PROCEEDINGS OF THE
INTERAGENCY
PESTICIDE MONITORING
WORKSHOP
June 6-7,1989
-------
PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERAGENCY PESTICIDE MONITORING WORKSHOP
Held At:
The Sheraton National
Arlington, Virginia
June 6-7, 1989
PESTICIDE MONITORING IN THE REGULATORY PROCESS:
A COOPERATIVE EFFORT
Prepared for:
Thomas Dixon
Constance Hoheisel
Pesticide Monitoring Program Section
Environmental Fate and Ground Water Branch
Office of Pesticide Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by:
Versar Inc.
6850 Versar Center
Springfield, VA 22151
(703) 750-3000
September 30, 1989
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 11i
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. WORKSHOP AGENDA AND ORGANIZATION 3
3. OPENING REMARKS AND OVERVIEW 4
4. PANEL HIGHLIGHTS 6
.1 Water/Soil Panel 6
.2 Food Residues Panel 8
.3 Ecological Effects Panel 11
.4 Use/Usage Panel 13
.5 Human Health Panel 16
.6 Air Panel 18
.7 Conclusion 19
5. POSTER PRESENTATIONS 22
5.1 Pesticide Monitoring Inventory 22
5.2 Pesticides In Ground Hater Data Base 22
5.3 Continuing Investigation of DDT 1n the Trans-Pecos 23
5.4 Farmstead Well Water Quality in Indiana 23
5.5 Ground-Water Survey for Aldicarb, Alachlor, and Atrazine 24
5.6 Residues In Meat and Poultry from Treated Seed 24
5.7 FDA Pesticide Program--Residues In Foods, 19BB 26
5.8 Pendimethalin Volatility Following Application to
Turf grass '. 26
5.9 Immunoassays for Environmental Monitoring 27
APPENDIX 1 - List of Attendees 29
APPENDIX 2 - Pesticides Monitoring Data Bases 49
EXHIBIT 1 - Pesticide Usage Data Needs 50
EXHIBIT 2 - National Household Pesticide Usage Survey Information
Sheet 51
EXHIBIT 3 - NOAA's Project on Agricultural Pesticide Use In
Estuarlne Watersheds 53
11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate ind Groundwater
Branch, under Versar Inc. Contract No. 68-02-4254. Barbara Jaffe of
Versar Inc. served as work assignment manager and drafted this document.
Panelists reviewed the proceedings and made additions and comments.
Martha Martin Incorporated their comments and performed technical editing.
Leslie Davies-Hilliard of EPA designed the cover which was Implemented by
the Versar Graphics Department. All of their contributions are gratefully
acknowledged.
Ill
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
In 1985, the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) published the National
Pesticide Monitoring Plan (NPHP), which provides the basis for all pesti-
cide monitoring activities conducted under the authority of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentlcide Act (FIFRA). The plan sets the
national goal of pesticide ion 1 tor ing activities—to provide Information
on environmental and health effects, exposure, and environmental fate of
pesticides, In order to enhance the accuracy of pesticide risk assessments
and thereby Improve the soundness of FIFRA risk/benefit regulatory deci-
sions. Monitoring data will be used to support regulatory decision-making
for existing and new chemicals and for existing and new uses of pesti-
cides; to measure compliance with regulatory mandates and restrictions;
and to determine environmental trends to provide exposure problem alerts
and program evaluations.
An annual Action Plan has been prepared for the NPMP activities,
listing current OPP monitoring projects and milestones for each year,
recent regulatory actions In which monitoring could play a role, and key
Individuals Involved in pesticide monitoring at the State, regional, and
Federal level. Additionally, annual workshops have been conducted to
promote communication and cooperation in monitoring activities. The NPMP
was finalized at the first Pesticide Monitoring Workshop, held in
November 1984. Three subsequent workshops have been held, each one
Inviting a larger representation of participants, as the need to form a
national network of Federal agencies and State and local governments
became evident.
On June 6-7, 1989, the most recent workshop was held In Washington,
D.C., entitled "Pesticide Monitoring In the Regulatory Process: A
Cooperative Effort." Its theme, as the title Implies, was to promote
cooperation and data sharing among those responsible for both generating
and using the data, at all government levels. State and local govern-
ments, with and without the assistance of Federal agencies, are mounting
their own monitoring studies. Each Federal agency Is pursuing separate
agendas and programs, often conducting studies that may be of value to
other agencies or to State governments. Sharing these data sources
(methodologies, data, and data analysis and management techniques) will
increase the usefulness of all pesticide monitoring activities. This
workshop provided a forum for Its participants to:
• Interrelate pesticide monitoring data generation and data usage;
• Communicate how monitoring data are used at various levels of
Federal and State governments;
• Elucidate how monitoring data are used in regulatory decisions
and how the impact of those decisions can be tracked; and
• Discuss how to improve the collection, reporting, management,
use, and dissemination of monitoring data.
1
-------
This document synopsizes the major agenda Items of the workshop and
reports the discussion Issues that arose from the panel presentations.
A complete list of attendees and their affiliations, addresses, and
telephone numbers is Included as Appendix 1.
Appendix 2 1s an Information sharing opportunity for the readers of
this report. Many workshop participants expressed the need to identify
data bases of monitoring Information being managed by Federal and State
agencies or private institutions. If you are aware of data bases that
•ay be shared by others, please fill out the form and return It to:
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Fate and Effects Division (H7507C)
Pesticide Monitoring Program Section
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
A list of the data bases will be compiled and distributed.
-------
2. WORKSHOP AGENDA AND ORGANIZATION
At the beginning of the workshop, the participants were charged with
the following objectives:
• Promotion of better communication between Federal and State
regulatory agencies;
• Promotion of better communication between those responsible for
generating pesticide monitoring data and those responsible for
using such data;
• Clarification of the regulatory application of pesticide
monitoring data; and
• Improvements 1n the acquisition, dissemination, tnd interpreta-
tion of pesticide monitoring data.
The agenda was structured Into panel presentations, with each panel
having representation from Federal and State pesticide monitoring
officials. Panel topics were Water/Soil, Food Residues, Ecological
Effects, Use/Usage, Human Health, tnd Air. Each panel was to address the
following aspects of each topic:
• Major issues facing Federal and State regulatory agencies
concerning this topic;
• Innovative methods for addressing these Issues currently and in
the future;
• Types of assistance, expertise, or cooperative efforts available
now and planned for the future; and
• The regulatory application of pesticide monitoring data.
Panel presentations were followed by a general discussion and
question-and-answer period. Additionally, a poster session was held at
the end of the first day's sessions to demonstrate new methodologies and
relate new Ideas 1n the field of pesticide monitoring.
-------
9. OPENING REMARKS AND OVERVIEW
Preceding the panel presentations, Susan Way!and, Deputy Director of
the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), delivered opening remarks
regarding the new directions OPP Is taking. Monitoring data will not
only provide the baseline of Information on pesticides In the environment,
thus driving the need for new technologies and regulatory action, but will
also provide a mechanism to obtain feedback on the Impact of regulatory
actions—a sort of 'environmental score card.* Initiatives Include an
enhanced strategy for monitoring agricultural chemicals 1n ground water;
monitoring of ground water to establish a baseline for pesticide presence;
promotion of communication through such tools as the Pesticide Monitoring
Inventory (PMI); the National Pesticides Survey; the 1989 Action Plan
(distributed at the workshop); and regional and State outreach. To
support some of these efforts, OPP has dedicated resources to provide a
pesticide coordinator for each EPA Region and plans to dedicate additional
resources to support Regional/Headquarters coordination In the future.
Ms. Wayland suggested that annual workshops In coming years might Include
representatives from industry as well as the public sector.
Jan Auerbach, chief of the Special Review Branch at EPA, delivered an
overview of the three OPP programs: registration, reregistrati on, and
special review.
Registration. While only 15-20 applications for new chemicals are
submitted each year, approximately 12,000 submissions for changed
applications or uses of already registered chemicals are sent to OPP.
One in three registered pesticides Is the subject of requests for changes
to the original use or application method. It costs Industry $15-$20
million to prepare a new submission for a food use chemical. The OPP
approval process requires physical/chemical characteristics data, short-
and long-term human toxicology, residue data for food use chemicals,
environmental fate data (both Indoor and outdoor), and data on the
ecological effects on nontarget organisms.
Registration. The 1972 rereflstration law requires the
reregistration by their manufacturers of all chemicals presently on the
market. About 45,000 products containing approximately 600 active
Ingredients are the subject of this reregistration, and each chemical will
be reexamined to Identify data gaps, Identify risk reduction measures,
•nd review label precautions. The 600 chemicals have been prioritized,
and about 200 (mostly food use chemicals) have been reregistered in the
last decade. EPA Is presently able to review completely approximately
25 chemicals per year. In 1988, Congress amended FIFRA to require
registrants to pay for the reregistration of their products. With these
additional funds, the reregistration process Is now scheduled for
completion by 1998.
-------
Special Review. Approximately 10 percent of the chemicals reviewed
do not "pass" the risk threshold assessment. A risk/benefit review 1s
then required, which entails a public review as well as further EPA
review. The object of the special review is not to ban the chemical, but
rather to determine whether the benefits outweigh the risks and whether
there are ways, site by site, to reduce the risk short of cancellation so
that risks and benefits are in balance. EPA has the authority to call
for the emergency suspension of a chemical, but this has happened only
four times.
-------
4. PANEL HI6HLI6HTS
4.1 Mater/Son Panel
Panelists: Bill Alley, USGS
Richard Budell, Florida Dept. of Agriculture and
Consumer Services
Richard Esposito, Alabama Dept. of Environmental
Management
Robert Hoist, EPA/OPP
Linda Hyman, EPA/OPP
U.S. Geological Survty
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is currently involved in two of the
major surface water and ground-water monitoring programs: the
Mid-Continent Initiative and the National Hater Quality Assessment Program
(NAWQA). The primary focus of the Mid-Continent study is on atrazine, and
its degradation products, used by soybean growers in the Midwest (i.e.,
Iowa and Indiana) This study uses a mass balance approach to determine
the environmental fate of atrazine. Beginning in 1966, USGS began an
effort to develop a national water quality assessment program. The NAWQA
program focuses on nonpoint source contamination, such as pesticides in
surface and ground water. The major activities of the program are
centered on a selected set of hydrologic systems (river basins and
aquifers). At present, the program is In a pilot stage with studies in
seven areas. At full scale, about 60 study areas would be investigated.
Preliminary results for these programs are available from Bill Alley
(703-648-5710).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agtncy
EPA's Agricultural Chemicals in Ground-Water Strategy defines the
goals of pesticide monitoring at the Federal and State levels as the
prevention of unacceptable contamination In ground water; the protection
of current and potential drinking water sources; and the elevation of the
States' regulatory role. Monitoring data will be used to Indicate, at
the earliest possible time, whether a pesticide will tend to leach, given
specific application rates, procedures, and uses and will tnsure that
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or health advisory levels are not
exceeded. Increased Involvement of States will ensure that risk manage-
ment measures are tailored to local situations. EPA will provide guidance
for the development of State management plans. For further information,
contact Linda Hyman (703-557-7103).
The Environmental Fate and Ground Water Branch (EF6WB) of the Office
of Pesticide Programs has been developing ground water and surface water
data requirements, monitoring guidelines, and models to Improve environ-
mental fate decisions.
-------
Ground-water monitoring guidelines Include specific requirements for
conducting small- and large-scale prospective and retrospective studies.
The two ground-water models on which the EFGWB currently relies are the
Pesticide Root Zone Model (PR2H/PR2M II) and the Linked Modeling System
(RUSTIC). RUSTIC Includes PRZM II, VADOFT (a one-dimensional vadose zone
nodel), and SAFTMOD (a two-dimensional saturated zone model). Small-scale
prospective field studies are used to validate models. Currently studies
are being conducted In Dougherty Plains, Georgia (EPA/USGS study) and
Plains, Georgia (EPA/USDA/USGS study).
EPA has found that surface water data, although collected for
20 years, are seriously lacking 1n uniformity and quality assurance and
therefore are of limited value. Guidelines are currently being developed
to address these Issues. Monitoring studies planned for the future need
to focus on improvements 1n these areas and also broaden the scope of
surface water monitoring to Include not only agriculture areas, but also
lawns and golf courses.
Surface water models employed by EPA Include two that were developed
by USDA called Surface Mater Runoffs 1n Rural Basins (SWRRB) and the
Chemical Runoff and Erosion Agricultural Management System (CREAMS). EPA
Is working on validating these nodels through field studies. Model
validation, which is dependent on well-designed monitoring studies, 1s
extremely Important since results of nodel analyses are used In regulatory
decisions and nust stand up to legal scrutiny. Specific Information on
the use of guidelines end nodel Ing by EFGWB is available from Robert Hoist
(703-557-5734).
State Activities
State concerns (voiced by representatives from Alabama and Florida)
included the absence of standards and guidelines for nonitoring nonpoint
source ground-water contamination from agricultural runoffs; lack of
planned, generic strategies (for example, setting standards for applica-
tion rates and use areas, well setbacks, and nixer/loader activities);
and the need for establishing a baseline for pesticides In ground water.
Discussion
Audience discussions for the Water/Soil panel centered around Issues
concerning:
• Targeted vs. nontargeted nonltoring (I.e., whether nonltoring
sites should be chosen randomly or chosen based on potential for
human exposure).
It was generally agreed that both types of nonltoring have value
depending upon the circumstances. Targeted nonltoring can provide
Information that will aid 1n prioritizing expenditures of
regulatory and nonitoring resources, supporting decision-making
-------
activities, and neasurlng the Impact of Federal and State regula-
tory action. Nontargeted monitoring can provide early warning or
environmental trend Information so that we nay act before problems
get out of hand.
• Problems encountered because of lack of conventions 1n sampling.
Discussions between the audience and the two State panel members
Included sampling depth, type of well (drinking water vs.
agricultural), laboratory protocols, QA/QC procedures, pesticide
usage on the monitoring site (mixer/loader sites, application
sites, etc.). and the hydrogeographical factors that are considered
during selection of monitoring sites.
4.2 Food Residues Panel
Panelists: Catherine V. Carnevale, FDA, Contaminants Staff
Richard L. Ellis, USDA Food Safety Inspection Service
F.D. Griffith, Jr., EPA/OPP
The Federal responsibilities for regulating pesticides used on food
1s divided among three agencies: the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA). The USDA and FDA divide the Inspection duties
of the regulatory agencies as follows: the USDA Inspects domestic meat,
poultry, and eggs; the FDA inspects far* commodities, game meats, and
fish and monitors all types of domestically produced or Imported foods 1n
interstate commerce for pesticide residues. USDA and FDA both enforce
the regulatory limits for pesticide residues that are set by EPA, identi-
fying violative residues in foods. EPA also provides direction on how to
conduct and interpret food residue monitoring studies.
Despite the fact that food Inspection Is a Federal mandate, State
participation is of great Importance to all of the Federal agencies
involved. The panelists emphasized that States have a role 1n methods
development for monitoring total toxic residues and for monitoring maximum
residues at the "farm gate." The first step in collecting and utilizing
State data 1s a joint agreement between FDA, USDA, and EPA concerning
what data are needed and the analytical methods that are acceptable to
generate these data.
Environmental Protection Agency
Guideline revisions currently needed for adequate dietary exposure
assessments (collecting residue monitoring data and performing tolerance
assessments) Include: approaches for site selection, both random and
targeted; training of field personnel In taking "representative" samples;
attention to storage stability of the sample from harvest to testing;
analytical standards; Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs); standards for
accurately defined metabolites; attention to residues In such Items as
-------
cannery waste products (e.g., Where do apple skins and cores go 1n the
food chain? Do pesticide residues 1n cattle feed show up in beef and
milk?); specific naming of vegetation when submitting data; and uniform,
complete reporting of data. Such guidance documentation will tnsure
suitability of residue data from States. The goal 1s to promote a
national pesticide data bank of Veal world,' high-quality residue data.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service's (FSIS) mandated Inspection
program monitors food products and veterinary drugs for pesticide residues
and environmental contaminants. The National Monitoring Program (NMP) 1s
designed to enable FSIS to detect whether or not a residue Incident occurs
at a 1 percent Incidence rate on a nationwide basis, with a 95 percent
probability. Sampling Is done with a statistically designed random
sampling program, with samples collected from healthy animals presented
for slaughter.
Residue violations from the monitoring phase of the NMP trigger
surveillance sampling (I.e., biased sampling whose focus is to prevent
violative products from moving Into commerce). These data are also useful
to make estimates of residue Incidence on an annual basis for compounds
tested. USDA examined approximately 96,000 meat and poultry samples this
past year in a two-tiered study under the National Residue Program
(NRP). The Residue and Violation Information System (RVIS) Is an on-Une
Interactive data base that allows access and Input by both USDA and FOA
and contains data on 6,000 residue violation cases dating from October 1,
1986. The data are presently being used to Indicate Incidences and levels
of residue occurrence and to evaluate residue trends. More Information
1s available from FSIS at 202-447-9113. Hard-copy documents published by
the USDA are also available. Two such documents are the Domestic Residue
Data Book. National Residue Program, 1987 (November 1988) and Meat and
Poultry Inspection. 1988, Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the
U.S. Congress (March 1989).
Food and Drug Administration
In response to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) man-
date, FDA inspects domestically produced and Imported foods for pesticide
residues, selectively targeting products with the greatest likelihood of
violation. The FFDCA states that a food Is unlawful If It contains pesti-
cide residues at levels above a *P«c1fied tolerance or, 1f a tolerance
does not txlst, it any level. While the safety Issue 1s lulled In the
law, the statute deals with the enforcement of the proper use of pesti-
cides If a pesticide 1s found In a crop where 1t does not belong, It Is
assumed that the pesticide was not used properly In accordance with label
directions or, 1n the case of Imported foods, that the application did not
comply with registered U.S. uses. The FDA Is only responsible, under this
law for identifying violative uses of pesticides in food production.
-------
Recent violation rates are approximately 4 percent In Imported foods and
1 percent in domestic foods.
FDA also Inspects for Incidence and levels of pesticides 1n animal
feed. The feed program recognizes that animal feed production 1s a
•salvage* business, (i.e., that waste products from food production go
Into the animal feed). Domestic products Inspected Include farm produce,
game meats, and recreational fish catches. FDA tests for pesticides,
dioxins, and furans in fish, taking approximately 750 samples per year.
In addition to the approximately 18,000 samples of food tested for
pesticides under FDA's regulatory monitoring program, the agency also
conducts the Total Diet Study (also called the Harket Basket Survey),
which monitors approximately 250 food Items that typify the American diet
for approximately 150 pesticides. The levels of pesticides found in the
Total Diet Study are then compared with the World Health Organization's
Allowable Daily Intake (ADI) data. The results of all FDA pesticide
monitoring, including the Total Diet Study, are Issued annually In
monitoring summaries to the public in the Journal of the Association of
Official Analytic Chemists (JAOAC).
FDA (in collaboration with EPA and USDA) published the Pesticide
Analytical Manual (PAM II), which is a manual for analytical methods for
residue monitoring and enforcement. This document promotes standardiza-
tion of pesticide residue analytical monitoring methods.
Discussion
Participant discussions following this panel included the following
topics:
• Once USDA has determined the target sample population, the
slaughterhouse is told in advance that It will be inspected so
that the animals will be available for slaughter. This type of
inspection is greatly facilitated because the Federal Inspector 1s
always In the plant. Inspection of processed products 1s more
difficult. Inspectors are not required to be In these plants all
of the time, and there are not enough Inspectors to handle all of
the processing plants.
• Now can State agencies and other interested organizations (such
as Purdue University) obtain metabolite standards? Does EPA have
them? Now can they be distributed? (EPA does have the metabolite
standards and they are distributed free through a contractor, NSI
Technology Service Corporation. However, only governmental agen-
cies aay get them by putting a request on the agency's letterhead
and mailing It to NSI, Environmental Services, P.O. Box 12313,
2 Triangle Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Private
entitles, like universities, cannot get the metabolite standards
unless they supply evidence that the work is being performed for
some governmental agency to enforce or monitor pesticide regula-
tions. Contact: Dr. Elizabeth Leovey. 557-2162.)
10
-------
• A member of the audience asked whether USDA records values below
the tolerance levels for pesticide residue monitoring. Richard
Ellis answered that these values are recorded; however, reporting
of negative findings 1s not mandatory, and therefore the Informa-
tion Is not always provided for data entry.
4.3 Ecological Effects Pyn,f)
Panelists: Daniel Rieder, EPA/OPP
Christopher Saint, EPA/ORD
Larry Turner, EPA/OPP
EPA Offlea of Research and Development
The EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) has developed an
Integrated Environmental Management Concept to assess ecological effects
overall by monitoring the status and trends of all our ecological
resources. The concept seeks to avoid duplication of the efforts of
various governmental agencies and levels by establishing better lines of
communication, coordination, and cooperation, thereby using all existing
data to their fullest extent. ORO's goal is to be able to report on the
condition of the environment In much the same way that the 6NP report
provides a current Indicator of the condition of the economy. The
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program developing from this
concept is a large and controversial plan still under EPA Peer Review.
The program addresses questions such as:
• What ecosystems are degrading? Where? At what rate? Why are
they degrading? What Is/are the cause(s)?
• What are the current pollutant levels? Are they changing?
• What Is the relationship between the stressors and the
ecological resources?
• What 1s changing? By what magnitude? At what rate? At what
location?
• Which resources are at highest risk?
EPA/ORD 1s seeking comments from other EPA offices, other Federal
agencies, and States regarding the development of this plan. Monitoring
and assessment questions need to be answered from a large number of points
of view. An example of the type of Input ORD 1s soliciting 1s the Identi-
fication of appropriate chemical and biological indicators for determining
trends In the environment. With input from the monitoring community, ORD
hopes to address some of the limitations of current monitoring activities,
such as the tendency to be too compliance-oriented, too pollutant-
specific, not focused on ecosystems, fragmented with resultant "spotty"
data, and too site-specific and process-oriented. Existing data cannot be
11
-------
shared because of Incompatibility of methods, QA uncertainties, and lack
of a standard framework for extrapolation.
EPA Office of Pesticide Programs
OPP's Ecological Effects Branch (EEB) assesses risk to wildlife from
registered pesticide use—whether on crops, noncropland, or forests. The
first step in these assessments Is to estimate exposure and compare it to
laboratory data. If this generates concern, field studies may be required
either to negate concern by showing little or no hazard or to quantify
effects. The Ecological Effects Monitoring Program was developed as a
process by which to obtain information on pesticide exposure and effects
in the environment. Four sources were defined: the Office of Pesticide
Programs, other EPA program offices, Federal agencies, and pesticide
registrants. The types of Information that are useful to EEB Include
reports of fish and wildlife kills, reports of projects describing changes
in the health of ecosystems, residue monitoring information, »nd biologi-
cal monitoring information. Sources of data currently used Include:
• Pesticides Monitoring Inventory (PHI) (703-557-7499);
• STORE!;
• Syracuse Research Institute's data bases;
• National Pesticide Telecommunication Network (NPTN)
(1-800-858-7378);
• Master Fish Kill Files (EPA Office of Water) (202-382-7017);
• National Wildlife Health Center, Madison (USFWS) (FTS-364-5411);
• State reports (e.g., California and New York); and
• Miscellaneous sources Including newspapers, telephone calls,
journal articles, etc.
OPP/EFED/EEB solicits any knowledge of sources of field kill data,
fish kill data, and bird kill data. Their future goals Include developing
a priority list of pesticides that are most harmful to fish and wildlife;
targeting their Investigatory program by obtaining better Information
from States and local governments about wildlife kills; and providing
•ore guidance to registrants on their ecological monitoring studies.
Both monitoring data and field studies data will be useful, for
different purposes. Monitoring data are particularly useful In giving a
"real world* look at pesticide contamination and Its effects, but only If
the studies are designed well. Needed are repetitive samples (two or
three samples from each site or population), standardized methodologies,
and statistical validity of the data. For terrestrial effects, composite
12
-------
samples may not be useful, since that Monitoring design can nlss "hot
spots."
Field studies data give a picture different from the "real world" or
base-case scenarios resultant from analysis of monitoring data. They
give an indication of what the typical "worst-case" situation would be
like.
EEB focuses separately on protecting endangered species. The objec-
tive of Us monitoring studies 1s prevention. By the time 1t 1s learned
that an endangered species Is being killed or harmed, It may be too late
to avoid its extinction. Field research must be conducted rapidly, using
repetitive samples, at the first Indication that an endangered species or
Its ecosystem has been exposed to a potentially harmful chemical. In
order to effectively target Its monitoring efforts, EPA needs to be made
aware of any preliminary Indications of such chemical Incidents. Monitor-
ing would typically take the form of sampling the species' environment
and analyzing for pesticide residues. However, monitoring for effects on
other wildlife would be highly useful for assessing potential Impacts on
listed species. Data sharing across agencies and State governments 1s
essential.
Discussion
Discussions following this panel focused on other government agencies
that might have ecological effects data to share. Some sources mentioned
Included NOAA's shellfish and commercial fisheries program; the National
Park Service; the FDA game animals and recreational fish program; and any
EPA or NOAA programs that monitor for environmental residues, fish kills,
bird kills, carcass counts, or data on comparative size of animals from
one season to the next, eggshell thickness of birds, or condition, number,
and viability of embryos and young. Since It could not be expected that
this workshop could be attended by representatives from all such
programs, 1t was recommended that a list of such sources be compiled and
distributed.
4.4 Use/Usage Panel
Panelists: Arnold Aspelln, EPA/OPP
Frank H. Khattat, USDOI, Bureau of Indian Affairs
John A. Miranowskl, USDA, Resources and Technology
Division
Tony Pait, NOAA, Ocean Assessments Division
William Malls, Virginia Dtpt. of Agriculture and
Consumer Services
The term 'pesticide use data" generally refers to Information on the
customary practices of pesticide application and disposal. Including
containers for particular pesticides. Some of the more Important use
data points are method of application, equipment used, application rate,
13
-------
frequency, season (or crop stage), storage and nixing location, applica-
tion location in relation to nontarget crops and ecosystems, safety
measures, disposal practices, and container clean-up methods. The term
•pesticide usage data" generally refers to statistical estimates of actual
usage of pesticides by site (crop), specific formulated pesticide product,
year, geographic area, number of acres/farms or other units, and quantity
applied. NOAA, EPA, and USDA are all interested In use/usage data.
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA prepares pesticide profiles (index entries) for pesticides when
registration standards are established for individual active Ingredients.
An index entry contains a detailed listing of the formulated product
registrations of an active ingredient. Including legal sites, rates of
application, target pests, application nethods, «tc. Information on
pesticide registrations 1s available from EPA through the National
Pesticide Registration Information System (NPRIS), which is an automated
data base accessible by computer link (317-494-6616).
The best usage data are gathered through personal interviews with the
actual pesticide applicator. Other data sources include sales records
from pesticide manufacturers (when not subject to Confidential Business
Information restrictions). Without accurate use/usage data, quantitative
analysis of pesticide exposure, risks, and benefits Is not possible.
Furthermore, EPA needs these quantitative data to establish tolerances.
A data base is needed as a repository of current, statistically
validated usage data for agricultural pesticides as well as residential
pesticides. A one-page summary of Pesticide Usage Data Needs, handed out
at the workshop, is enclosed as Exhibit 1. It provides a concise discus-
sion of data base needs.
EPA is currently conducting a nationwide survey of household pesticide
usage that will be completed in 1990 (see Exhibit 2). Surveys of other
nonfarm sites have been conducted by EPA in the past.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAA is looking at 25 (soon to be 35) pesticides In 78 estuarine
drainage areas (EDAs). NOAA currently summarizes pesticide use by crop,
EDA, county, and other background data; assesses relative toxidty;
pinpoints pesticide use 'hot spots*; and determines the effects of
pesticide runoff into tstuaries and coastal rivers. Limitations of the
data gathered are that pesticide use Is assumed without verification, data
are circa 1982, only selected pesticides are covered, no nonagricultural
pesticides are Included, and the data presently do not include estimates
of pesticide runoffs into estuaries. The data are presently being used
for screening assessments, and for that use they have value. In the
future, NOAA intends to add more pesticides, update estimates to 1987,
Include fish kill data, and Incorporate an atlas of maps of estuaries,
14
-------
uses of pesticides, and properties of the pesticides. The final product
will be an atlas Including all these data. Further details on this topic
are in Exhibit 3.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDA 1s in the process of developing a pesticide data base, the first
phase of which Is estimated to cost 52 Billion, In response to data needs
for the Department's water quality Initiative. Part of this program is
designed to Initiate a new Geographic Information System (GIS) capability
that will Integrate State data on pesticide use, cropping practices,
soils, and water quality. The surveys will be by Interview and will In-
clude 4-year rotations of most crops. The study will focus on pesticides
In surface and ground water, assessing soil types to which the pesticide
1s being applied, and the environmental fate and transport In that soil
medium.
State Activities
The State of Virginia recently had occasion to employ use/usage data
as the basis on which to ban the use of granular carbofurans east of
Interstate 1-95. Virginia Instituted a use record-keeping process in
1967, after the death of two bald eagles. An interesting aspect of this
Incident was that rather than be monitored, Bost of the buyers of the
Furidan returned the product to the suppliers and replaced It with
something else. This effectively reduced the use of the pesticide to
near-negligible proportions. A 1988 follow-up was conducted, and a 1989
follow-up Is planned. Virginia will also be •onltoring for Alar.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs aonitors pesticide use for 53 Billion
acres of Indian reservation lands. Only 980,000 people Inhabit these
areas There are no large uses of pesticides that affect the food chain.
Indian Nations Bust use pesticides 1n compliance with registration under
FIFRA. However, they monitor and control pesticide usage locally, under
tribal authority.
Discussions
Discussions following this panel reiterated the need for data sharing
and for standardized aethodologies and verifiable statistical analyses. A
participant from New Jersey stld that this State has a data base contaln-
Ina 5 000 records on pesticide use, application method, rates, and target
crops. The EPA representatives responded that they would be Interested In
being allowed to share these data.
15
-------
4.5 Human Health Panel
Panelists: Jerry Blonde!!, EPA/OPP
Michael Firestone, EPA/OPP
Christopher Paul Milne, New Jersey Dept. of Health
Robert Verbalen, CPSC, Directorate for Epidemiology
Environmental Protection Agency
Two projects currently under development by EPA/OPP/Non-dietary
Exposure Branch include the Pesticide User Exposure Data Base (PUEDB) and
the Non-Occupational Pesticide Exposure Study (HOPES). PUEDB was
developed in conjunction with Health and Welfare Canada and the National
Agricultural Chemicals Association (NACA). It Is a user-friendly, inter-
active tool that contains passive dosimetry exposure monitoring data from
600 sources and has SO,000 data elements for predicting exposures that
occur during mixing, loading, and application procedures. It can perform
univariate, regression, and correlation analyses to explore possible
relationships between different variables, as well as predict exposure
using geometric and arithmetic means, percentlies, confidence Intervals,
etc. The HOPES project involved sampling for ambient air levels of pesti-
cides in Jacksonville, Florida, and Springfield/Chickopee, Massachusetts,
during several seasons. Both "real world" data and controlled experimen-
tal data, based on probability-based survey sampling procedures, Mere
collected.
Future efforts at EPA will Include attempting to collect harvester
dermal exposure data and correlating these data with foliar dislodgeable
residue (FDR) data at reentry sites; development of methodologies for
assessment of residential exposure to lawn chemicals and household
pesticides; field studies examining the exposure reduction potential of
various application equipment and use of protective equipment; and a
residential use survey.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Coenfsslon
CPSC works with Monitoring data under very stringent budgetary limita-
tions; therefore. Information exchange 1s a very attractive prospect. The
data bases that CPSC has developed are available free or for the cost of
processing the requests. Two CPSC projects Bay have data of interest: a
study of pesticides in pressurized wood used in children's playgrounds
(call Andrew Ulsamer, 301-492-6957, for details) and the National
Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), in emergency room
reporting system that collects data on product use injuries (call Robert
Verhalen, 301-492-6440, for details). The Interagency Regulatory Liaison
Group (IRLG), which assisted in Interagency cooperation, could be used to
address the subject of national iK>nitor1ng data bases. If it were reinsti-
tuted.
16
-------
State Activities
Human exposure assessments require the gathering of several different
types of data from numerous sources. Emphasis must be placed on total
exposure. Information from occupational, dietary. Indoor, and outdoor
exposures must all be Included. The first data sought are morbidity and
mortality data from epidemiology studies (e.g., case control and/or
cohort studies). These data allow the assessment of risk relative to an
unexposed population. Unfortunately, epidemiology data are not always
available or reliable enough for a thorough exposure assessment. In the
absence of usable epidemiology data, human health exposure must be
estimated based on other types of data including:
• The amount of an agent (dose) to which the human can be expected
to be exposed, based on use/usage data;
• The environmental pathways (water, food, air), which 1n turn
allow for the prediction of human Intake routes, such as Ingestion,
Inhalation, or skin absorption; and
• The duration during which humans can be expected to be exposed,
e.g. short, periodic exposures, or long-term, chronic conditions.
The estimates are based on human activity data Including
occupation, daily dietary intake, recreation activities, etc.
To complete the risk assessment, the estimated exposure values are then
compared to data derived from toxicity testing in experimental animal
populations.
Many of these exposure data are monitoring data. Some sources for
exposure monitoring data include:
• Occupational data - plant industrial hygienists; epidemiological
studies; personal monitoring of workers through passive dosimetry
(i.e., dermal patch, breathing space air monitors) and/or
biological monitoring (blood, urine, breath, hair, and nail
sampling); and use/usage data;
• Consumer data - from poison control centers, hospitals,
physicians, and use surveys including household surveys that
collect information on products used, frequency of use, and
product storage and disposal; and
• "Inadvertent" data - tpidemiological studies of outbreaks,
ecological monitoring, and prospective field monitoring.
Needs Include research to develop useful biomarkers; development of
standardized information-reporting procedures; location of existing data;
exploration of risk reduction techniques, such as protective equipment and
watering-in lawn products; and improvements in communication and sharing
of monitoring data.
17
-------
4.6 Air Panel
Panelists: Dwight Gotfelty, USDA, Agricultural Research Service
Robert V. Hoist, EPA/OPP
Jeffrey Jenkins, University of Massachusetts
Environmental Protection Agency
There 1s a need for data on the environmental fate of pesticides that
have been sprayed from aircraft, both fixed-wing and rotary, and broad-
casted from irrigation systems (chemigation). The possible variables to
be considered are wind speed and direction at the tine of application,
the altitude at which the monitoring 1s done (e.g., near surface, 10 feet
from the ground), temperature, relative humidity, and time of sampling
after pesticide release. Spray drift models have been developed at EPA
for ballistic (no turbulence drift) droplets. USDA and others have
developed airborne diffusion (includes turbulence factor) models. These
models are being used primarily for determining the need for monitoring
and targeting sampling sites. There is a need to fully validate these
models. Modeling and monitoring also need to take Into consideration the
phenomenon of revolatilization. During revolatilization the pesticide,
depending on Its volatility, comes off the fields and plants where it
originally settled and redisperses beyond Us original dispersion pattern.
There 1s a current need for data bases on toxicity (human, animal,
and plant) and use conditions to assess exposure to aerially applied
pesticides. Currently, there are no spray drift data bases; however, the
National Agricultural Chemicals Association (NACA) has expressed an
Interest In developing such a data base.
State Activities
Monitoring for pesticides In air should Include all pesticide uses in
which the population at large Is exposed, as opposed to only farm workers.
Such monitoring would Include studying Indoor applications, applications
to turf and golf courses, and applications for mosquito control (e.g.,
malathion) or control of residential lawn and landscape pests (such as
gypsy moths). In Massachusetts, the State has rlghts-of-way where
helicopter and fixed-wing spraying are allowed 1n very densely populated
residential areas. For Indoor applications, Massachusetts has developed
Its own procedures for monitoring for the termiticide Chlordane and has
banned Us use in that State based on the State's studies.
The methodology used for monitoring pesticides in Indoor air Is
designed to answer the question, 'What Is the highest concentration In *
given space in a house, given unlimited pesticide (I.e., air saturation
level expressed in *g/m)7" From that, a worst-case margin of safety
(MOS) Is developed. This 1s expressed as follows:
18
-------
—
ASL tines the Exposure Factor
The MOS Is used 1n decisions by the State's legislators to determine
whether air Monitoring 1s necessary.
There Is a growing perception at the State level that studies
specifically addressing their own local conditions are needed. According-
ly, the University of Massachusetts Is presently conducting the following
studies:
• Comparison of airborne (Inhalation) and dlslodgeable (deraal)
residues for pesticide application to turf grasses;
• Well monitoring for pesticides resulting from ground-water
contamination, for use in State pesticide management plans,
especially on new golf courses, as a condition of construction; and
• Human exposure modeling for dermal and airborne residues, using
a newly developed, still controversial chamber technique.
As States do more and more monitoring on their own, EPA should coordinate
an effort to capture these data and make them available for sharing.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
The USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) does not conduct large-
scale monitoring, and their environmental research efforts for pesticides
are largely focused on ground-water studies. Pesticides In air are a
very small part of their program. They do look at pesticide volatility
and the dispersion of pesticides through volatilization and degradation.
The ARS does small-plot (1/10 to 2/10 of a hectare) field testing that
addresses the "cycling" of pesticides through deposition, volatilization,
and redeposition, looking at wash-out processes and dry and wet deposi-
tion. The majority of this work Is being done In Beltsvllle, Maryland.
Data resulting from these studies are available from ARS. ARS 1s very
Interested in exploring opportunities for collaborative studies.
Discussion
Discussion after the panel presentation focused on the use of drift
reduction agents. The effectiveness of these agents In reducing
contamination of nontarget areas and exposure to nontarget populations 1s
still being assessed.
4.7 Conclusion
F1FRA Section Z0(b,c) charges the Environmental Protection Agency/
Office of Pesticide Programs with the responsibility for performing any
19
-------
pesticide monitoring activities that nay be necessary to implement regula-
tion. OPP has found that In order to reap maximum rewards from our moni-
toring resources, we must develop a network that encompasses all Federal
and State agencies responsible for regulating, enforcing regulation, or
monitoring pesticide residues and the affected environment-thus the
theme of the workshop: Pesticide Monitoring In the Regulatory Process—A
Cooperative Effort.
Participants were asked to bring to the workshop Ideas concerning the
major Issues facing their Federal or State regulatory agency; Innovative
methods for addressing these Issues currently and in the future; types of
assistance, expertise, or cooperative efforts available now and planned
for the future; and the regulatory application of pesticide monitoring
data. As each topic panel discussed these Ideas, some common themes
emerged that are worth noting here.
One of the primary uses of monitoring data 1$ crisis prevention.
Early detection of pesticides that have a potential to escape their orbit
of application under real world conditions can greatly facilitate the
ability of the local or Federal regulatory authorities to respond before
Irreparable damage Is done. Great emphasis was placed on the fact that
monitoring data are not used to 'ban* pesticides but to allow them to be
used In the safest, most beneficial ways.
Common needs mentioned by panel members, regardless of media, were
methods development and standardization. State-of-the-art analytical
(especially multlresidue) methods need to be continually developed,
Improved, and validated. In addition, these methods must be made readily
available to those in the field. Guidelines need to be developed to
standardize field collection, sample storage, analyses, and data report-
ing. It was felt the State agencies should take a very active role in
standardization efforts.
Standardization leads directly Into the next common monitoring need,
data sharing among Federal, State, and local agencies. Each of these
entities must examine "outside" data to establish criteria for suitability
of these data for their specific programs. The first step In this
process 1s determining what data sets exist and In what form. OPP has
begun the process of Information gathering and sharing through the
Pesticide Monitoring Inventory and the Pesticides In Ground Water Data
Base (Posters S.I and S.2). Both of these data bases are continually
being expanded and revised. Contributions of information and suggestions
for improvement are always welcome.
Lastly, many participants felt that seminars and training opportuni-
ties covering analysis, sample collection, planning and implementation of
monitoring studies, etc. would greatly facilitate their monitoring
efforts.
The Interagency Pesticide Monitoring Workshop provided a forum for
States and Federal agencies grappling with monitoring issues to gather
20
-------
and discuss areas of Mutual concern. Participants came away with useful
Information and extended contacts for sharing Information. A continuance
of cooperative opportunities provided through future workshops will
ultimately serve to Improve the overall quality of Monitoring Information.
21
-------
8. POSTER PRESENTATIONS
5.1 Pesticide Monitoring Inventory
The Pesticide Monitoring Inventory (PHI) Is • compilation of monitor-
ing projects being performed by Federal, State, and local governments and
private institutions. The data base contains a short synopsis of each
project, Including chemicals, substrates, and location. It also lists
the name, address, and telephone number of a person to contact to gain
additional Information on a specific project. The PHI Is a free service
offered by EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, that 1s Intended to provide
a network by which all Interested parties way communicate and share
monitoring Information with each other.
The PHI Is located on a personal computer and 1s accessible by
dataphone (similar to a PC-to-PC bulletin board). It is completely menu
driven. Users may search for projects by chemical, substrate, EPA Region,
State, and various other criteria.
For further information, contact:
Constance A. Noheisel
(703) 557-7499
FTS 8-557-7499
Leslie Davies-Milliard
(703) 557-7494
FTS 8-557-7494
Thomas E. Dixon
(703) 557-5455
FTS 8-557-5455
User Support Hours:
7:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. EST
5.2 Pesticides 1n Ground Water Data Base
The Pesticides In Ground Water Data Base was developed to compile the
results from monitoring studies conducted by pesticide registrants,
universities, and government agencies. The data base Identifies the
pesticides that have been looked for in ground water, the areas that have
been Monitored, and the pesticides that have been detected. An important
component In the development of the data base 1s the data confirmation
program, which Involves contacting the director or responsible agent for
each study In order to document and assess the sample collection and
analysis procedures used In the study.
In December 1988, EPA released 'Pesticides 1n Ground Vater Data Base:
1988 Interim Report." The report outlines the development of the data
base, describes the data confirmation program, and explains how the data
22
-------
base will be used by EPA to support the registration process for pesti-
cides. The report attempts to segregate the results according to the
quality of the study and the origin of contamination (I.e., point source
origins vs. leaching through the soil following applications In accordance
with registration). The report 1$ in Interim report In that the data con-
firmation program continues and new data tre added to it daily. For more
Information, contact Martin Williams, EPA, Environmental Fate and Effects
Division, Environmental Fate and Ground Water Branch (703-557-2128).
5.3 Continuing Investigation of PDT 1n the Trans-Pecos
This study 1s a cooperative effort of the U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide
Programs and the Texas Department of Agriculture. An Intensive soil
nonitoring effort by the Texas Department of Agriculture demonstrated that
some soils of the arid Southwest still contain far more DDT than DDE.
DOT in aerobic soils degrades principally to DDE with a half-life In the
range of 7 years. Since more than two half-lives have elapsed since DDT
was cancelled, one would now expect far w>re DDE than DDT. Intensive
searches of warehouses and interviews with fanners provided no evidence
of Illegal DDT use.
A laboratory soil net*holism study Is now being conducted to determine
whether the soils with the unusual DDT and DDE residue profile are able
to degrade DDT. The Investigation consists of spiking some of the
•suspicious* soils and some soils with a 'normal' residue with DDT and
Incubating these soils under warm, moist conditions for 100 days.
Investigations by Dr. Wayne Guenzi of the USDA at Fort Collins, Colorado,
Indicate that normal soils can degrade DDT 1n 100 days under optimal
conditions. One possibility 1s that after the end of the Incubation
period, the DDT in the normal soil will have degraded and the suspicious
soils will still contain levels near the original DDT spike. This result
would lead to the assumption that some west Texas soils simply have
little ability to degrade DDT.
Further details concerning this study are available from Robert K.
Hitch and Harold R. Day of the Environmental Fate and Effects Division of
the U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (703-557-0893).
5.4 farmstead Well Water Quality In Indiana
Concern over the possible occurrence of pesticides or nitrate In the
ground water of Indiana 1s Justified as nearly 100 percent of the rural
population uses ground water as a primary source for drinking water.
Furthermore, only a negligible anount of Information on the scope of the
actual problem «1sts. A study to assess how ground water has betn
affected by agriculture was Initiated 1n the summer of 1987. For the
past year and a half, 47 wells 1n 4 counties have been monitored for
pesticide and Inorganic nutrients. Findings Indicate that nitrate
contamination remains of primary concern, especially 1n shallow wells on
poorly drained soils. While 28 percent of the tested wells had elevated
23
-------
levels (1-10 ppm N03-N) of N, only 8 percent exceeded 10 ppm N03-N.
It appears that the presence of animals or a septic system, in close
proximity to wells, has the most detrimental effect on water quality.
The contamination of veil water by agricultural chemicals Is not
widespread. Pesticides were detected and confirmed in 11 percent of the
sampled wells. With the exception of one site, repeated detections were
not found. At that site a nishandling event was indicated. The presence
of atrazine, alachlor, and netolachlor were confirmed with GC-MS. It
should be noted that the study was liatited to five agricultural chemicals.
Further details concerning this study are available from Ronald F.
Turco, N. Bischoff, and A. Konopka, Purdue University, V. Lafayette,
Indiana (317-494-8077).
5.S Ground-Water Survey for Aldicarb. Alachlor. and Atrazine
The Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries (ADAI) Is analyz-
ing 150 ground-water samples for the parameters aldicarb, alachlor, and
atrazine and quantifying any detectable parameters for which analytical
results are obtainable through performance of the test methods for the
three specific parameters Identified above. The analyses are being
performed through the use of test methods that are generally accepted to
be sufficient to Identify aldicarb, alachlor, and atrazine at a minimum
detection Unit of one part per billion. All applicable sample collection
requirements and maximum sample holding tines that are required for the
validity of the selected test methods are being adhered to. Proper
chain-of-custody procedures are being maintained from the point of sample
collection through sample analysis. The results of the analyses are
provided to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEN)
within 30 days of sample analysis.
Ground-water samples are being collected from the following
10 counties: Baldwin, Limestone, Houston, Perry, Lawrence, Geneva,
Madison, Colbert, Henry, and DeKalb. Wells to be sampled have been
identified by ADAI and ADEM, and sampling 1s being performed by ADAI and
ADEN personnel. Each well 1s sampled three tines at intervals determined
by ADAI and ADEN.
Further details concerning this study are available from Richard
Esposlto, Alabama Department of Environmental Management (205-271-7976).
1.6 p»s1dues in Beat and Poultry from Treated Seed
A recurring source of pesticide residues In Mat, poultry, and Bilk
has been pesticide-treated seeds used as animal feed. In 1986, a
tri-agency task force identified the following causes:
1. An excess amount of seeds are treated annually.
2. An economical option Is to feed this seed to livestock.
24
-------
Brokers nay accumulate excess treated seed 1n bulk containers and sell the
seed for nonplantlng uses. Since the seed Is not Intended for planting,
1t 1s not subject to the labeling requirements under the Federal Seed
Act. In mid-1986, there were estimated to be 3,500,000 bushels of excess
treated seed.
RCRA provides that the seed can be disposed as waste (landfill or
Incineration), processed to nake gasohol, or processed Into animal feed
for export.
The estimated cost to the taxpayer was more than $16 million 1n 1986
and more than $5 million In 1988 as a result of misuse of heptachlor-
treated seed in Arkansas alone. Heptachlor use has been canceled, but
other pesticides approved for seed treatment Include methoxychlor,
alathion, lindane, and diazlnon.
Heptachlor Residues 1n Heat and Poultry Samples
Monitoring Surveillance
Fiscal
Year
1987
1988
1989
Number
Samples
3,998
3,453
2,574
Positive
109
28
19
Violative
1
0
0
Number
Samples
1,014
1,023
4,239
Positive
36
21
1,538
Violative
1
1
339
Some options for seed treatment to prevent further residue problems
•re as follows:
• Have EPA consider all treated seed as potential feed and set
tolerances accordingly.
• Initiate educational programs for seed treaters, waste seed
distributors* and feeders.
• Strengthen support for RAP and FARAD.
• Regulate seeds treated with certain chemicals so that they are
monitored from treatment to disposal.
• Promulgate penalties for feeding treated seed.
Further details concerning this study are available from E.A. Brown,
W. Johnson, and L. Hensley, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety
and Inspection Service, Residue Evaluation and Planning Division
(202-447-2807).
25
-------
5.7 FDA Pesticide Program—Residues 1n Poods. 1988
Two approaches are used by FDA to monitor pesticide residues in the
food supply: regulatory monitoring and the Total Diet Study. In the
former, samples of Individual lots of domestically produced and Imported
foods are analyzed for pesticide residues to enforce EPA tolerances. In
the latter, foods purchased from supermarkets and prepared for consumption
are analyzed for a number of chemicals, including pesticide residues. In
1986, under the regulatory approach, 18,114 food samples (7,639 domestic
and 10,745 Imported) were analyzed. Of these, 61 percent had no detect-
able residues and less than 1 percent contained over-tolerance residues.
In the Total Diet Study, 1,170 food Items were analyzed, and the dietary
Intake of pesticides for tight age/sex groups was calculated. The results
from FDA pesticide monitoring 1n 1988 corroborate the 1987 findings, which
demonstrate the continuing safety of the U.S. food supply relative to
pesticide residues.
Further details concerning this study are available from Norma Yess,
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (202-245-1466).
5.8 Pendimethalin Volatility Followinc Application to Turferass
Volatilization of the preemergence herbicide pendimethalin
[Af-(l-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine] was character-
ized following application to a Kentucky bluegrass (Pot pnteosis L.)
turfgrass area. Pendimethalin was applied at 3.4 kg a.1. ha*1 with
volatile losses monitored over a period of 15 days. Pendimethalin
volatile flux followed a diurnal pattern with maximum dally flux usually
occurring 1300 to 1500 h. Maximum flux of airborne residues occurred 1300
to 1500 h on the day of application when losses totaled 23.6 9 ha*1 h*1.
Pendimethalin volatile losses totaled 4.8 percent of the original applica-
tion during the first 24 hours following application (143.7 g ha*1).
Overnight (1900 to 0700 h) volatile losses measured 9.5 and 10.5 g ha*1
on Day 1 and Day 2 of the experiment, respectively (approximately 0.3 per-
cent of the application). Volatile losses during the 4 days Immediately
following application totaled approximately 10 to 12 percent of the
original 3.4-kg application. Daily volatile loss declined in • biphasal
manner over the course of the study, with an Initial period of rapid
volatile flux lasting S to 7 days followed by a period of decreasing flux
that lasted the duration of the study. Dissipation of dislodgeable foliar
residues followed a biphasal decline similar to that observed for dally
airborne loss, suggesting a relationship between pendimethalin volatile
flux and the availability of dislodgeable residues over time.
Further details concerning this study are available from J.J. Jenkins
and A.S. Curtis, Massachusetts Pesticide Analysis laboratory, and
Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
(413-545-2284), and R.J. Cooper, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
26
-------
5.9 Jmmunoassays for Environmental Monitoring
Immunoassay technology cm provide specific ind cost-effective
analytical nethods for • wide variety of compounds. Inmunoassays are
based on the reaction of a specific antibody with Us corresponding target
analyte. Immunoassays have been successfully developed for nany classes
of pesticides (e.g., $-triaztnes, chlorinated hydrocarbons, sulfonyl
ureas, phenoxyacetlc adds, organophosphates, etc.). Recently, inmuno-
assays were used to screen environmental samples for the presence of
pesticides and other hazardous substances. The Agency's iwmunoassay
program at the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas,
Nevada (EMSL-LV) seeks to develop, evaluate, and standardize Immunoassay
methodologies for environmental awnitoring. A computer-animated graphics
program has been developed to describe Immunoassay technology In general
and the Immunoassay activities of the EMSL-LV.
Most pesticides and other environmental contaminants are not large
enough to stimulate the Immune system and must be covalently attached to
large molecules such as proteins. Immunizations with the pesticide-
protein conjugate can result 1n antibodies that are directed against the
pesticide molecule Itself. These antibodies can then be configured Into
qualitative, semiquantitative, or quantitative immunoassays. Inmunoassay
techniques can be either laboratory-based or performed on-s1te.
The EMSL-LV Is active 1n developing specific antibodies and Inmuno-
assays through extramural and In-house efforts. Developmental efforts
are being conducted through academia as well as Industry. Compounds
undergoing Immunoassay development Include benzene, tthylbenzene, chloro-
benzene, parathion, cyclodiene pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin, endrin), and
several polychlorinated biphenyls.
The EMSL-LV 1s also developing sample preparation techniques for
environmental and biological matrices that are compatible with detection
by Immunoassay. The EMSL-LV has been supported by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and the California Department of Food and Agriculture for
nany of these activities, Including work on the trlazine herbicides and
Ivermectln.
For imnunochemical techniques to gain a wider acceptance, studies
must be conducted to evaluate assay performance for a defined situation.
These studies Bust address data quality objectives, as well as quality
assurance and quality control measures. Such studies help to define the
role of Imnunoassay In Monitoring and regulatory activities. One aspect
of the EPA's immunochealstry program Is the evaluation of specific
Immjnoassays. Before time and resources arc committed for an in-depth
evaluation study, the developer must meet all or most of certain develop-
mental criteria developed by EPA. These criteria address the Issues of
data quality objectives, standard operating procedures, quality control,
and other pertinent issues for assay development. Fulfillment of the
developmental criteria ensure that the Immunoassay Is "mature" and well
27
-------
characterized. It 1s anticipated that the outcome of these evaluation
studies will provide the Agency with rapid economical methods for the
analysis of environmental contaminants.
The EPA Is working with other agencies to develop standardized
evaluation protocols for Immunoassays. This cooperation among agencies
will assist in the Implementation of the technology, as well as stimulate
the development of Imunoassays by private Industry.
For more Information, contact Jeanette N. Van Emon, U.S. EPA,
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-3478
(008-545-2154, 702-798-2100).
28
-------
APPENDIX 1
LIST OF ATTENDEES
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Interagency Pesticide Hon1tor1ng Workshop
June 6 and 7, 1989
Pesticides Monitoring In the Regulatory Process:
A Cooperative Effort
David Alexander
Special Assistant
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/SRRD (H7508C)
401 K Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-3942
Bill Alley Panelist: Water/Soil
U.S. Geological Survey
412 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
703-648-5710
James K. Andreasen
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
18th & E Streets, NW
Room 330 ARLSQ
Washington, DC 20240
703-356-2148
Thomas Armitage
Marine Biologist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OMEP (WH-556F)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
202-475-7378
Karl Arne
Regional Pesticide Coordinator
Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch
A1r and Toxics Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-442-2576
006-399-2576
29
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
Arnold Aspelln Panelist: Use/Usage
Chief
Economic Analysis Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/BEAD/EAB (H703C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-9710
Jan Auerbach Speaker: Overview of Pesticide
Chief Registration,
Special Review Branch Reregistration and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Special Review
OPP/RD/SRB (H750BC)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-7420
Andrew N. Barrass
Manager
Nonpoint Source Program
Tennessee Department of Health
and Environment
3rd Floor, TERRA Building
150 Ninth Avenue, N.
Nashville, TN 37122
615-741-0638
Anne L. Barton
Director
Environmental Fate and Effects Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
(H7507C)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-7695
Sandy Bird
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Laboratory
College Station Road
Athens, GA 30613
404-546-3255
008-250-3255
30
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
Harv Block
Environmental Scientist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ORD/OMMSQA (RD-680)
401 H Street
Washington, DC 20460
202-382-5789
Jerry Blonde!!
Statistician
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/HED (H7509C)
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-2564
Dennis Borum
Environmental Scientist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ODW (WH-550D)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
202-475-8996
Elise Ann Brown
Toxicologist
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Food Safety Inspection Service
300 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20250
202-447-2807
Richard Budell
Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services
Science Evaluation Section
Mayo Building, Room 208-A
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800
904-487-0532
Catherine V. Came vale
Associate Director
Contaminants Staff
FDA
PaHclawn Building, Room 12A-03
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
301-443-1815
Panelist: Hunan Health
Poster: Residues in Meat and
Poultry From Treated Seed
Panelist: Water/Soil
Panelist: Food Residue
31
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
Jerry Carr
U.S. Geological Survey
Hater Resources Division (MS-417)
412 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
703-648-6857
A. Lawrence Christy
National Program Leader
Weed Science
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
Room 237, Building 005, BARC-West
Beltsville, MO 20705
301-344-3006
Carroll Collier
Pesticide Management Specialist
Agency for International Development
ST/AGR/AP
1601 North Kent Street
Room 420
Rosslyn, VA 20523
703-875-4024
E. Brinson Conerly
Chemist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/EFED/EFGWB (H7507C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-5456
Rubel P. Cowhart
Chief Chemist
Pesticide Residue Section
Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory
Box CR
Mississippi State, MS 39762
601-325-3429
Keith Creagh
Department of Agriculture
Pesticide and Pest Management Division
North Ottawa Tower, 4th Floor
611 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30017
Lansing, MI 48909
517-373-1087
32
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
Padma R. Datta
Chemist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/EFED/EFGWB (H7507C)
401 H Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-9733
Leslie Davies-H11liard Poster: Pesticide Monitoring
Chemist Inventory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Staff
OPP/EFED/EFGWB (H7507C)
Pesticide Monitoring Programs Section
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-7454
Harold R. Day
Chemist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/EFED/EFGWB (H7507C)
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-5494
Jane E. Denne
Environmental Scientist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
702-798-2655
008-545-2655
Thomas E. Dixon Moderator
Chief
Pesticide Programs Monitoring Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EFGWB/EFED/OPP (H7507C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-5455
33
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
Therese Dougherty
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/Science Analysis Coordination Staff
(H7501C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-7682
R. C. Egnew
Director
Kentucky Dept. of Agriculture
Division of Pesticides
700 Capital Plaza Tower
Frankfort, KY 40601
502-564-7274
Robert S. Elder
Hathematical Statistician
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Food Safety Inspection Service/Science
Room 612 Annex
Washington, DC 20250
202-447-9163
Richard I. El 11s
Director
Food Safety Inspection Service
Chemistry Division, SCI
U.S. Department of Agriculture
300 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20250-3700
202-447-7623
Richard Esposito
Geologist
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
205-271-7976
Panelist: Food Residue
Panelist: Hater/Soil
Poster: Ground Water Survey for
Aldicarb, Alachlor, and
Atrizine
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
Edward Evans, Jr.
Chief
Pesticide Monitoring Branch
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
Aberdeen Proving Grounds
Aberdeen, MD 22010-5422
301-671-3613
301-671-3792
Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp
Director
Health Effects Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/HED (H7506C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-7351
Michael Firestone Panelist: Human Exposure
Chief
Environmental Chemistry
Review Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/HEDC/DEB (H7509C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
R. Gene Gilbert
Soil Management Specialist
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
P.D. Box 2890
Washington, DC 20013
202-382-0533
William A. Ł111
Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/EFED/EEB (H7507C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-0783
35
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
Dwight Glotfelty Panelist: Air
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
Room HI, Building 001, BARC-West
Beltsvllle, HO 20705
301-344-3641
F.D. Griffith, Jr. Panelist: Food Residue
Chemist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/HED/DEB (H7509C)
401 H Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-0826
Betsy Grimm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/Science Analysis Coordination Staff
(H7501C)
401 H Street
Washington, DC 20460
Robert K. Hitch Poster: Continuing Investigation
Ecologist of DDT In the Trans-Pecos
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/EFEO/EFGHB (H7507C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-0893
Constance Hohelsel Staff
Biologist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pesticide Programs Monitoring Section
OPP/EFED/EFGWB (H7S07C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-7499
Robert W. Hoist Panelist: Wattr/Soll
Deputy Chief
Environmental Fate and Ground
Water Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/EFED/EFGUB (H7507C)
401 H Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-5734
36
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
Claire Hong
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPPE/OMSE (PH-222A)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
202-475-6129
Zdenka Horokova
Toxicologist
Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Room 204
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090
703-23S-8209
Linda Hyman Panelist: Water/Soil
Environmental Protection Specialist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/PSPO (H7S01C)
401 H Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-7103
Henry Jacoby
Acting Chief
Environmental Fate and
Ground Water Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/EFED/EFGWB (H7507C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-5734
Jeffery Jenkins Panelist: A1r
Coordinator Poster: Pendimethalln Volatility
Pesticide Chemicals Following Application to
Department of Entomology Turfgrass
Fernald Hall
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
413-545-2284
37
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
Wesley A. Johnson
Veterinary Medical Officer
Food Safety Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
300 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20250
202-447-2807
Margaret Jones
Regional Pesticide Coordinator
Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch
Environmental Services Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
008-353-2192
Shripat T. Kamble
Extension Specialist
Pesticide Impact Assessment
Department of Environmental Programs
101 Natural Resources Hall
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68583-0818
402-472-6857
Frank H. Khattat Panelist: Use/Usage
Ecologist
Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Department of the Interior
Room 4559H1B
18th & C Streets, NW
Washington, DC 20240
202-343-3959
Larry G. Lane
Director
Industrial and Agricultural
Services Division
Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory
Mississippi State University
Box CR
Mississippi State, MS 39762
601-325-3324
38
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
Marvin A. Lawson
Chief
Entomological Sciences Division
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MO 2)010-5422
301-671-4131
Michael Legendre
Chemist
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 3209
Gulfport, MS 39505
Elizabeth Leovey
Quality Assurance Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/QAO (H7507C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-2162
Ann Leslie
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/FED (H7506C)
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-5077
Pat Lombardo
U.S. food and Drug Administration
200 C Street, SW (HFF-421)
Washington, DC 20204
202-245-1466
Lourdes Lopez-Guzman
Environmental Quality Board
Water Programs Office
P.O. Box 11488
San Turce, PR 00910
809-725-5140
008-000-2397
39
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
James R. KacDonald
Chief, Case Preparation ind Technical
Assistance Section
Toxics and Pesticides Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-236-2635
008-757-2835
GUI Mallard
Hydro!ogist
Mater Resources Division
U.S. Geological Survey
12201 Sunrise Valey Drive
Mail Stop 412, National Center
Reston, VA 22092
703-648-6672
Anita Manka
Food Technologist
Food Safety Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue
Annex Building, Room 304
Washington, DC 20460
202-447-7625
Paul Mastradone
Chief, Environmental Chemistry
Review Section I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/EFED/EFGWB (H7507C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
Lea Me Govern, D.V.M.
Chief, Animal Feed Safety
Center for Veterinary Medicine
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
HFV-222, Room 7B-45
S600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
301-443-5362
40
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
Charles K. McMahon
Research Project Leader
Southern Forest Experiment Station
George W. Andrews Forestry Sciences Lib
U.S. Forest Service
Auburn University, AL 36849
205-826-8700
James McNeal
Geologic Division
U.S. Geological Survey
412 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
703-648-5459
Roy Meyer
Research Scientist
Pesticide Control Program
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Programs
CN 411. 380 Scotch Road
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-530-4124
Ronald P. Mil berg
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service/PPQ
U.S. Department of Agriculture
6505 Bel crest Road, Room 643
Hyattsville, MD 20782
301-436-8261
Christopher Paul Milne Panelist: Hunan Health
Pesticides Project Manager
Environmental Health Service
New Jersey Department of Health
CN-360
Trenton, NJ 08625-0360
609-633-2043
609-292-9697
41
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
John A. Miranowski Panelist: Use/Usage
Director, Resources and
Technology Division
Economic Research Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1301 Ne« York Avenue. NW
Suite 524
Washington, DC 20005-4788
202-786-1455
David H. Mitchell
Assistant Director
Bureau of Environmental Health
Division of Water Supply
2423 North State Street
P.O. Box 1700
Jackson, MS 39215
601-960-7518
Jack O'Grady Staff
Pesticide Monitoring Programs Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/EFED/EF6WB (H7507C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-2127
Paul Ochs
Staff Officer
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
12th and Independence Avenue
Washington, DC 20250
202-436-6472
Tony Pait Panelist: Use/Usage
Ocean Assessments Division
NOS,N/OMA31
NOAA
Rockwall Building, Rooa 600
11400 Rockvllle Pike
RockvWt, MD 20852
301-443-6454
42
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
Sarah D. Pugh
Environmental Policy Analyst
Virginia Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services
1100 Bank Street
Richmond, VA 23219
804-786-7157
Emil Regelman
Chief, Environmental Chemistry
Review Section II
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/EFED/EFGWB (H7507C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-1984
Joanne E. Richter
Environmental Scientist
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
217 Pine Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
206-464-6891
Daniel Rieder Panelist: Ecological Effects
Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/EFED/EEB (H7507C)
401 H Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-1451
Lorie Roeser
Chesapeake Bay Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
410 Severn Avenue
Annapolis, HO 21403
301-266-6873
Christopher Saint Panelist: Ecological Efftcts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ORD/OMMSQA (RD-60)
40! M Street
Washington, DC 20460
202-382-5607
43
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
Jitendra Saxena
Chemist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ODW/CSD WH-550D
401 H Street
Washington, DC 20460
202-475-9579
Dana Spatz
Chemist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/EFEO/EFGWB (H7507C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 2046D
703-557-3463
H. 6r1er Stayton
Delaware Department of Agriculture
2320 S. DuPont Highway
Dover, DE 19901
302-736-4811
Linda S«ac1na
Public Affairs Specialist
Food Safety Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Room 1160, South Building
Washington, DC 20250
202-447-9113
James 6. Touhey
Senior Agricultural Advisor
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
DPP/FDD (H7506C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-5664
Poster: Farmstead Well Wattr
OualUy 1n Indiana
Purdue University
Lilly Hall
Vest Lafayette, IN 47907
317-494-8077
44
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
Larry Turner Panelist: Ecologist Effects
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/EFED/EEB (H7507C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-1007
Jeanette Van Emon Poster: Immunoassays for
Environmental Monitoring Systems Environmental Monitoring
Laboratory
EAO
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
008-545-2154
702-798-2100
Robert Verbal en Panelist: Human Health
Associate Executive Director
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Directorate for Epidemiology
5401 Westbard Avenue (Room 600)
Washington, DC 20207
301-492-6440
Cheryl Wade
Chief, Nutrition Branch
Ingredient Assessment Division
Food Safety and Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
12th and Independence, SW South Building
Washington, DC 20250
202-447-7625
Millit* Walls ^ Panelist: Vse/Us.ge
Supervisor, Office of Pesticide
Regulation
Virginia Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services
P.O. Box 1163
Richmond, VA 23209
804-786-3798
45
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
K. Wasti
Toxicologist
Toxic Substances Information
Virginia Department of Health
109 Governor Street
Richmond, VA 23219
804-786-1763
Susan Wayland Speaker: Opening Remarks
Deputy Director
Office of Pesticide Programs
(TS-766C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
202-557-7092
Raymond J. Wesselman
Chief, Project Management Branch
Quality Assurance Research Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
26 West Martin Luther King Drive (Rm. 525)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
S13-569-7325
William G. Wilber
Hydro!ogist
U.S. Geological Survey
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive
MS-412
Reston, VA 22092
703-648-6878
Martin Williams Poster: Pesticides in Ground Hater
Hydro!oglst D»tt Base
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/EFED/EFGWB (H7S07C)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
703-557-2128
Ruth Vender
Environmental Protection Specialist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OW/WQAB/OWRS (PM 221)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
202-382-7062
46
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES (continued)
Norma Yess Poster: FDA Pesticide Program -
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Residues in Foods - 1988
200 C Street, SU
Washington, DC 20204
202-245-1466
Virginia Zaratzian
Senior Pharmacology/Toxicology Advisor
Food Safety Inspection Service/
Science/FIAD
U.S. Department of Agriculture
300 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20250
202-447-5139
47
-------
ACRONYM INDEX
AGR Office of Agriculture
AP Agricultural Products Division
BEAD Biological and Economic Analysis Division
CSO Criteria and Standards Division
DEB Dietary Exposure Branch
EAB Economic Analysis Branch
EAD Exposure Assessment Division
EEB Ecological Effects Branch
EFED Environmental Fate and Effects Division
EFGWB Enviromental fate and Ground Water Branch
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HAD food Ingredient Assessment Division
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FDD Field Operations Division
HED Health Effects Division
MOSO Monitoring and Data Support Division
NDEB Non-Dietary Exposure Branch
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOS National Ocean Service
ODW Office of Drinking Water
DMA Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessments
OMEP Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
OMMSQA Office of Modeling and Monitoring Systems Quality Assurance
OMSE Office of Management Systems v>fl Evaluation
OPP Office of Pesticide Programs
OppE Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation
ORD Office of Research and Development
OWRS Office of Water Regulations and Standards
ppn Plant Protection and Quarantine
PSPO Policy and Special Projects Office
QAO Quality Assurance Officer
SCI Science
SRB Special Review Branch
SRRD Special Review and Registration Division
ST Bureau of Science tnd Technology
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
ilQAB Wtter Quality Analysis Branch
-------
APPENDIX 2
PESTICIDES MONITORING DATA BASES
-------
PESTICIDES MONITORING DATA BASES
Title:
Sponsoring Office:
Type of Data:
Media-sped fie: other:
Air: ____ Use/Usage:.
Surface Water: Wildlife:
Ground Water: Endangered Species:.
Food Residue: Human Exposure:
Soil:
Dates Covered:
Specific Geographical Areas Covered:.
Manual or Automated?
How can these data be made available? If automated, what media?
Are there any near-future plans for expansion of the data base?
Person to Contact:
Name:
Address:
Telephone:.
49
-------
EXHIBIT 1
PESTICIDE USAGE DATA NEEDS
-------
EXHIBIT I
Ouantitativ* data on the actual ucag* of pesticides *rt • critical
Input to rcrtuning exposure, risk and benefit analyses of pssticides.
Before BWk. takes regulatory unions on prablar pistieides. astablisJws
tolerances or Issues rejis-Lratier. at-endards for pasticide chemicals.
analyses are condjctac or. June-; health, enviromsTial, «ecnarjc enfi aacial
i*pac-_s as required by the HTJOs »2-*16, as amendeS. in order to conduct
eucr> analyses, • dm base is needed *Uc*j contains accureta (statistically
*elid>, current, usage data for •gricuJturmJ «nfl otrtsr us«s of pestieio»s.
Vtor p*sticit* we DMOJC fey tfwnieal, crop
jrot«CT«i, acres tr«at,«3, ntrtar of f»r» tr*rue. taren F"*t. ^splicartion
infomation tarred, •pjuipi**, tatge nrtt, eustm or priv«t« applicator,
nunter of •ppJicctiont, tl» of yvar, •tc.), pwtieio* cost, wer
•*tisfaction, tfi^x»«J practicsas, anS otf*r rtOatafl factPTK. >igtieio>
usa9« data apt %^y^ nB>bVB2 tfc support the r*yiijr_ian 6>^iIop»»Tt. prooass,
Including ragulrticr* on nor»9e and flispas*! ef pesticide oareainers,
tftiLS rasictim f«ioslng. artUngvad cpKiac, «RUioVat*7 pvMcUcn anfl
nctrictad
art! the 9Latc tan! SnrR. thivcntitias (iiclufiing
~""'
ift or/-
jity for urtaJV>»n-fKirilt«*raB^-irTSD«a>»S6
in3octriaa anS
Mjor uses of pesticides auch as com. soybeans and cotton need to be
surveyed because they accnunt for a large share of usage, benefits and
potential a>gx*ure. Itxr^ir, data on us*?* of pesticides on the anajl
acreage crops are also critically needed for various regulatory purposes-
Pesticides used on ami acreage crops can have wry high benefit* euch as
vitn the s«ny fruit* and vegetables and aay fee crucial in a particular
regional or local area, tti the other hand, such snail acreage crops can fee
svnaged quite intensively vitn freqjam ajplicar.iom of pesticides
are a aoorce of potanual significant exposure and
of Oca:
are naaoafi tf^ch are so aor* than three ywrc old due tc the
of charge in thf anaaal wao» of pesticidas. 9* pesticide
f«r«ralJy obtains dr*» or wage aacft yaar. Xana «hould be
obtained at a «dnuojr. of a tftrw-ymar cycle for agrieultuna and other
•itas. Agricultaral (food/faae) citas accarr. for a amjority of darwtic
pesticide voage. *.g., about 75 percent of acti^» ingracUaRt racanUy.
nutira> noiUafiory purpaaac national and rational
•t*ti*tiaaiy vmiitf avtiaatav of uU9e are needed, ftx* data ahotUd be
available continxavly ac a feaaelim. Mao, at tin*, data are needed at
the at*t* ar«Vor epxnty a»ve3 aueh as for r»yal*tory options to protact
species and gronVatar. FW the •ore geographically aparific
•etrajolaiion aay auffiee (!.«.. apportiornant frm larger
•Tea totals etrfi as fey Caneus crop acreage) rather than to lav*
frm taopiing data at that law*.
Os-*rally pr^ew ^e hew firet Tun* mviactoe of the actual
of tnt pes^cidt aust be aurveyad to obudn accurate and _
ewpl«t» data. Paracnal arweraticu of the faraer
-------
EXHIBIT 2
NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY
INFORMATION SHEET
-------
EXHIBIT 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC »460
1RHCIAL HnigP**TJi m-vi'irmp us«E SURVEY
mPOFMMICN SHZT
A. B
has a program to provide improved quantitative data en the usage
of pesticides in the U.S. Survey design, implementation and management
support services, including processing questionnaire results, are being
provided by n%, staff and contractors. 3nis program is designed to provide
statistically valid estimates of the amount of pesticides used by region or
state and site of applications, target pest, cost of chemicals, and other
related information as appropriate and as resources are made available for
individual surveys. 2nis initiative is being coordinated on an
interagency basis by a planning group which has representatives from USA,
ITA, Census Bureau, state pesticide regulatory officials (A&FGD), state
land grant universities and BA.
B. CtrlgCtii^SP fpr the NTiiCTiBl Hr»««^dd PejTticjfle PSftqp Survey
One major objective of the survey is to provide quantitative
information on household pesticide use patterns for use as input to both
benefits analyses and exposure analyses for special reviews and
registration standards. Survey results will be also used to support the
regulation development process, specifically for future regulations on
storage and disposal of pesticide containers as veil as future requirements
on child resistant packaging.
C. SCfflB
One 1«PUS will be a national survey of dwellings in the 48
coterminous united States and the District of Columbia that are occupied as
permanent residences (excluding institutions, group quarters, and military
reservations). All types of dulling units fror. single family through
mlti-fanily units are included in the sample. Farm households will be
included in the survey but pesticides used exclusively for production of
CTOB6 or livestock for sale will not be inventoried or surveyed.
ResOTSents will be interviewed once Airing a two-month period. Questions
will focus on both product specific information and general pesticide usage
information. All p?3tici«3es vtJch are rfraister&J by E>, ar*2 us
-------
EXHIBIT 2 (continued)
D. Key Da*^» TtflTP
1. Identification of pest problems, relative iitportance of
each, season of the year, and how treated.
2. Use of ccmercial applicators, i.e. , lawn care, general
pest control, termiticide, arborists and swimming pool
service.
3. Choice and effectiveness of pesticide products, as
perceived by the household respondent.
4. Demographic information on the person applying the
pesticide, frequency of pesticide application,
application equipment and safety precautions.
5. Storage and/or disposal of unused portions as well as
enpty containers.
6. Actual use practices, particularly for child-resistant
packaging.
E. Schedule
The survey is being conducted under contract vith the Research
Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 3he following are Key
points in the anticipated schedule:
Item Batfi
0 Analysis Plan April 20, 1989
o Draft of the data collection instrument May 19, 1989
° OB approval November 1, 1989
0 Field data collection May through June 1990
° Final report December 1990
F. Cantarts
For further information about the household survey contact Edward
Brandt {(703) 557-1737) or Ton Harris ((703) 557-1616). For information
about the overall pesticide usage program, contact Arnold L. Aspelin,
Economic Analysis Branch, BEAD/ORVEfft (750X), 401 M St., SW, Washington,
D.C. 20460 - telephone ((703) 557-7600).
April 1989
52
-------
EXHIBIT 3
NOAA'S PROJECT ON AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE USE
IN ESTUARINE WATERSHEDS
-------
BfflSXT 3
NOAA'S PROJECT ON AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE USE
IN ESTUARINE WATERSHEDS
The National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory (NCPDI) is a data base
and computational framework being developed within the Strategic Assessment
Branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The
NCPOI contains pollutant loading estimates for all point, nonpoint, and riverine
sources located in coastal counties that discharge to the estuarine, coastal, and
oceanic waters of the contiguous USA (excluding the Great Lakes).
The pesticide project, initiated in 1987 by NOAA in cooperation with the
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, is
an evoMng program within the NCPOI designed to evaluate the possible
impacts of commonly used agricultural pesticides on the health of the Nation's
estuaries. The first phase of this program, the results of which were contained
in an Interim Report released in January 1989, focuses on the agricultural use
of 28 selected pesticides on 71 crops in the 76 estuaries identified in NOAA's
National Estuarine Inventory. Two experimental approaches have been
incorporated into this phase of the project. The first integrates the toxitity of
each pesticide with its use patterns allowing a more complete assessment of
estuarine risks. The second approach incorporates a quantitative measure
used to compare estuarine watersheds with respect to the amount of pesticide
applied per unit area of cropland, termed intensity of use.
The final phase of this project will be a volume in NOAA's National Estuarine
Inventory Data Atlas Series. The atlas will contain detailed tabulations of
pesticide use and discharge by compound and crop type, for each county in
each estuarine watershed. In addition, the Atlas will contain extensive
supporting information on the physical and toxicologica! properties of the
pesticides, a summary of the regulatory status and history of use. and an
assessment of the policy implications of the use patterns portrayed. The Atlas is
scheduled for completion in the fall of 1990.
In the coming year, plans are under way to add 10 more environmentally
hazardous pesticides, and to update all usg estimates from^ base year of 1982
to 1987. In addition, a series of irrteijm^sselsment products wlH be produced
including an analysis of pesticide risks |p other classes of esjjaarinjb organisms,
and an inventory of pesticide related^its^U^JnJh^^latfonVtstuaries and
coastal rivers. For more information onThe NattonarCoastal Pollutftnt
Discharge Inventory and the assessment of pesticide use, discharge, and
impact in estuarine watersheds, write to:
Anthony S. Part or Daniel Ft G. Farrow
Strategic Assessment Branch
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
11400 Rockville Pike, Room 600
Rockville MD 20582
(301)443-0454
53
------- |