios
and for use on potatoes as a foliar application. These registrations offer
an alternative to benomyl, which was canceled last year.
TOLERANCE EXEMPTION GRANTED FOR FORAMSULFURON
In March 2002, we issued registrations for the new chemical foramsul-
furon, or Option Corn Herbicide, used to control weeds in field corn.
Because this new herbicide demonstrated very low toxicity for all
routes of exposure, foramsulfuron was granted an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance on corn. Foramsulfuron also demonstrated
very low toxicity to any nontarget organisms other than vascular
plants.
BIOCHEMICAL INSECTICIDE AND MmciOE, SUCROSE OCTANOATE ESTERS,
REGISTERED
Used to control varroa mites, a significant pest of honeybees, sucrose
octanoate esters have a physical, nontoxic, mode of action. They
dewax the cuticle of soft-bodied target pests causing them to dessicate.
-------
»v ,
-ft. fp
PUCCINIA THLASPEOS STRAIN WOAD REGISTERED TO CONTROL DYER'S WOAD
Puccinia thlaspeos strain woad is a plant rust that controls an invasive
shrub called dyer's woad that is rapidly spreading in several western
states.
CALCIUM HYDROXIDE PAINT ADDITIVE REGISTERED
Also known as hydrated lime, calcium hydroxide was registered for use
in the formulation of products such as paints and coatings. Calcium
hydroxide will be used to make formulations resistant to the growth of
odor-causing bacteria as well as mold and mildew, which can discolor
surfaces.
DlETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOMETHYL ETHER (DlEGME) AT 99.7% REGISTERED
AS FUEL ADDITIVE
DiEGME at 99.7% was registered as a new active ingredient for use as
an antimicrobial additive for jet, diesel, and marine fuels. It is used to
control bacteria and fungi, which are usually found in hydrocarbon
fuel systems and which can reduce fuel performance. DiEGME has
been widely used for many years as an anti-icing agent in fuel systems,
but this is the first time it has been registered as a pesticide.
Alternatives, Special Exemptions Ease Methyl
Bromide Phaseout
The Pesticide Program is working with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), states, and the grower community to identify
potential alternatives that can facilitate the phaseout schedule and the
20
-------
transition away from methyl bromide. In FY 2002, EPA registered
seven methyl bromide alternatives. The Pesticide Program has made
the registration of methyl bromide alternatives a high priority and has
ensured that resources are available to complete timely reviews of
applications.
EPA is working to design and implement the process for evaluating
applications for "critical uses." The methyl bromide critical use exemp-
tion (CUE) program provides a mechanism for growers to legally use
methyl bromide in special circumstances. The CUE program requires
applications or petitions to be filed with EPA and requires technical
and economic data on alternatives available to the user community so
that EPA can assess whether the desired use of the pesticide is critical.
We are also conducting outreach to grower groups about the phaseout
and the exemption process and managing the technical and economic
reviews of the incoming applications. In FY 2002, EPA received 56
applications for methyl bromide Critical Use Exemptions. Technical
experts from the Pesticide Program and USDA reviewed these applica-
tions to consider whether technically or economically feasible alterna-
tives to methyl bromide exist for the requested uses.
Minor Use Pesticides Play Major Role in Agriculture
and Public Health
This year, the Pesticide Program registered 1,352 new uses for minor
use pesticides. These are pesticides used on minor crops, those grown
on less than 300,000 acres. Minor crops make up about 40 percent of
U.S. agricultural production. EPA works closely with USDA to
21
-------
address minor crop pest control needs through our pesticide registra-
tion and reregistration programs, often relying on data supplied by
USDA. Minor use pesticides also play a significant role in protecting
public health from vector-borne diseases such as West Nile virus and
Lyme disease.
New Methodology Improves Review of All Lower-
Toxicity Pesticide Ingredients
In FY 2002, EPA developed new guidance on how lower-toxicity pes-
ticide chemicals, including both active and inert (other) ingredients,
will be evaluated for use in pesticide products. We used this guidance
to complete 425 tolerance reassessments, as well as to reregister urea
and propionic acid, two chemicals that have both active and inert
ingredient uses. The guidance introduces an efficient tiering concept
that combines assessments and relies on the use of existing scientifical-
ly credible data. The guidance improves the review and decisionmak-
ing process used to evaluate low- or low/moderate-toxicity chemical
substances. It allows the Pesticide Program to focus resources on evalu-
ating chemical substances of potentially higher toxicity.
United States and Canada Seek Harmony in
Pesticide Regulations
At the core of joint efforts with other countries is mutual commitment
to seeking harmony in pesticide registration requirements.
Harmonization gives growers equitable access to pest management
tools in both countries. Human health and environmental data
22
-------
requirements, as well as the guidelines or test protocols for how com-
panies should conduct all routinely required studies, are largely harmo-
nized between Canada and the United States.
EPA and Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency are engaged
in a variety of projects to share the work of evaluating old and new
pesticides. These involve sharing resources and scientific expertise and
the exchange of documents such as risk assessments and Reregistration
Eligibility Decision documents. In FY 2002, EPA registered 14 new
pesticide products, building on the existing joint registration and
workshare review program with Canada. Here are three examples:
BIOPESTICIDE PRODUCT—SPORODEX L—REGISTERED WITH NAFTA LABEL
We registered Sporodex L with a North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) label as part of a pilot project. A NAFTA label
will help enable the sale and distribution of a pesticide across North
America and guarantee its availability at the same time in the United
States and Canada. The ultimate decision to use these types of labels
lies with the pesticide registrant.
PYRACLOSTROBIN REGISTERED FOR USE ON MORE THAN 100 FOOD CROPS
We reviewed this new active ingredient, collaborating with both
Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency and California's
Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). Pyraclostrobin is a cura-
tive and preventive foliar pesticide that belongs to the new class of
strobilurin fungicides. Pyraclostrobin can control a broad range of fun-
gal pests.
23
-------
Standard Set for Electronic
Data Submission
In ordertefBipKJWt Ae edciency and
effectiveness of our regulatory
processes*!!!* ^esicWte Program
encourage fttsubmit
reports eiectiGntea%. the electronic
format akferthe tortewers because
information from the studies can be
more easily analyzed and incorporat-
ed into the itsic assessment docu-
ments. In ff
ftatt cleetfonk;
submissions for new products or new
uses. We have established Adobe
f»eitiil3it as
the etet-
IMPORT TOLERANCES ESTABLISHED FOR TOLYFLUANID
We established import tolerances for the new fungicide tolyfluanid on
apples, grapes, hops, and tomatoes. Tolyfluanid is used in Europe to
control Botrytis cinerea, powdery and downy mildew, scab, early and
late blight, and storage diseases such as gleosporium, nectria, and
monilia.
Collaboration with California Improves Registration
Process
In FY 2002, several initiatives took place reflecting the growing part-
nership between the Pesticide Program and the California Department
of Pesticide Regulation. In the first workshare, the agencies shared the
registration review for the new active ingredient iodomethane, a
methyl bromide alternative. DPR also reviewed 8 chemicals, conduct-
ing 24 residue chemistry reviews and 3 dietary exposure assessments in
support of 24 new minor uses of interest to the state. These reviews
expedited the federal registration of these chemicals and their subse-
quent use in the California.
-------
SECTION 3: REREGISTRATION AND
TOLERANCE REASSESSMENT ASSURE
OLDER PESTICIDES MEET CURRENT
SAFETY STANDARDS
EPA is conducting a comprehensive review of older pesticides—
those initially registered before November 1984—to consider
their health and environmental effects and to decide their reg-
ulatory status. To be eligible for reregistration, a pesticide must not
cause unreasonable risks to human health or the environment when
used according to label directions. Through the reregistration program,
EPA is working to ensure that older pesticides meet current health and
safety standards and product labeling requirements, and that their risks
are reduced when warranted. EPA sets limits on the amount of pesti-
cides that may remain in or on foods. These limits—called toler-
ances—are set based on risk assessments and are enforced by the Food
and Drug Administration and USDA. All pesticide tolerances and tol-
erance exemptions that were in place as of August 1996, when FQPA
was signed, are subject to reassessment.
Federal law requires that all pesticides meet new, more stringent safety
standards. Under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, EPA must
be able to conclude with reasonable certainty that no harm will come
to infants, children, or other sensitive individuals exposed to pesticides.
Through reregistration and tolerance reassessment, we look at aggre-
gate exposure to pesticides—from food, drinking water, and home and
garden use—in determining allowable levels of pesticide residues in
food. We also look at the cumulative effects of pesticides with a com-
mon mechanism of toxicity—where two or more chemicals that act
through the same major pathway are considered.
..
-------
Science of Cumulative Risk Puts EPA on the Leading
Edge
In December 2001, the Pesticide Program issued a "Preliminary
Organophosphate Cumulative Risk Assessment" that established new
methods for analyzing data regarding the cumulative risk from
organophosphate pesticides. In June 2002, we issued the "Revised
Organophosphate Cumulative Risk Assessment" that incorporated
comments from the public and Scientific Advisory Panel as well as
additional mitigation actions for specific organophosphate pesticides
that took place after December 2001. The Revised Cumulative Risk
Assessment describes the potential cumulative risks of organophos-
phates by presenting a range of estimates that reflects the variation
inherent in such an assessment.
These significant milestones marked the culmination of more than five
years of concerted scientific effort. The cumulative risk assessment is
the very first one ever produced that analyzes risks resulting from a
whole group of chemicals that share a common mechanism of toxicity.
Through cumulative risk assessment, we can consider whether the risks
posed by a group of pesticides that act the same way in the body meet
the current safety standard of "reasonable certainty of no harm."
To complete this unprecedented task, EPA consulted experts on the
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel nearly 30 times. The Agency also
conferred regularly with the Committee to Advise on Reassessment
and Transition (CARAT), a federal advisory committee, and kept the
public abreast of its progress through several technical briefings, a Web
site dedicated to the issue, and public comment periods. Some of the
innovative features of this work include a novel method of ranking
potencies of common-mechanism pesticides (e.g., organophosphates);
-------
new techniques for estimating dietary exposures and oral, dermal, and
inhalation exposures resulting from residential and public health uses
of the organophosphates; and new calendar-based probabilistic meth-
ods for residential and water exposures.
EPA Completes 36 Risk Management Decisions
When EPA completes its review of a pesticide reregistration or toler-
ance reassessment, we issue a risk management decision document
known as a RED, an IRED, or a TRED.
REREGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY DECISIONS (REDs)
EPA issued 7 REDs in FY 2002, bringing the total number of com-
pleted REDs to 445. The RED document summarizes the Agency's
risk assessment conclusions and outlines any risk-reduction measures
necessary for a pesticide to continue to be registered in the United
States.
Endosulfan RED—organochlorine insecticide used on a variety of
crops and on ornamental plants in commercial settings. Poses dietary,
occupational, and ecological risks of concern. Mitigation measures
include canceling uses, reducing application rates and numbers of appli-
cations, establishing buffer zone requirements to protect water bodies,
and other requirements. To further address risks to aquatic organisms in
vulnerable areas, EPA is consulting with stakeholders.
Oxyfluorfen RED—herbicide used to control broadleaf and grassy
weeds in a variety of crops, ornamental plants, forestry, and residential
settings. Possible human carcinogen. Aggregate risk from combination
of food, drinking water, and residential exposures is of concern. Cancer
risk of concern also posed to workers who mix, load, and apply oxyflu-
27
-------
orfen to agricultural sites, and to workers who reenter treated sites.
Risks of concern to plant and aquatic species, and chronic risks of con-
cern to birds and mammals. Mitigation measures include reduced
application rates, vegetative buffer zones around water bodies, special
calibration of application equipment to avoid drift, closed mixing/load-
ing systems, and a variety of other measures to protect mixers, loaders,
applicators, and reentry workers.
Fenamiphos RED—organophosphate nematicide and insecticide used
on various agricultural crops and on nonresidential turf and ornamen-
tals. Fenamiphos poses risks of concern via exposure to shallow ground
water sources of drinking water in areas where soils are extremely vul-
nerable. Risk concerns for workers who mix, load, and apply
fenamiphos to agricultural sites and golf courses, and ecological risk
concerns for terrestrial, aquatic, and endangered species. Registrant has
requested voluntary cancellation of existing pesticide products contain-
ing fenamiphos. Will be phased out with use of existing stocks in the
channels of trade continuing until depleted. Production caps will pro-
gressively decrease the amount of fenamiphos manufactured in the
United States during the phaseout period. Several commodities treated
with fenamiphos may continue to be imported into the United States.
Import tolerances that meet FQPA standards have been set for
fenamiphos for bananas, citrus, grapes, pineapples, and garlic.
INTERIM REREGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY DECISIONS (IREDs)
EPA issued eight IREDs in FY 2002. An IRED may be issued for a
pesticide that is undergoing reregistration, requires a reregistration eli-
gibility decision, and also needs a cumulative assessment under FQPA.
The IRED allows the public to gain the benefits of risk reduction,
identified through the aggregate risk assessment, before the final RED
is issued.
-------
Methamidophos IRED—organophosphate insecticide and acaricide
used primarily on potatoes, tomatoes, and cotton. Has no residential
uses but poses risks of concern through surface water sources of drink-
ing water. Risk concerns for workers who mix, load, and apply
methamidophos to agricultural sites, and for workers who reenter treat-
ed areas. Poses acute and chronic risks to birds and mammals, and some
risks to freshwater invertebrates. To mitigate risks, cotton use will be
phased out over a five-year period to allow for transition to alternatives.
Applications will be reduced, and measures will be employed to protect
applicators, flaggers, and post-application workers.
TOLERANCE REASSESSMENT PROGRESS AND INTERIM RISK MANAGEMENT
DECISIONS (TREDs)
In FY 2002, EPA issued a total of 21 TREDs. We issue a TRED for a
pesticide that requires tolerance reassessment decisions but does not
require a reregistration eligibility decision at present for any of the fol-
lowing reasons: the pesticide was initially registered after November 1,
1984; EPA completed a RED for the pesticide before FQPA was
enacted on August 3, 1996; or the pesticide is not registered for use in
the United States but we established tolerances for crops imported
from other countries. Some TREDs will not become final decisions
until EPA considers the cumulative risks of all the pesticides in the
cumulative group.
Hexazinone TRED—a herbicide used to control a broad spectrum of
weeds including undesirable woody plants in alfalfa, rangeland and pas-
ture, woodland, pineapples, sugarcane, and blueberries. Used on orna-
mental plants, forest trees, and other noncrop areas. Currently, 20 end-
use pesticide products and one technical grade, manufacturing use
product containing hexazinone are registered. EPA evaluated the dietary
-------
risk associated with hexazinone and has determined that there is a. rea-
sonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will result
from aggregate exposure to hexazinone. The Agency has reassessed all
25 tolerances for hexazinone and can make a FQPA safety determina-
tion.
See the appendix for a complete list of REDs, IREDs, and TREDs.
EPA Meets All Deadlines for Review of Priority
Pesticides
Since Congress passed FQPA in 1996, the Agency has been working
systematically to reassess and mitigate risks of pesticides that may pose
the greatest risks to public health. In September 2001, a Federal
District Court approved a Consent Decree that resolved lawsuits
brought against EPA by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the
United Farmworkers of America, the AFL-CIO, and other farmworker
and environmental groups regarding pesticide tolerance reassessment
and pesticide reregistration. The Consent Decree established a series of
deadlines for Agency action relating to the reassessment of pesticide
tolerances and the reregistration of older pesticides. In keeping with
the Consent Decree deadlines, the Pesticide Program completed risk
management decisions on six individual pesticides in FY 2002: azin-
phos-methyl, phosmet, benomyl, diazinon, endosulfan, and lindane.
We also conducted a cumulative risk assessment for organophosphate
pesticides and individual risk assessments or risk management deci-
sions for 11 organophosphate pesticides. The agreement is consistent
with FQPA and does not change the pesticide reregistration or toler-
ance reassessment procedures or priorities.
-------
Biotechnology Products Reduce Growers' Reliance
on Conventional Pesticides
In October 2001, EPA completed an 18-month reassessment of all
currently registered Bacillus thuringiemis crops, also known as Bt crops.
Bacillus thuringiensis is a widely used bacterium that produces pestici-
dal proteins. The reassessment required the registrants to conduct
additional research, predominantly on insect resistance management
(IRM), but also on Bt accumulation in fields used to grow Bt crops
and the effect of Bt on nontarget organisms. A major new requirement
is the Compliance Assurance Program, which requires signed contracts
for the purchase of seeds to grow Bt crops, grower education on IRM,
farm visits to ensure that growers are implementing the plans, surveys
on grower adoption of IRM plans, and penalties for growers who do
not comply with the requirements.
-------
SECTION 4: OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
ARE KEY TO SAFETY
An important part of the Pesticide Program's work is develop-
ing outreach tools designed to educate our stakeholders about
pesticide safety. We are continuously adding to our library of
fact sheets, brochures, and consumer information. This past year, we
increased our focus on reaching out with safety messages to segments
of the population with greater potential for pesticide exposure. An
important tool for delivering the latest news about our program is the
"Pesticide Program Update." These updates are e-mailed advisories that
we send to more than 4,000 stakeholders on our electronic mailing
lists. In FY 2002, we issued nearly 200 Pesticide Program Updates and
responded to more than 600 "Webmails" and 623 traditional letters.
While the Pesticide Program in Headquarters relies heavily on elec-
tronic outreach, our regional offices interact more directly with the
public. Our regional staff provide the Pesticide Program with valuable
feedback on our outreach materials and recommend strategies for
developing new outreach materials. EPA's regional offices also work
with state, territorial, and tribal governments to negotiate cooperative
agreements for pesticide field programs, provide technical assistance in
developing and implementing these programs, and oversee commit-
ments made by the states, territories, and tribes.
IPM Reduces Pollution and Helps Protect America's
Children
In August 2002, we released a new brochure called "Protecting
Children in Schools from Pests and Pesticides." This brochure calls
attention to Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as an alternative to
scheduled school pesticide applications. It was sent to more than
100,000 primary and secondary school administrators, principals, and
school ground and facility managers. The brochure provides basic
-------
information on IPM and directs people to resources providing detailed
information on establishing and maintaining school IPM programs.
To help implement IPM in schools and daycare establishments, EPA
supported Technical Resource Centers at Purdue University (serving IL,
IN, MI, MN, OH, and WI) and Texas A&M University (serving TX,
NM, and OK). These Centers provide tools, training, and technical
support to schools and daycare centers interested in starting IPM pro-
grams. Training opportunities, IPM principles, and specific manage-
ment techniques are made available to custodial and maintenance staff.
Several school districts have replaced conventional pest management
with IPM. For example, Kyrene, AZ, committed to the practice of IPM
because parents were concerned about the use of pesticides in schools.
In 2000, two Kyrene schools implemented pilot IPM programs
through a partnership with EPA, Arizona Structural Pest Control
Board, and the University of Arizona. These schools reduced pests by
85 percent and reduced children's exposure to pesticides by more than
90 percent. In 2002, the Kyrene school district facilities department
received an award for bringing IPM to all 25 of its schools.
IPM in schools has been a priority for EPA's regional pesticides staff as
well. This past year, EPA's Boston office helped coordinate the efforts of
state agencies and local organizations working to promote IPM in ele-
mentary and secondary schools throughout the Northeast. EPA finan-
cial support for a partnership of 14 land grant universities contributed
to the development of comprehensive IPM guidance documents aimed
at school administrators and facility managers, educators, and even the
students themselves. Products of this collaboration include handbooks
on structural and landscape IPM, an interactive Web site designed to
facilitate the development of customized school IPM strategies, and
teaching materials to introduce IPM in the classroom.
33
-------
EPA's San Francisco office has been an active promoter of IPM in
schools. In FY 2002, it provided funding to the Intertribal Council of
Arizona to organize an Urban IPM Workshop for states and tribes.
With assistance from University of Arizona urban entomologists, the
three-day workshop provided tools for implementation of practical
IPM approaches and prompted many tribes to inquire about starting
their own pilot urban IPM programs.
Educational Programs Share Pesticide Safety
Message
FY 2002 was a banner year for the outreach team in EPA's Atlanta
office as it stepped up efforts to educate local residents about the
importance of safe pesticide use. Bus shelter posters targeting inner-
city residents ran from November 2001 until July 2002. In May 2002,
EPA staff sponsored a variety of "safe pesticide use" presentations and
skits at elementary schools in the Atlanta area. Mayor Shirley Franklin
proclaimed an "Urban Pesticide Awareness Week" in honor of the
school activities. Collaboration among staff from EPA, the Georgia
Poison Center, and the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit
at Emory University resulted in the distribution of 5,000 pesticide
activity packets to elementary school students.
EPA's Denver office is actively involved in educating the public on
issues relating to children's environmental health. In FY 2002, EPA
awarded funding to the Girl Scouts Mile High Council to develop a
pesticides awareness patch program. The program will provide educa-
tional materials and information about safe use of pesticides, exposure
risks, and potential health concerns associated with pests and pesti-
cides. The Girl Scouts Mile High Council reaches over 36,000 girls
between the ages of 5 and 17.
-------
Pesticide Program Reaches Out to Farmworkers
A major focus of the Pesticide Program's outreach is improving safely
for an estimated 2.5 million farmworkers in the United States. We tar-
geted safety messages to help reduce pesticide exposure to farmworkers
and their families. Pesticide applicators, farmers, migrant workers, and
their children may be exposed to pesticides more than any other seg-
ment of the American population.
EPA PROVIDES SAFETY INFORMATION TO HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS
EPA is working in partnership with the National Environmental
Education and Training Foundation, the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Labor to craft the
framework for a new initiative called the National Strategies for Health
Care Providers: Pesticide Initiative. In March 2002, we published a
document outlining our approach for working with healthcare
providers to improve the recognition, management, and prevention of
pesticide-related health conditions.
An important part of this effort is creating change in educational and
practice settings so students in healthcare professions are prepared to
recognize, manage, and prevent health effects from pesticide poison-
ings and exposures. In 2002, for the first time, we established National
Competency Guidelines for Medical and Nursing Education and
National Pesticide Practice Skills Guidelines for Medical and Nursing
Practice to increase the focus on pesticide health education and to
serve as a model for integrating specific pesticide issues into education
and training.
In May 2002, EPA's Chicago office released a new brochure aimed at
healthcare providers working in the migrant farmworker community.
35
-------
The brochure highlights symptoms of exposure to pesticides and lead,
and alerts healthcare providers to resources that provide more detailed
information. The brochure has been distributed to healthcare providers
through partnerships with the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, the Midwest Migrant Health Consortium, the Migrant
Clinicians Network, and other organizations serving the migrant farm-
worker community.
"Fern HEALTHY KIDS!" PROGRAM AIMS TO REDUCE PESTICIDE EXPOSURE IN
FARMWORKER FAMILIES
"For Healthy Kids!" is a Yakima Valley-based project involving a num-
ber of organizations including EPA's Seattle office. It focuses on pre-
venting children's exposure to pesticides by teaching agricultural work-
ers how to reduce the "take home pathway" for pesticide residue. This
multifaceted project involves information gathering through interviews
with farmworkers regarding their exposure to pesticides on the job and
potential routes of exposure for the rest of the family. It also involves
testing, including urinalysis of agricultural workers and family mem-
bers to measure levels of pesticide metabolites, and dust analysis inside
the home and in the family car to measure concentrations of pesticide
residues. Finally, it involves education, including the use of bilingual
health "promotores" to educate agricultural workers on potential pesti-
cide exposure risks.
National Pesticide Information Center Reports
Heavy Traffic
The National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) is a cooperative
effort between EPA and Oregon State University. NPIC is a hotline
that provides objective, science-based information on a variety of pesti-
-------
cide-related subjects, including pesticide products, recognition and
management of pesticide poisonings, toxicology, and environmental
chemistry. In FY 2002, NPIC answered nearly 25,000 telephone calls
about pesticides, and traffic on the NPIC Web site more than doubled
over the previous fiscal year. This year's most popular NPIC offering
was the West Nile Virus Resource Guide, a Web-based clearinghouse
for West Nile virus-related information. In FY 2002, traffic on the
resource guide increased six-fold over the previous fiscal year, with
most visits occurring over the summer months. Another recent addi-
tion to NPIC's Web site is the Security Alerts Resource Guide, which
serves as a gateway to federal, state, and other security advisories and
alerts.
Field Tours Increase Awareness, Foster Good Will
The Pesticide Program always looks for ways to improve our under-
standing of the real world implications of our programs and policies.
One way we achieve this is through site visits that take EPA staff
directly to places where pesticides are used. These include farms,
industrial processing facilities, waste water treatment facilities, wood
preservatives treatment facilities, and shipyards. In FY 2002, Pesticide
Program staff participated in nine "crop tours," which provided EPA
staff an opportunity to exchange ideas with growers, processors, han-
dlers, and laborers, and to see first-hand how pesticide regulatory
requirements are implemented in the field. EPA staff gained a greater
awareness of the agricultural community and its needs through the
crop tours, and growers gained an appreciation for the reasoning
behind EPA decisions that can affect their livelihood.
37
-------
SECTION 5: PARTNERSHIPS HELP ENSURE
SAFE PRACTICES
"1 AM THAT WE
A POINT Hf
OUR IIEE WHERE
BEYOND THE
cammi
THAT IX)NG
WASHINGTON'S
tif THE COUNTRY ON
POLICE
THE RIPE FOR
BUILDING,"
— CHBSSWE TODD WHITMAN,
Soon after being appointed Administrator of EPA, Christine
Todd Whitman observed, "There was a time when most busi-
nesses viewed environmental requirements as unwanted intrud-
ers. Today, many business leaders make superior environmental per-
formance an inherent part of their business strategy." Building partner-
ships with organizations affected by pesticide regulations is an integral
part of the Pesticide Program's commitment to staying in touch with
the rest of the country. Maintaining strong partnerships with a diversi-
ty of stakeholders helps us ensure that we apply the best possible man-
agement techniques to natural resources, economic development, and
environmental protection.
Agricultural Initiatives Promote Reduced-Risk Pest
Management
The agricultural community depends on effective pest management
techniques to produce economically viable harvests. The Pesticide
Program's Strategic Agricultural Initiative is one of several successful
partnerships we have established to use the experience of growers for
developing new, reduced-risk approaches to troublesome pest prob-
lems.
In FY 2002, we joined forces on a research project to combat corn ear-
worm with the Columbia Basin Processing Vegetable Council. The
corn earworm pilot project grew out of the need to distinguish
between the corn earworm (a pest) and the false corn earworm (not a
pest) in sweet corn grown for processing. Because field consultants
could not distinguish between these two look-alikes, they were apply-
ing pesticides based on the combined catch of both species. The proj-
ect was carried out by Washington State University and USDA's
Agricultural Research Service. Through this partnership, training mate-
rials and workshops were developed to help field consultants distin-
-------
guish between pest and nonpest moths. The pheromone used to bait
the moths was refined to improve the trapping technique, resulting in
a 50-percent drop in pesticide treatments. This led to $1 million in
savings per 100,000 acres. This pilot project may offer an incentive for
growers reluctant to experiment with reduced-risk pest management
techniques because it proves that nonconventional pest management
can go hand in hand with economic viability.
We also joined forces with USDA, the American Farmland Trust, and
the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to help growers with more than
10,000 acres of Wisconsin potatoes reduce pesticide risk by 46 percent
over the course of 4 years. The growers are implementing an environ-
mental risk index and increasing adoption of bio-intensive IPM prac-
tices. The index was developed to help track the reduction of toxic
substances entering the environment, with toxicity values for each pes-
ticide determined by relative environmental and health risks. Potatoes
produced by participating farmers are identified by both the WWF
Panda Label and Healthy Grown, an "ecolabel" that will be certified by
a third-party, nonprofit organization.
Partnership with Cooperative Extension Service
Promotes Safety
EPA's ongoing partnership with USDA's Cooperative Extension Service
(CES) helps provide essential safe pesticide use information to a wide
range of audiences. EPA's interaction with CES is critical in getting the
right messages to the right people, and CES provides EPA useful feed-
back from pesticide users and others who are affected by pesticide reg-
ulations. Cooperation between CES and state regulators helps ensure
that educational needs of pesticide applicators are met. It also fosters
the exchange of information on pesticide application trends and prob-
lems so that issues can be corrected through educational programs.
Stewardship Program (PESP)
P6SP is the vstettary
stra
organizations
of the sttategtes, *
risk alternatives
and 3t percent adiii
isition
and other Mffcei
39
-------
Ag Center
Helping Agriculture Comply with
Environmental Requirements
In FY 2002, EPA participated in the professional development of
extension agents by sponsoring a speaker for the national annual meet-
ing of the National Association of County Agricultural Agents who led
a session on effective teaching techniques for educational programs tar-
geting pesticide applicators.
Each year, EPA distributes funds to state CESs to support educational
programs on safe and effective pesticide use. Although the principal
audience of CES is pesticide applicators, extension service agents inter-
act with the public in many different forums. The agents convey infor-
mation about safe pesticide use to master gardeners, school programs,
farmers, and healthcare professionals through mass media and by par-
ticipating in state and county fairs, home and garden shows, and meet-
ings of professional organizations and associations.
Pesticide Program Weaves Partnership with Tribes
EPA's collaboration with the California Indian Basketweavers
Association (CIBA) has produced better data on pesticide exposure
and risk faced by basketweavers. Herbicides such as atrazine, hexazi-
none, 2,4-D, glyphosate, and triclopyr are concerns for California
Indian basketweavers because of the potentially harmful effects their
use may have on the health of plant gatherers and communities.
Weavers may be exposed to these pesticides through skin contact while
gathering or oral contact when they pass the materials through their
mouths in preparation for weaving. Tribal members may face further
pesticide exposure from plants used for medicinal purposes, and from
fish and other food sources.
In FY 2002, an EPA grant to CIBA funded a sampling program to
measure pesticide residues in surface water, fish tissue, and plant mate-
rial. We also funded workshops to facilitate working relationships
between tribes and government regulatory agencies and education for
-------
healthcare providers on recognizing and managing pesticide poison-
ings. Sampling data developed under the grant were used in the hexa-
zinone reregistration risk assessment.
Pesticide Safety Across National Borders
The Pesticide Program has stepped up joint efforts with state, provin-
cial, and federal governments in Mexico and Canada. Our collabora-
tions have centered on developing a uniform framework for protecting
agricultural workers from risks posed by pesticides and enhancing
information sharing and strategies for pesticide regulation in North
America. Here are four examples:
NAFTA TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PROMOTES HIGH LEVELS OF
PROTECTION
Through the NAFTA Technical Working Group on Pesticides (TWG),
Canada, Mexico, and the United States share information and strate-
gies to improve the way we use and regulate pesticides in North
America while promoting high levels of protection for public health
and the environment. During FY 2002, the TWG met with stakehold-
ers and presented its first Milestone Report, which discussed accom-
plishments and outlined goals for the future. The group made strides
in harmonizing reduced-risk approaches to pesticide regulation and
working with the Industry Working Group, the Non-Agricultural
Working Group, and the NAFTA Grower Network.
NORTH AMERICAN REGIONAL ACTION PLANS EXEMPLIFY COOPERATION
Perhaps one of the most tangible results of international cooperation
came through the North American Regional Action Plan on
Chlordane and DDT. With the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation and the Pan American Health Organization providing
expertise, funds, and the proper framework, communities embraced
41
-------
"WE'VE HISTORY; BY
TOGETHER AND
SHOWING THAT BOTH CQUN-
TKI£S'AB&MMnTED TO
SAFETY IN BOTH
THE,OlSTM8UTK>N AND USE
OF I FEEL THAT
Tip WE WORK
"fi t s, ~ '
TOGETHER, THE BETTER THE
JOB WE CAN DO OF KEEPING
TRACK OP CANCELED OR
UNREGJSTJtteD PRODUCTS IN
BOTH COUNTRIES."
—PESTICIDE EXCHANGE
PARTICIPANT
the principles of IPM, and Mexico was able to stop production of
DDT for malaria control.
PESTICIDE PROGRAM TRAINS THE TRAINERS
Pesticide Program staff worked closely with state and federal officials in
Mexico to launch a national pesticide "train-i he-trainer" program in
Mexico. This program benefits the common workforce of both
nations. In two interactive workshops held in Mexico, agricultural,
public health, and outreach specialists were trained to identify signs
and symptoms of exposure to pesticides; proper handling, storing, and
disposing of pesticide products; and environmental impacts and haz-
ards associated with using pesticides.
EXCHANGE ENHANCES FIELD PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
The U.S./Mexico Pesticide Information Exchange (USMPIE) is an
innovative outreach program that has successfully promoted the
exchange of information about pesticide laws, regulations, and policy
and enforcement strategies among Mexican and U.S. officials. The
Pesticide Inspector Exchange component of the program allows inspec-
tors from Mexico and the United States to get a first-hand view of how
their counterparts operate. They participate in worker protection train-
ing and inspections, agricultural and structural pesticide applications,
and marketplace inspections. Plans are now under way for an informa-
tion exchange addressing the transportation of pesticide products
across the United States-Mexico border.
New Partnerships Lead to Improvements in Worker
Protection and Pesticide Applicator Safety Training
Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG), a partnership
of EPA, state regulatory agencies, and state extension services, devel-
oped an electronic, Web-based template for states to follow in report-
-------
ing pesticide program activities under EPA-approved certification and
training plans. The template is designed to promote consistency in the
type and quality of information states provide to EPA. It ensures that
accurate and complete information is collected on local requirements
for pesticide applicators. This system makes it easier for EPA to ana-
lyze and synthesize information at a national level. It allows the
Agency to spot trends, disseminate information to stakeholders, and
facilitate information sharing among states. The Pesticide Program is
testing the template through pilot programs with several states.
A second partnership among EPA, states, and other stakeholders, being
carried out as part of a national assessment of the agricultural workers
protection program, focuses on developing more effective ways to
communicate hazards to the agricultural workforce. This workforce is
predominantly non-English speaking and functions at a low literacy
level.
EPA Works within Multilateral Organization to
Coordinate Biocide Regulation
This year, more than 100 participants from all over the world met in a
workshop designed to identify pesticide efficacy concerns, regulations,
and scientific issues of the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD). The U.S. participants—including experts
in antimicrobial pesticides from the Pesticide Program—organized,
coordinated, and chaired the first-ever OECD international efficacy
initiative on certain biocides. Participants exchanged information on
label claims, performance standards, and efficacy-testing parameters.
The workshop is OECD's first step toward harmonizing efficacy
requirements and regulations. The meeting culminated in recommen-
dations on harmonization for biocide regulation and scientific evalua-
tion.
43
-------
APPENDIX
FY 2002 REGISTRATION AND REREGISTRATION ACTIONS
Number of New Active Ingredients Registered in FY 2002
Total New Active Ingredients
Conventional Chemicals
Conventional "Reduced-Risk" Chemicals (included one OP alternative)
Biopesticides
Antimicrobials
26
8
4
11
3
Number of New Uses Registered in FY 2002 for New and Previously
Registered Active Ingredients
Total New Uses (food and nonfood by crop groupings)
Total New Food Uses
Total New Nonfood Uses
Biopesticide Nonfood Uses
Biopesticide Food Uses
Antimicrobials Nonfood Uses
Antimicrobials Food Uses
661
59
371
17
0
44
-------
Number of New Uses Registered in FY 2002 for New and Previously
Registered Active Ingredients (continued)
Conventional Nonfood Uses
Conventional Food Uses
Conventional "Reduced-Risk" Nonfood Uses
Conventional "Reduced-Risk" Food Uses
Methyl Bromide Alternative Uses
OP Alternative Uses
Total Tolerances Established for New Uses
Total Major Crops Associated with New Uses
Total Minor Crops Associated with New Uses
10
182
5
108
79
546
131
1,352
45
-------
FY 2002 REGISTRATION AND REREGISTRATION ACTIONS (CONTINUED)
Number of Section 18 Emergency Exemption Actions
Average Processing Time = 35 Days
Exemption Requests Received
Exemptions Granted
Exemptions Withdrawn
Exemptions Denied
Crises
Tolerances Established for Section 1 8s
Tolerances Extended for Section 18s
503
412
20
13
63
21
47
Special Local Needs Accepted (section 24 (c)) = 347
Experimental-Use Permits Granted = 46
Number of Fast Track and Nonfast Track Decisions
Applications for the registration of pesticide products that are identical or substantially similar to already
registered products fall into either"fast track" or "nonfast track" categories. Fast Tracks require no signifi-
cant data with the application, while Nonfast Tracks require review of product-specific data (because the
product formulation is sufficiently different from existing registered products).
Fast Track Amendments
Nonfast Track Amendments
Old Chemical Fast Tracks ("me-toos")
Old Chemical Nonfast Tracks
3,464
557
368
334
46
-------
Total FY 2002 Reregistration Eligibility Decisions
REDs Issued
Interim REDs Issued
Tolerance REDs Issued
REDs Issued since FIFRA 1988
7
8
21
214
FY 2002 Product Registration Decisions
Products Reregistered
Products Amended
Products Canceled
Total Product Reregistration Decisions for FY 2002
77
51
186
314
7 Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs)
1. 1,4-Bis(bromoacetoxy)-2-butene
2. Endosulfan
3. Fenamiphos (OP RED/Voluntary Cancellation)
4. (HOCH2-)methyldithiocarbamate (Voluntary Cancellation)
5. Lindane
6. Oxyfluorfen
7. Thiabnedazole
8 Interim REDs (IREDs)
1. Azinphos-methyl
2. Diazinon
3. Dicrotophos
4. Disulfoton
5. Methamidophos
6. Naled
7. Oxydemeton-methyl
8. Phosmet
47
-------
FY 2002 REGISTRATION AND REREGISTRATION ACTIONS (CONTINUED)
21 Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Interim Risk
Management Decisions
1. Asulam
2. Calcium Hypochlorite
3. Chlorine Gas
4. Chlorpropham
5. Difenzoquat
6. Diquat Dibromide
7. Diuron
8. Fenarimol
9. Fenbutatin-oxide
10. Hexazinone
11. Imazalil
12. Linuron
13. Metolachlor
14. Norflurazon
15. Primisulfuron-methyl
16. Pronamide
17. Propanil
18. Sodium Hypochlorite
19. Tebuthiuron
20. Tetrachlorvinphos
21. Urea
FY2002 FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Summary
Class
Organophosphates
Carbamates
Organochlorines
Carcinogens
High Hazard Inerts
Other
Total
Total Tolerances
to be
Reassessed
1,691
545
253
2,008
5
5,219
9,721
Total Reassessed
Since
August 3, 1996
1,127
303
253
1,278
3
3,535
6,499
Percent Reassessed
(nearest whole %)
67
56
100
64
60
68
67
48
-------
Status of Organophosphates in the Pilot Process
September 30,2002
(For updates, see www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/status.htm)
Phase 1—Registrant 30-day error only
review of preliminary risk assessment
All organophosphates have completed Phase 1
Phase 2—EPA responds to registrant
comments re: errors
All organophosphates have completed Phase 2
Phase 3—EPA releases preliminary risk
assessments for public comment
All organophosphates have completed Phase 3
Phase 4—EPA responds to public
comment, develops revised risk
assessments, holds public Technical
Briefing
Dichlorvos (DDVP)
Dimethoate Methyl Parathion
Malathion Oxydemeton methyl
Phase 5—EPA releases revised risk
assessments; 60-day public participation
period begins for risk management
No organophosphates currently are in Phase 5
Phase 6—EPA develops risk
management proposal
IRED
EPA completes an Interim
Reregistration Eligibility Decision, or
Acephate
Azinphos-methyl
Bensulfide
Chorpyrifos
Diazinon
Dicrotophos
Disulfoton
Ethoprop
Fenthion
Methamidophos
Methidathion
Naled
Phorate
Phosmet
Primiphos methyl
Profenofos
Propetamphos
Terbufos
Tribufos
TRED
EPA completes tolerance reassessment
risk management decision, or
Cadusafos Fenitrothion
Chlorethoxyfos /*Mevinphos
*Chlorpyrifos methyl Phosalone
//Coumaphos
Phostebupirim
Tetrachlorvinphos
RED
EPA completes a Reregistration
Eligibility Decision for the OP.
* Ethion
* Ethyl Parathion
Fenamiphos
Sulfotepp
Temepos
Cancellations Prior to Completion/
Early in the Process
Chlorfenvinphos
Chlorthiophos
Dialifor
Dioxathion
/Fonofos
Isazophos
/Isofenphos
Monocrotophos
/Phosphamidon
/Sulprofos
counted as a RED
//RED Addendum
Also Canceled
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boufe^rrf 1 ?»H r,_
49
------- |