United States
Environmental Protection Agency
REGION/ORD PESTICIDES WORKSHOP
SUMMARY REPORT
October 31-November 2, 2000
Chicago, IL
I.S T" iMli:: :l ~i:i ml Hill I. [I II: il
-------
Table of Contents:
FOREWORD 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
HEALTH ISSUES 3
Session LA: Exposure Issues: Indoors 3
Case Study 1: Methyl Parathion Misuse 3
Session IB: Exposure Issues: Spray Drift 9
Case Study 2: Off-Site Movement of Pesticides 9
Session 1C: Exposure Issues: Vector Control 20
Case Study 3: New York City Spraying of Malathion to Control Mosquitoes
Carrying West Nile Virus 20
Session II: Highly Exposed and Sensitive Populations 28
Session HI: Risk Management 33
ECOLOGICAL ISSUES 34
Session IV: Ecological Issues 34
Case Study 4: Lake Apopka Birdkill Winter 1998-1999 34
Appendix I: Break-Out Group Summary 1-1
Appendix II: Proposed Discussion Groups II-1
Appendix HI: Pesticides Workshop Participant Evaluation Summary III-l
Appendix IV: List of Participants IV-1
Appendix V: Slides from Presentations V-l
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
FOREWORD
This Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop is the fifth in a series of Regional Science Topic
Workshops sponsored by the Office of Science Policy in the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) at EPA. Others in this series include:
Asthma: The Regional Science Issues
Communicating Science: Waves of the Future Info Fair
FIELDS
Nonindigenous Species
The objectives of the Regional Science Topic Workshops are to: (1) establish a better cross-
agency understanding of the science applicable to specific Region-selected human health and/or
ecological topics, and (2) develop a network of EPA scientists who will continue to exchange
information on these science topics as the Agency moves forward in planning education,
research, and risk management programs.
Each year the EPA Regions identify priority science topics on which to conduct workshops. The
workshops address the science issues of greatest interest to the Regions on the selected topic
area. Each workshop is planned and conducted by a team of Regional, ORD, and interested
Program Office scientists, led by a Regional chairperson and facilitated by one or more Regional
Science Liaisons to ORD. Participants maintain the cross-agency science networks they
establish at the workshops through planned post-workshop projects and activities, such as the
identification of collaborative research opportunities, creation of information sharing
mechanisms such as interactive web sites, and development of science fact sheets for Regional
use.
For additional information on any of the specific workshops or on the Regional Science Topic
Workshop series in general, contact David Klauder in ORD's Office of Science Policy (202-564
-6496).
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop was held on October 31 - November 2, 2000, at EPA
Region 5 Offices in Chicago. The workshop was chaired by David Macarus, Regional Science
Liaison to ORD in Region 5, and David Klauder, Regional Team Leader in the Office of Science
Policy/ORD. The workshop was organized into six sessions:
IA. Exposure Issues: Indoors;
IB. Exposure Issues: Spray Drift;
1C. Exposure Issues: Vector Control;
II. Highly Exposed and Sensitive Populations;
III. Risk Management; and
IV. Ecological Issues.
Regional staff presented four site-specific case studies as a way of illustrating the major science
issues underlying typical problems confronting the Regions, namely indoor pesticide misuse,
pesticide drift, use of pesticides for mosquito control, and the ecological impacts of pesticide
residues. Representatives of the ORD and Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) followed with
presentations describing research studies, measurement tools, data, models and methodologies
relevant to the Regional science issues. Subsequent discussions revolved around how the
Regions could use ORD and OPP data and tools to support the activities and gaps identified in
the case studies. The discussions also highlighted how additional field data and other Regional
information could augment the development and validation of applicable ORD and OPP models
and databases.
Break-out sessions followed each workshop session (consisting of the Regional case study and
related ORD/OPP presentations) to identify: 1) how the Regions could use the science
presented; 2) what scientific uncertainties limit EPA's ability to conduct assessments and take
fully informed actions; and 3) what products or tools would help fill the gaps in science
information. In addition to a list of science gaps, break-out participants identified candidate
topics for post workshop "pesticide science discussion groups." The workshop organizers
compiled these topics into five tentative discussion group topic areas. Region/ORD/OPP topic
area discussion groups will meet during the first part of 2001 to discuss and develop appropriate
informational tools, e.g., fact sheets for effectively communicating pesticide science information
to identified Regional target audiences.
Participants expressed appreciation for the opportunity to view their own work in the context of
other related activities across the Agency and for the opportunity to network with those doing
supporting research. The workshop format was thought to be an excellent venue to identify how
available science could support field activities and identify where further research is needed.
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Call to Order:
Welcome:
David Macarus, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
David Ullrich, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
Introduction: David Klauder, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, Office of Science Policy
HEALTH ISSUES
Session IA: Exposure Issues: Indoors
Case Study 1: Methyl Parathion Misuse
John Ward (R5)
Statement of the Problem
Unlicenced pesticide applicators illegally sprayed methyl parathion, a pesticide licensed for use
on cotton, to control cockroach infestations in homes in several urban areas including Lorraine
County, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Memphis, Tennessee; and Chicago, Illinois. The human
health effects to residents and the requirements for identification and cleanup of the misused
insecticide were the initial problems confronting Regional Pesticide and Superfund Program
staff.
Background
Methyl parathion (MP), a pesticide registered for use on cotton and a few other crops, was
illegally applied inside residences in Ohio, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Chicago. MP
continued to be found in homes over a year after application. While the outdoor environmental
fate data show MP breaks down quickly (reported half life of ~ 5 days), there were no data on
the breakdown indoors. Neither the Registrant ChemiNova nor OPP had data on indoor fate, and
no predictive models were available.
In Loraine, Ohio, the first impacted area that was discovered, a coalition of State of Ohio
Department of Agriculture Staff, EPA Regional Pesticide, and Superfund Toxicology Staff
enlisted CDC and local public health officials to rapidly assess the extent and lexicological
consequences of the pesticide misuse. Similar partnerships were formed as other areas of MP
misuse were discovered.
In Ohio, the air and surface wipe samples taken in the homes showed little correlation. Attempts
were made to conduct biological monitoring (blood and urine), but adequate laboratory capacity
was unavailable. Risk assessors had to make a decision quickly, since thousands of people were
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
being exposed in hundreds of homes. EPA and ATSDR finally agreed on a trigger level based
on composite surface wipe samples, and the age and health of residents. One-and-a-half years
later, when incidents arose in Mississippi, the CDC was equipped to handle large volumes of
urine samples, so the criteria for evacuation and cleanup went through stages of environmental
wipe sampling (for presence of methyl parathion) and testing of urine for paranetrophenal
(PNP).
Over the five areas impacted, over $100 million was spent to evacuate, remediate, and move
residents back into their homes in the affected communities. The reason for the similarity of
misuse in several different areas is likely due to the effectiveness of MP in controlling
cockroaches and other indoor pests combined with its comparatively low cost when purchased at
bulk agricultural prices.
Important Science Issues
1. What are the best indoor measures of potential exposure to indoor applications of methyl
parathion - air or surface wipe concentrations?
2. What is the fate of methyl parathion applied or tracked indoors?
3. What is the best solvent for extracting methyl parathion from surface wipe samples?
4. Why was so little toxicity observed among residents in Lorraine County, given the very high
surface wipe and urinary PNP concentrations?
5. Which parts of the house are best to sample, for purposes of estimating exposures?
6. Which are the most significant exposure routes, i.e., inhalation, dermal, and/or oral (hand-to-
mouth)?
Challenge to Addressing Science Issues
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) require pesticide registrants to
supply human health and environmental fate studies for the planned uses. Since methyl
parathion is not registered for use indoors, environmental fate and indoor exposure issues were
not addressed in the data required for registration.
Major Science Needs
1. Improved wipe sampling solvents and methods.
2. Environmental fate data for indoor pesticides.
3. Better human health related effects of MP residues. Residues found did not necessarily
relate to symptoms or illness reported by residents. Although families reported illnesses that
suggested organophosphate poisoning, none were confirmed. In Chicago and Mississippi,
PNP levels in urine did not closely correlate with environmental samples.
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Conclusions and Next Steps
CDC has begun a long-term health study, which may provide some additional information.
The Movement and Deposition of Pesticides Following Their Application In
and Around Dwellings, Dan Stout/Bob Lewis, US Environmental Protection Agency,
National Exposure Research Laboratory
A field study was conducted to develop an analytical method to determine exposure to
environmental pesticides, to examine the movement and deposition of the pesticide, to determine
the fate behavior and translocation, and to examine collection tools.
Background
During or following residential applications, pesticides may translocate or move by drift,
volatilization, or physical pathways such as track-in. The general characteristics that influence
the fate, behavior and movement of pesticides out of doors are: its physical characteristics, the
formulation type, the substrates to which it's applied, and environmental factors such as
temperature, exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation and microorganisms. Furthermore, the
primary routes of pesticide loss occur by vapor dissipation, residue bound particles, UV
exposure and microbial degradation. However, pesticides that intrude or translocate indoors are
not similarly exposed to such degrading factors and may result in residue concentrations in
dwellings that are 10 to 100 times higher than those measured outside.
Study
The drift resulting from exterior perimeter applications to residential dwellings was evaluated.
Mcroencapsulated formulations of the insecticides diazinon and chlorpyrifos, were applied by a
licensed pest control operator to a total of ten residential homes. Applications of between 10-15
gallons of diluted pesticide formulation were applied per house, at a pressure of 30 psi.
Measured wind speeds were V3 mph. Deposition coupons consisting of cellulose filter papers
were placed at intervals up to 50 ft from the foundation walls.
In another study, successive indoor and perimeter applications of the insecticides diazinon and
chlorpyrifos were studied. Two applications were performed by the homeowner, in one
residential home, approximately three months apart. Various samples were collected including:
indoor air; vacuum dislodgeable dust from carpeted areas; and table-top, floor, child hand and
toy wipes. On the exterior foundation, soil was also collected.
Results
Following perimeter treatments to the foundations of residential homes, insecticide residues of
both cyfluthrin and diazinon were measured up to 50 feet from the point of application. Findings
suggest that drift primarily resulted from large particles generated during application and that
drift varied to a lesser degree with the physical characteristics of the active ingredients and their
formulations.
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
In the second study, residues were shown to quickly disperse into air and onto surfaces
throughout the dwelling following an application. Lifestyle patterns such as heating and air
conditioning use and open or closed windows appear to impact indoor concentrations. In general
concentrations increased immediately following each application and rapidly declined to levels
higher than those measured prior to each application. Residues were measurable from children's
toys and might serve as potential source of exposure.
Exposure Routes and Pathways: Indoor Factors and Scenarios, Linda Sheldon,
US Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory
Objectives of the NERL Measurement Program are designed to:
? Identify pesticides, pathways, and activities that represent the highest potential exposures;
? Determine factors that influence pesticide exposures, especially to children;
? Determine approaches for measuring multimedia exposures, including those that account for
important activities in homes, schools and daycare settings; and
? Generate data on multimedia pesticide concentrations, biomarkers, and exposure factors for
inputs to aggregate exposure models.
Two approaches are used to estimate exposure:
1. The Direct Approach, which can involve:
? Measuring receptor contact (with chemical concentration) in the exposure media, over time;
? Personal monitoring techniques which are used to directly measure exposure to an individual
during monitored time intervals (personal air, duplicate diet); and
? Biomarkers that are indicators of the absorbed dose that resulted from direct exposure.
2. The Indirect Approach, which can involve:
? Use of available information on concentrations of chemicals in exposure media;
? Information about when, where, and how individuals might contact the exposure media; and
? Algorithms and a series of exposure factors (i.e., pollutant transfer, pollutant uptake).
Priority Research Areas Identified
Total exposure assessments are conducted using a combination of direct and indirect approaches.
Details were presented of the various approaches to systematically identify the data required to
estimate exposures by each route, develop approaches for generating the required data, and to
apply these to field studies to develop distributional data on exposure and the relevant exposure
factors. A variety of algorithms and formulas, as well as data requirements, were described. To
calculate each of the different exposure levels, the resulting priority research areas are:
? Pesticide use patterns;
? Distribution of pesticide residues;
? Dermal and non-dietary exposure assessments including micro and macroactivity
approaches; and
? Dietary exposure assessments
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
On-Going Studies
The major studies and research activities either on-going or required to fully develop the
assessments fall into three subtask areas:
2.
?
?
?
Those that are targeted to develop and evaluate dermal exposure assessment approaches,
including:
Study to test the feasibility of using the macroactivity approach to assess dermal exposure;
Study to identify important parameters for characterizing pesticide residue transfer
efficiencies;
Additional proof of concept studies required to complete development of methods and
protocols for macroactivity assessment approach;
Collection of pesticide transfer efficiency data for microactivity approach; and
Study to investigate the distribution of pesticide residue on skin following contact with a
contaminated surface.
Collaborative field studies, to:
Enhance the EOHSI Children's Post-application Pesticide Pilot Study
Enhance HUD National Survey of Environmental Hazards in Child Care Centers
Characterize Human Exposure in Low SES Communities in the RTF, NC Area.
Collaborate with CDC on Potential Pesticide Exposure of Young Children Living in an
Urban Area in the Southeastern U.S.
In-House field and laboratory studies, including:
Study examining pets as transfer vehicles of pesticide residues following lawn application;
Coding the activity patterns of preschool children;
Pesticide distributions in EPA test house;
Children's Post-Application Diazinon Exposure Feasibility Study;
Characterization of semi-volatile pesticides using 53-L environmental chambers; and
Use of fluorescent tracer technology to investigate dermal exposure.
Session Questions and Responses
Question: How much work does it take to verify a model with human subjects?
Response: Based on the studies, 2 1A years.
Question: Was breast feeding considered in the exposure studies?
Response: OPP has been asked to determine exposure via dietary ingestion and they are also
looking at the route of breast milk for un-modified pyrethides.
Question: Were the cholinesterase levels changed in the methyl parathion incidents?
Response: Even in cases of emergency response, there were still no large decreases in
cholinesterase, yet, they did have classic symptoms of diarrhea and vomiting.
Therefore the question is whether or not the measurements were too conservative.
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
There was lots of anecdotal information (R5), even one suspected death, but
actual data on these were unobtainable.
Question: When setting the screening levels for exposure, was age taken into account?
Response: Risk management safety factors were used to account for the inability of fetuses
and infants to detoxify contaminants.
Question: How was a "significant" decrease in cholinesterase level determined?
Response: A baseline is first needed from which to determine a change. However, no
baseline values were known for the Ohio area. There was a reduction seen in the
occupational levels, for which baselines were already established.
Question: Was there an observed change in cholinesterase levels between acute and chronic
exposure in methyl parathion?
Response: This has not yet been tracked.
Question: Is anyone looking at the specifics of the cases that triggered concern?
Response: Veterinarians in the area mentioned dog and cat deaths from organophosphate
poisoning and these were investigated where possible. Odor complaints were
investigated in Ohio. CDC also conduced Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
study, but found no significant difference.
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Session IB: Exposure Issues: Spray Drift
Case Study 2: Off-Site Movement of Pesticides
Raymond Chavira (R9)
Statement of the Problem
The EPA Regions are concerned about the potential for exposure to people and the environment
resulting from the off-site movement of pesticides and their breakdown products following
pesticide applications. For purposes of this paper, off-site movement is defined as the inherent
physical airborne transport of pesticides and their breakdown products in either paniculate,
liquid, or vapor form beyond the target area where the parent pesticide is applied, including drift.
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs has the responsibility to license the use of pesticides and to
ensure that pesticide use results in no "unreasonable adverse effects" to humans and the
environment. While OPP efforts regarding off-site movement have focused primarily on
controlling spray drift, an additional fraction of the pesticides applied eventually enters the air as
vapor either through the application process or subsequently from evaporation from soil or plant
surfaces (revolatilization). Additionally, particulate matter can be eroded from the soil surfaces
by the wind or agricultural activities and further carry pesticides into the air.
Each year over 2500-plus drift incidents are reported. The Agency believes many incidents go
unreported. Further, the Agency recognizes that off-site movement from spray drift will occur
with nearly all pesticide applications. Hence, direct respiratory and dermal exposure from
off-site movement is likely to be of concern for those individuals living and working near
application sites. The California Air Resources Board has conducted pesticide ambient air
monitoring under its state-mandated Toxic Air Contaminant Program for over 40 pesticides.
The monitoring program consists of 4-6 week of 24-hour air measurements during a month of
high use in a county of high use for each pesticide. Although the data set is not worst case, it
may represent general population exposure in high use areas.
Although information on off-site movement may exist, it is not readily accessible or in a
practical format for use by States, Regions, and Tribes. OPP decision products are primarily
focused on the registration/re-registration of pesticides at the national level (rather than the
quantification of impacts of pesticide use at the local level) to validate registration decisions. In
this process, data are considered pesticide-by-pesticide. Yet Regions are frequently asked to
assess impacts on a site-specific basis. Therefore, EPA Regions need tools to measure and
estimate the extent of exposures and potential for human and ecological harm resulting from the
actual off-site movement of pesticides.
Background
More than two hundred incidents related to off-site movement occur in Region 9 on an annual
basis. The risk to individuals working, playing, and/or living in proximity to pesticide treated
areas needs to be assessed. For instance:
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
? In September 1996, 247 workers in a grape vineyard were exposed to three pesticides which
drifted from a nearby cotton field where an aerial applicator was applying the pesticides.
The plane was applying a mixture containing chlorpyrifos, fenthropathrin, and profenofos to
control mites and aphids. Based on statements from bystanders taken by State and County
enforcement personnel, it appeared a slight breeze carried the pesticides toward the grape
field where the chemicals came down on workers, many of whom tried to escape by running
away. Victims exhibited a range of pesticide poisoning symptoms including vomiting and
irritated noses and eyes. Twenty-two workers including three pregnant women were rushed
to the hospital, treated and released.
? More recently, chlorpyrifos and propargite sprayed on an almond orchard drifted into a
neighboring vineyard located a half-mile away, exposing 24 women farm laborers who were
trimming vines. The farm workers complained of nausea and burning eyes, and residue
analysis indicated exposure to the pesticides applied to the almond trees. It was reported that
the helicopter pilot denied any drift and accused the workers of faking their illnesses.
? In California, pesticide exposure-related health symptoms have been documented without
corresponding monitoring or exposure data. (California is the only Region 9 State with
systematic gathering of health data pertaining to potential pesticide exposures). Ames and
Stratton (1991) have identified health symptoms "consistent with" the toxicological
characteristics of organophosphate sprays at the agricultural urban interface (AUI).
? Two recent vapor drift incidents in California required the evacuation and closure of a school
(Cuyama in Santa Barbara County) and evacuation of part of a town (Earlimart in Tulare
County) as a result of the fiimigant metam sodium. California has developed guidelines and
additional measures for materials such as metam sodium, methyl bromide, and
1,3-dichlorpropene (1,3-D), but compliance with these measures appears problematic given
the number of vapor drift incidents related to these fumigants.
? Both rural and urban residential communities are often interlaced with actively cultivated
fields and farm land where a relatively high volume of chemicals is used for pest
management and soil amendment. Exposure to airborne pesticides and their breakdown
products is a major concern for residents in these communities. In response to community
health concerns real or perceived, the communities of Lompoc (pop. 40,000) and McFarland,
California (pop. 8,000) have garnered EPA, State, and local attention and involvement.
? A residential drift incident occurred recently whereby a homeowner sprayed a malathion
product while children where playing in a pool next door. The corresponding odors were
such that the parents had their children stay inside. One child (an asthmatic) experienced
coughing and wheezing, although the cause of these symptoms could not be directly
attributed to the use of a pesticide product.
Pesticides are undesirable in the general environment for many reasons: smell, appearance, and
danger to wildlife and non-target plants. The public commonly wants to know, "Are we safe?"
Lompoc residents continue to exhibit frustration at the inability of agencies to answer what
10
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
appears to be a fundamental question, i.e. "What are the impacts of the use of pesticides in the
Lompoc Valley on the health of the community?" The inability of authorities to give simple,
definitive answers to these questions continues to erode the credibility of participating
government agencies. Under the current pesticide regulatory/enforcement paradigm, the burden
is on the community to convince regulators that their symptoms are associated with a particular
pesticide, yet, tools necessary for the public and regulators to assess exposure either do not exist
or are far from practical use (i.e. implementation of exposure assessment tools on a widely
accepted scale).
Important Science Issues
1. Fate and Transport. Despite a growing knowledge base for the reactivity and transport of
pesticides, the degree to which each of these fate and transport processes occurs is largely
unknown. Moreover, a complete mass balance of the fate of field-applied pesticides does not
exist in the open literature. Once in the air, pesticides may remain in the gaseous state, partition
onto particulate matter, be scavenged by water droplets, undergo degradation reaction, or be
resuspended onto soil, plant, and other surfaces. While it appears that primary spray drift may
not be chemical dependent, vapor drift is related directly to the chemical properties of the
pesticide and its carriers. Fumigants such as methyl bromide, metam sodium, and 1,3-D have
been detected in ambient air following applications. In addition, ester formulations of phenoxy
ester herbicides as well as defoliants may volatize and drift under high temperature conditions.
Estimates in the scientific literature of the amounts of pesticides which migrate "off-site" from
the point of application range from a few percent up to 90 percent depending on the method of
application (aerial vs. ground equipment, application height, and droplet size) and local
environmental conditions, e.g., wind speed. The preponderance of data in OPP environmental
fate databases indicate that typical losses due to primary spray drift only fall within 1-10
percent. However, certain application approaches and unfavorable local conditions may result
in considerably greater losses through spray drift and volatilization. With regard to the efficacy
of pesticide spray applications, losses to soil and peripheral non-target foliage may be as high as
60 to 80 percent under non-ideal conditions (Cheng, 1990). The US Office of Technology
Assessment (1990) has estimated that up to 40 percent of all pesticides applied can move off-site
through spray drift, misapplication, volatilization, leaching, and surface transport.
Finally, the odors associated with pesticide use provide physical evidence of chemical movement
and exposure at an undetermined level often below what, if available, current sampling and
analytical methodologies can measure. However, the lexicological significance of these levels is
subject to much debate among various stakeholders.
2. Air Monitoring and Modeling Studies In or Near Agricultural Areas. Most pesticide air
monitoring studies have been focused on either long-range transport of persistent organochlorine
(OC) compounds or immediate off-target spray drift. Studies located in or near agricultural
areas are generally short-term, seldom lasting more than a year primarily due to costs.
More important to the Regions, land-use patterns which have allowed urbanization adjacent to
agricultural lands have increased concerns about off-site pesticide movement from agricultural
11
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
pest control operations. Agricultural chemicals constitute a unique class of air pollutants which
are intentionally released into the environment and for which there is minimal or no
environmental monitoring data routinely gathered under existing regulatory programs.
Therefore, it is difficult to convince an already wary public that pesticides are safe when we do
not have an ongoing National Monitoring Plan (FIFRA §20) to identify the ultimate fate and
impacts of these chemicals at specific locations and under local physical and meteorological
conditions.
3. Methods and Tools to Assess Exposures Resulting from Off-Site Movement An
understanding of the extent and magnitude of exposures to non-target organisms resulting from
nearby pesticide applications is key to the formulation of effective responses to these incidents
by government officials. The Regions and States have very limited access to reliable tools
which integrate fate, transport, and monitoring/modeling data (science issues 1 and 2 above) to
estimate pesticide exposures soon after an incident is reported. Likewise, cheap, readily
available biomarker test methods which can be used to assess the extent and magnitude of
exposures to humans and ecological organisms resulting from the off-site movement of
pesticides are essential.
Challenges to Addressing the Science Issues
With regard to off-target movement, EPA has made significant strides in recent years in risk
assessment pertaining to spray drift, and will soon offer new drift labeling guidance. The
development and submission of a large data set by the industry's Spray Drift Task Force, the
successive collaborative development of the AgDRTFT model, and its imminent integration into
risk assessment specific to drift, represents a significant refinement of OPP's ability to
accurately estimate impacts from spray drift. However, EPA has not developed a systematic
approach to characterizing other forms of off-target movement that result in airborne pesticide
residues.
While new label language is forthcoming, the effectiveness of label restrictions is limited by the
paucity of tools available to applicators and enforcement authorities to assess compliance with
application and field conditions as required by the label. Enforcement personnel require drift
tools to assess compliance. For instance, soil, wipe, dust, and air residue samples are not
routinely taken to assess off-site movement because of the lack of methods and laboratories
available to conduct such tests. In addition, tests for biomarkers of exposure are nonexistent or
too costly, and available exposure models do not consider all critical local variables, e.g.,
pesticide application methods, quantities applied, multiple chemicals and multiple exposure
routes, local climate, etc.
Major Science Needs
1. Standardized sampling and analytical methodologies to measure pesticide exposures.
2. Demonstration of these methods in the field supported by a QA Performance Evaluation
Program.
3. Collection of ambient and near-field (i.e. fence-line ) air levels over a relevant exposure
period.
12
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
4. Assessment of the impact of multiple pesticides (parent and breakdown products, diluents
and carriers) used simultaneously. Ambient air samples have been collected in California
and elsewhere, these data need to integrated into a cumulative exposure model.
5. Data analyses designed to associate air levels with pesticide use data (temporal/spatial), crop
patterns, application method, and quantity applied (qualitative and/or quantitative).
Uncertainty analysis should be conducted, if possible.
6. Develop model from empirical data to estimate a chemical's subcooled liquid true vapor
pressure and solubility under varying field conditions. Incorporate these values into models,
as needed.
7. Atmospheric reactivity data to estimate the half-life or atmospheric lifetime of parent to
primary transformation or breakdown product.
8. Develop model for estimating the extent of dry and wet deposition into ecologically-sensitive
areas.
9. Develop tools to assess the association between pesticide use and near-field ambient levels.
These tools should be practical enough for use by applicators and enforcement authorities.
10. Develop a predictive exposure model incorporating indoor/outdoor drift influences including
an estimation of the extent of outdoor-to-indoor penetration.
11. Field validation of models which predict off-site movement. These studies should be
conducted post-registration and by independent entities.
12. Better assessment methodologies/tools to estimate non-target exposure to pesticides (and
breakdown products) on non-occupational residents and ecological receptors.
13. Validate exposure and fate and transport chemical mass balance models to address multiple
routes and multimedia exposure issues.
14. Develop biomarkers to assess exposure (gold standard). Critical for exposure analysis and
comparisons between other exposure and baseline data.
15. Develop air-based screening levels derived from toxicological data to assess near-field acute,
sub-chronic, and chronic exposure scenarios.
16. Methodology for calculating inhalation cumulative risks for toxics i.e. (HAPS) while
including the contribution from pesticide products both in indoor and outdoor environments.
17. Methodologies to determine the effectiveness of mitigation efforts designed to reduce
off-target chemical movement.
The Regions would use the data resulting from research in these areas to (1) better understand
pesticide exposures and risks associated with off-site movement of pesticides, (2) assess the
cumulative effects of the multiple airborne pollutants in both rural and urban communities; (i.e.,
mixture of agricultural and non-agricultural air pollutants), and (3) develop potential
performance measures to meet GPRA, i.e., to reduce exposures to pesticides by xx percent from
2000-01 levels by 2004-5. (What are the current levels? Are they increasing, decreasing or
staying the same?)
Conclusions and Next Steps
As public concern about pesticide issues increases, the Agency must continue to improve its risk
assessment methodologies and risk mitigation strategies to better estimate and reduce risks to
humans and the environment from exposures to the off-site movement of pesticides. The EPA
Regions urge OPP and ORD to continue to develop more refined risk assessment tools for use in
13
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
decision-making for pesticide registration and to respond to public concerns. EPA must strive to
develop more accurate estimates and measurements of pesticide exposures to non-target
organisms, especially humans, under different application and local environmental conditions
and to use these data in making registration and re-registration decisions.
Models for Estimating Exposure, Haluk Ozkaynak, US Environmental Protection
Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory
A description was presented of many of the modeling tools used to estimate exposures, and of
the steps needed for a modeling analysis. These were further detailed and illustrated by the
successive speakers. Several types of modeling tools exist that depend on the need and
application, and type of data available.
Example models include:
? Conceptual models;
Screening or regulatory models - these go beyond conceptual models and use fixed values;
Physical or mechanistic models - these include process/emission; fate and transport;
multimedia, multi-pathway concentration; microenvironmental exposure; and
PBPK/dosimetric models;
? Statistical Models - these are population exposure models and can be empirical, semi-
empirical, or stochastic models.
Specific elements or data used in models can include:
? Sources of contaminants or stressor formulation: - i.e. chemical, microbial;
? Transport/transformation routes - dispersion, kinetics, thermodynamics, spatial variability,
distribution, meteorology;
Environmental - air, water, dust, soil, and groundwater;
Exposure - pathway, duration, frequency, magnitude;
Individual/community/population - statistical profile, reference population, susceptible
individuals, susceptible subpopulations, population distribution;
? Dose - target, absorbed and applied; and
? Effect - acute, chronic.
Example Model
In a microenvironmental exposure model, personal exposures (E) are the weighted sum of
pollutant concentrations (Q) in the key microenvironments ME;, with the fraction of time spent
in the ME, and are expressed as: E=? CfL
Typical microenvironments include indoor (homes, offices, schools, etc.), outdoor (residential
lawn/yard, recreation area), and in-vehicle (car, bus, public transport) areas.
Developing the analysis of a microenvironment requires:
? Identification of microenvironments and population groups of concern;
14
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
? Estimating microenvironmental factors (sources/emissions, penetration, infiltration, track-in,
resuspension, volatilization, decay, migration and human exposure, contact and transfer
rates);
? Predicting ME concentrations for different time average; and
? Predicting exposure distributions of different population cohorts and sensitive groups.
The steps needed for performing a modeling analysis include:
? Selecting the appropriate mechanistic and stochastic models required to predict the source-
concentration-exposure-dose relationship;
? Investigating the potential exposures to multiple pesticides (what, where, when, why and by
whom);
? Selecting or developing and applying aggregate and/or cumulative exposure and dose
models;
? Implementing techniques to evaluate conditions that result in high-end exposures to
pesticides of concern (subjects, locations, sources);
? Obtaining data on physiological factors/metabolic rates for PBPK models or health effects
assessments;
? Incorporating sensitivity, variability and uncertainty analysis in modeling;
? Conducting formal evaluation of modeling methods and results using field measurement
data; and
? Developing/implementing new methods of measurements, and model refinement data.
Overview and Application of the AgDRIFT Model for Agricultural Spraying,
Sandy Bird/Steven Perry, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research
Laboratory
The AgDRIFT Model is a computer-driven program that was developed to analyze primary drift
with a near-field focus. It was developed as an ecological assessment tool and is applicable to
human exposure issues.
Background
Aerial application of pesticides using aircrafts results in a variety of dispersal patterns depending
on air-current disturbances created by the aircraft and the environment. The aircraft generates
vortices and downwash, whereas the environment can contribute crosswind and evaporation.
The AgDRIFT Model is equipped with libraries of variables such as aircraft type, drop size
distribution, and metrological components, and allows input of dozens of data through user-
friendly, pull-down menus.
The capability of AgDRIFT was demonstrated using the 1996 example from the session Case
Study, where primary drift exposed nearby workers. An aerial (fixed-wing) application on 80
acres of cotton, of three different chemicals, was made by through six passes over the field,
during a light wind. The data were entered into AgDRIFT, including pesticide label instructions,
15
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
crop information, and a variety of other parameters, and a deposition curve was determined.
This curve defined the concentration of the pesticide relative to the distance from the field. A
second curve demonstrates that a simple variation in the boom height of the aircraft applicator
from 6 meters to 3 meters reduced the air concentration at 2 meters above the ground by
approximately 32%. This illustrates the potential impact of a single variable and stresses the
importance of accurate data, and it demonstrates the utility of the AgDRIFT program for
addressing actual field situations and for developing appropriate mitigation approaches.
Research Directions
There is currently no ongoing, funded research program for AgDRIFT, but suggested further
research directions that may enhance the program include:
? Determining mechanistic ground/orchard sprayer parameters;
? Determining medium range drift capabilities;
? Establishing seamless linkage to ecological exposure;
? Developing human exposure tools and/or integration into human health modeling
frameworks; and
? Linking primary and secondary drift modeling.
The AgDRIFT program was developed through a CRADA involving the USEPA/ORD, US DA,
and the pesticide industry's Spray Drift Task Force. The model is available from Mr. David
Esterly (env.focus@,mindspring.com) or Dr. Milt Teske (milt@continuum-dynamics.com).
Multimedia, Multipathway Aggregate Exposure Modeling, Haluk Ozkaynak, US
Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory
Background
Aggregate exposure modeling is used to predict the distribution of pesticide exposures of urban
or rural populations. The Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose Simulation (SHEDS) model is a
multimedia, multipathway model that uses a probabilistic approach to assess exposures. SHEDS
is a user friendly windows-driven, computer program which allows the user to input a multitude
of pesticide application and environmental data to obtain exposure rates that are influenced by
various routes of transmission. Necessary for the use of this model are inputs such as the
environmental concentration of pesticides, census data, activity patterns, food consumption,
exposure factors, and application rates.
SHEDS is currently under development and refinement by EPA/NERL, where program goals are
to:
? Develop probabilistic source-to-dose human exposure models;
? Model exposures of general and susceptible sub-populations; and
? Develop models that support aggregate and cumulative exposure analysis, inputs to exposure
measurements, variability and uncertainty analysis, prospective and retrospective exposure
assessment, and risk analysis and risk management.
16
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
The benefits of developing these multimedia, multipathway modeling programs are to:
? Provide new human exposure and dose estimating models for assessing population health
risks;
? Generate an integrated source-to-dose modeling framework for addressing complex exposure
assessment problems;
? Provide more realistic exposure assessment methods than some of the currently used
screening level regulatory models; and
? Respond to SAB concerns about severe limitations across EPA in the scientific foundation
for multimedia, multipathway models.
Future Research and SHEDS Development
More research is needed to refine the SHEDS program, and testing of the model with larger data
sets is necessary. Specifically, further needs include:
? Completing the aggregate and cumulative SHEDS;
? Integrating SHEDS with NERL's Exposure Related Dose Estimating Model (ERDEM) and
NHEERL models;
? Refining or reformulating of ERDEM to include key metabolic and physiologic parameters
for children. Also, model OP pesticides, incorporate a front end to simulate and test impacts
of exposures, and include modules for sensitivity, variance and uncertainty analysis;
? Developing a source-to-dose modeling framework with SHEDS and other models and
platforms;
? Refining and evaluating SHEDS as new measurements become available;
? Simultaneous collection of activity data, residue data, dosimeter data, and biomonitoring
data;
? Comparing macro and microactivity approaches;
? Comparing against new measurement studies;
? Comparing against other models; and
? Evaluating each component of the model.
Additional information and research is needed to reduce the uncertainties of inputs and of the
model as a whole including:
? Pesticide usage information;
Human activity patterns;
Pesticide concentrations and residues;
Refined Exposure Algorithms;
Exposure factors; and
PBPK Modeling.
A first generation version of the SHEDS model (version 3.1) for internal use only at this time.,
can be obtained from Dr. Haluk Ozkaynak, at EPA/ORD/NERL (MD-56) 79 T. W. Alexander
Drive, RTF, NC 27711.
17
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Spray Drift and Risk Management Tools, John Kinsey, US Environmental Protection
Agency, National Risk Management Research Lab
Pesticides are classified by a variety of properties including: physical state, formulation, target
organism, chemical composition, toxicology, timing, uptake area, mode of action and range of
use. Physiochemical properties and application methods contribute to the amount and deposition
of chemical drift. A variety of methods are used to prevent, control, reduce and mitigate drift,
including modification of equipment and agricultural management practices. A literature review
was conducted of drift risk management studies and the relative efficiencies of various
techniques and the results indicate:
? Adequate models are available to estimate primary drift and the volatilization of surface and
soil-incorporated pesticides and soil fumigants. Other emission rate and factors are highly
uncertain.
? Atmospheric transformation processes and products are poorly understood. These
transformation products can be more toxic than the parent compound.
? The sinks of airborne pesticides are inadequately characterized; of particular importance are
deposition and re-emission processes.
? No standardized methodology is available to assess either atmospheric emissions or control
effectiveness.
Future Research Needs
A review of literature and results revealed the need for further research to:
? Improve characterization of secondary drift, volatilization losses, and atmospheric
transformation using remote sensing (e.g., FTIR, LIDAR, etc.) and other automated
analyzers (e.g., portable GC/MS, GC/JJVIS, etc.);
? Characterize the fine particle resuspension and long-range transport associated with pesticide
application;
? Further improve sampling and analysis methods for current use pesticides; and
? Develop an improved spray nozzle design incorporating a rotary atomizer and "satellite"
droplet extractor/impactor.
Session Questions and Responses
Question: Several definitions of primary and secondary drift were used, should there be a
single definition?
Response: Yes, there needs to be a consensus definition.
Question: Field drift complaints occur where existing control techniques could have been
used. Would there be a benefit to explaining cost/benefit ratios to farmers who are
losing considerable amounts of their pesticide applications, and thus money, to
drift?
Response 1: This would be difficult since theoretical standards are not defined for various
18
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
control techniques. Currently, there are consistent numbers established for methods
of aerial spraying.
Response 2: The AgLite program does give some theoretical calculations for control techniques.
Question: How will the Air Act impact agriculture?
Response: It is not known whether the agencies or States will make regulation more stringent.
19
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Session 1C: Exposure Issues: Vector Control
Case Study 3:New York City Spraying of Malathion to Control
Mosquitoes Carrying West Nile Virus
Henry Rupp, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
Statement of the Problem
In the summer of 1999, there was an outbreak of disease in New York City and surrounding
areas caused by mosquito-borne transmission of West Nile virus. City officials decided to try to
control the outbreak with ground-based and aerial spraying of malathion. Questions remain
regarding the decisions to spray, the choice of the pesticide, when and how to spray, and how to
communicate the rationale for these decisions to the public when the science supporting them
was and still is incomplete.
Background
The summer of 1999 was a dry one. Not many people were thinking about mosquitoes or about
mosquito-borne disease. After all, New York City (NYC) had not, in the memory of man, had an
outbreak of mosquito-borne disease, the nearest major epidemic having occurred in the Camden
(NJ) area in 1964. Mosquitoes were for New Yorkers something they had to put up with at the
New Jersey shore or out on Long Island. Lacking exposure to mosquitoes and disease, they were
unprepared for the events that took place in the late summer of 1999. In fact, no one was
prepared, nor could they have been.
When what was first diagnosed as St. Louis encephalitis (SLE) was discovered, thanks to an
alert physician who noted a cluster of similarly diseased patients in Queens, NYC's response to
the apparent SLE outbreak was prompt. The situation gained an extra dimension when what was
initially thought to be SLE became a West Nile-like virus and was finally determined to be in
fact West Nile virus (WNV), a disease never before seen in this country. The city was forced,
given the number of cases that appeared and the dispersion of these cases, as well as the deaths
that resulted, to go to a commercial vendor of mosquito control services. They also called on the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an agency with wide experience of
mosquito-borne disease epidemics. The response recommended that the city needed to spray
adulticides for the control of disease-bearing mosquitoes. The insecticide of choice for aerial
applications was malathion, an insecticide that had been in use in mosquito control for some fifty
years in the United States and had been widely used for the control of mosquito-borne disease in
the past.
Malathion, applied at 3 ounces per acre, has been an effective mosquito control agent and has
been used for mosquito control with minimal reports of human health problems. As an
organophosphate, however, malathion is a controversial insecticide and is the target of anti-
pesticide activities. Because of the continuing nature of the WNV outbreak, there were repeated
sprayings with a subsequent chorus of protests from the anti-pesticide people. [One might note
parenthetically that the issue was rendered moot in 2000 when NYC switched to Anvil® 10+10
20
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
(10% sumithrin + 10% piperonyl butoxide + co-solvent)]. However, even this change did not
satisfy those opposed to the application of insecticides, so that some of the questions raised by
the operations of 1999 still remained unanswered.
Important Science Issues
1. Relative risk to humans of spraying vs. not spraying. The anti-mosquito spraying operations
of 1999 (and those of 2000) raise interesting questions, not all of them scientific. Those who
oppose the application of insecticides for control of the vectors of WNV like to point out that
X number (ranging from 1,500 to 15,000) people died from influenza in a given year and
nobody sprays for them, so why are they spraying when only seven people die of WNV.
Similarly it has been pointed out, purportedly to put WNV deaths in perspective, that on the
first day of the year 2000 six people were murdered in NYC, only one less than the number
of those who died from WNV. This is an ethical issue as well as a political one, a question
scientists should be happy they do not have to answer.
There are risk/benefit questions that do have a scientific component, i.e., what are the
relative risks of adverse human health effects associated with exposures to the sprayed
insecticides vs. those of contracting the disease transmitted by vectors, e.g., mosquitoes, for
which the insecticides are being used to control? How do we factor in concerns about global
warming and the potentiated opportunity for other previously considered tropical diseases to
develop in the United States.
2. Application techniques. Another question that arises is the efficacy of application of
insecticides by ground ULV application. How effective can an insecticide cloud be when it is
hemmed in by row houses that present an impenetrable barrier? The technology has not yet
been developed that can allow an insecticide cloud to travel along the ground, rise vertically
for, say, thirty feet, travel horizontally for the depth of the house and then descend into a
back yard that might, or might not, harbor mosquitoes. The use of aerial ULV applications of
insecticide seems to create more furor than ground ULV applications, and in 2000, aerial
applications have been limited to marginal areas where ground application equipment cannot
provide appropriate mosquito control. Studies done in the past for control of Aedes aegypti
(the yellow fever mosquito and a carrier of dengue and dengue hermorrhagic fever) have
indicated that ground ULV is not the most effective technique for the control of peridomestic
mosquitoes. We need, therefore, studies to determine which is the more effective technique
and what risks are associated with each technique so that informed judgments may be made.
If one is a person concerned about the economic efficacy of an operation, one might question
the value of spraying in areas like that noted in the previous paragraph. These concerns
involve perception (the appearance of doing something) and reality (the value of doing
something that may be in fact meaningless). These are areas that lie outside the scope of
ORD's concerns, but they are areas that may well color our judgment of what it is we believe
should be done in similar situations.
21
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
3. Potential environmental and associated economic impacts. There are, however, questions
that are appropriate to the disciplines of R&D. Case Study #2 considered drift as it relates to
agriculture and home gardening. In this arena, drift is economically undesirable, in addition
to presenting greater risks of injury due to the fact that agricultural pesticides are generally
more toxic than insecticides used for mosquito control. In the agricultural environment the
pest is defined by its target environment: a field, an orchard, a home garden. In mosquito
control there are no precisely defined limits of where one may find mosquitoes since the crop
is man and man is not lined up like a row of cabbages in a field. Because man is the rationale
for the spraying, the presence of man can conflict with areas where insecticides should not be
used because of their adverse impact on other environmental elements, e.g., aquatic habitat,
food crops, schools, hospitals. Drift (off-target movement) in the mosquito control arena has
generated concerns from people for whom Long Island Sound is an economic resource.
There have been claims that the 1999 spraying adversely affected the harvests of lobster and
crab fisherman. These claims, regarding the impacts of drifted insecticides on crustaceans,
need to be addressed with long-term studies. The risk/benefit question asked above (#1)
should be expanded to include these environmental and economic considerations, also
associated with the use of pesticides to control mosquitoes.
4. Risk to sensitive populations. Another area of concern in both 1999 and 2000 was the
question of risk to sensitive populations. One might ask what number of sprays - either aerial
or ground - constitutes excessive exposure. EPA, in its preliminary risk assessment on
malathion, has indicated that malathion applied at 3 ounces per acre cannot be construed as a
carcinogen. However, what about persons who are denominated as "chemically sensitive"?
Are there methods or models that can predict the results of their exposure to repeated
applications of not only malathion but also the synthetic pyrethroids?
5. Indirect human exposures. In addition to direct routes of exposure, people may be exposed
indirectly through consumption of contaminated food. In 2000 the subject of food residues
arose because of ground ULV applications in areas where bodegas sold fruits and other
produce displayed outside the store. There was a concern about synthetic pyrethroid residues
in light of repeated sprayings and the impact on those purchasing exposed fruit. One would
have to do market studies to determine the extent to which residues on street-displayed fruits
and vegetables were a significant exposure route to sprayed pesticides.
6. Exposures and risks to metabolites and breakdown products. Malaoxon and isomalathion
are degradation products of malathion. Malaoxon appears to be more toxic than the parent
compound while impurities like isomalathion are found to be less toxic than both the parent
or malaoxon or are present at levels which do not pose a residue concern when technical
formulations are stored appropriately. OPP risk assessments have taken into account
conversions to these by-products.
Malaoxon forms in the environment at ambient temperatures, while isomalathion typically
forms within malathion containers when stored under elevated temperatures. Data indicate
that storage in the dark at both 68 and 100 degrees F for two weeks results in no increase in
isomalathion, whereas storage at 130 degrees F for this time period results in increases of
22
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
isomalathion from 0.05 to about 0.20 %. However, the Regions have confronted situations in
which storage conditions are more severe or occur over longer time periods than those tested.
Therefore questions remain. How does one test for isomalathion? At what levels of
isomalalhion should containers not be used? Should these containers be considered
hazardous waste and disposed of accordingly?
Challenges to Addressing Science Issues
Decisions must be made to spray, not to spray, when and where to spray, etc., in the absence of a
clear scientific understanding of all the issues. Under these circumstances, the decision-making
atmosphere is always charged with different social, political, and economic concerns and special
interests. We need to continue to work with ORD and OPP to identify and reduce the critical
data gaps so that the EPA Regions can make more fully informed decisions and effectively
communicate them to the public.
Major Science Needs
1. Are there scientifically sound methods for conducting relative risk assessments?
2. How can exposures to people and environmental organisms be limited?
3. What are the best ways to measure and/or model concentrations in breathable air, nearby
waters, on soil and food products within the range of pesticide fall-out?
4. What methods exist to measure or model actual exposures to humans and environmental
organisms following spray applications?
5. What is the best way to communicate the scientific rationale for decisions made regarding
whether to spray, what, when, and how to spray?
Conclusions and Next Steps
Those who live in the trenches of the pesticide wars need good scientific support on which to
base decisions about whether to spray, and if so, when to spray, what to spray, and how to spray.
We also need help in translating the science behind our decisions to the public, a public with
differing levels of understanding of the issues and one with multiple social and economic
agendas.
Panel Discussion on Comparative Exposures and Risks
Mosquito-Proof New York City, James Miller, New York City/Department of Health
Statement of Problem
In the summer of 1999, 62 human cases of West Nile virus (WNV) were detected in New York
City, and were clustered in time and geography. Confirmation of WNV did not occur until late
in the season (September 3rd) and thus the Health Department response became an emergency
operation. A dry, warm summer, and minimal flushing of street drains and other mosquito
breeding grounds, made for ideal conditions for a large mosquito outbreak. Since broad-
spectrum control of mosquitoes had not occurred for years, a full-scale control program was
necessary. The only recent mosquito-related outbreaks were three cases of locally transmitted
23
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
malaria in 1993. Faced with these disease-bearing mosquitoes, the only immediate recourse was
adulticiding the effected areas. A secondary intensive education campaign was undertaken to
enlist the public's help in reducing mosquito breeding grounds. Personal insect repellents were
also distributed. Twenty-five percent of the treated sites were pre-and post tested to determine
the effect on the mosquito population. The following year, an increase in the number of WNV
cases showed a shift in the location of effected areas. Those areas most effected in 1999 were
lower in 2000. Pesticide application programs proceeded as follows:
1999: Adult control by aerial and limited truck application of malathion.
2000: A more comprehensive program was initiated which included source reduction, larval
control, adult control by truck spraying and aerial application of Anvil.
2001: Expected expanded source reduction, larval control and unknown spraying.
Future Considerations
The immediacy of the situation left several important issues unresolved, and created others that
will require further research and planning, specifically:
? The Department of Health acknowledged that harm may be caused by the pesticide
application, and an education program was instituted, by mail and fax, to broadcast alerts to
all NYC physicians and hospitals the on potential symptoms of exposure; and establishing
24-hour hotline, website, and fact sheets with pesticide information. Over 200 reports of
possible reactions were reported.
? Two retrospective studies of asthma cases and emergency clinic visits during the critical
period have been initiated to determine possible connections to the spraying.
? The New York Department of Health was faced with shifting its role from being an agency
responsible for regulating others, to one that was the regulated as they took on the
responsibility for application of the pesticide. Coordination between various agencies
relieved the burden of a single agency, and future programs will involve a coordinated effort.
? Environmental issues such as the persistence of malathion in the environment and impact on
non-target species needs to be further investigated.
? Further research is needed on exposure issues such as the impact of multiple sprays, drift and
sensitive populations.
? A better understanding is needed of the risk of WNV versus the benefit of spraying.
West Nile Virus:
Prevention
Evaluating Risk, Roger Nasci, Centers for Disease Control and
In late September 1999, CDC confirmed cases of West Nile virus (WNV) in New York City
(NYC). The Center for Disease Control's role in the WNV epidemic was one of vector
identification, surveillance and evaluation of control. Three populations were targeted for
surveillance:
Mosquitoes: CDC conducted surveillance from September 2nd through October 29th, testing
over 32,000 mosquitoes from over 1800 locations. Fifteen (15) WNV isolates were found, 14 in
New York and 1 in New Jersey.
24
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Birds: Positive antibody responses were found in both domestic and wild bird species. In north
Queens, 30-50% of those tested were seropositive.
Humans: A door-to-door sero-survey of humans resulted in an estimated 2.6% seroprevalence.
Twenty percent (20%) of those infected reported previous symptoms from mild to moderate. A
subclinical to clinical infection rate of 4:1 was estimated.
Results of the survey supported the decision to use adulticides, and a public education campaign
was launched to reduce exposure to mosquito bites and to reduce mosquito-breeding sites.
Malathion Application for Control of West Nile Virus Vectors: Pesticide Risk
and Exposure, Kevin Sweeney, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide
Programs
EPA's role in the West Nile virus epidemic is two-fold: First, the Agency serves as a consultant
role to the EPA Regions and States on issues regarding labeling and pesticide risk to humans and
the environment. Second, EPA prepares informational materials on mosquito control and
pesticides for distribution to regulators and the general public via hard paper copy and the
Internet.
In this case study, the insecticide malathion is used to demonstrate how risk is assessed by EPA
for non-occupational, residential, bystander exposure to mosquito control adultidicing. The
hazard of malathion to humans is determined from the existing toxicology database. For human
risk assessment, toxicity endpoints are selected that represent the highest dose of the chemical
administered to test animals resulting in a "No Observable Adverse Effect Level" (NOAEL), that
is, frank toxicity is not observed in the test animal at the dose tested. For malathion, the Agency
selected the two NOAELs based on the likely route of exposure. For the dermal route of
exposure (skin contact from residues deposited on the turf etc. in residential settings), a 21-day
rat dermal study was selected; for the inhalation route (from exposure to ULV malathion fog at
the time of application), a 90-day rat inhalation study was used. Margins of Exposure (MOEs)
are calculated.
In preparing the risk assessment, two target populations were chosen: 70 kg adults and 15 kg
toddlers age 1-6 years. The exposure routes assessed included oral (hand-to-mouth in toddlers
only), dermal, inhalation, and an aggregation of the possible exposures. For each exposure
scenario and the aggregate of all exposures, the risk to residential bystanders to mosquito
adulticide application was low and did not exceed the Agency's level of concern.
Malathion has known toxicity to fish and invertebrates, however, risks can be mitigated through
restrictive labeling. Results indicate that avoiding aquatic habitats, avoiding spraying during
peak activity of bees, and reducing drift are effective in reducing risks to non-targets.
25
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
For malathion applications, benefit estimates are difficult to quantify. Spraying kills the adult
mosquitoes and reduces the infected population, but the probability of disease transmission is not
yet quantified, and thus it is difficult to quantify a benefit that can be weighed against the
pesticide risk. However, CDC is working hard to qualify and quantify the risk of WNV
transmission in humans.
Exposure Implications: Methods, Measurements, and Models, Daniel Vallero, US
Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory
A discussion was presented on the role of the various ORD labs (NERL, NHEERL, NCEA,
NRMRL) and their contributions to the elements of risk assessment: source, fate, exposure,
dose, response, risk and risk management. Minimal overlap exists, though collectively the labs
provide a comprehensive approach to addressing needs and resolving ambiguities in each of the
areas. A combination of human exposure measurements and exposure models provides for an
iterative approach for human exposure research. The approach for developing and evaluating
appropriate measurements and models involves:
Assembling available data & models;
Developing a conceptual understanding of how exposures occur and developing algorithms
describing the exposure;
Assembling the algorithms into a model;
Testing the model against research and regulatory needs to identify gaps and uncertainties;
Developing human exposure (HE) measurement programs to fill gaps and needs, and to test
models;
? Conducting the HE measurement studies;
? Analyzing measurement data and refining algorithms; and
? Updating and testing the model for regulatory and research needs.
A review of current programs concluded there is:
? Potential for collaborations between Regions and Labs;
? Need for improved and better use of methods;
? No such thing as a "one size fits all" experimental design; and
? No such thing as a "one size fits all" exposure model.
Session Questions and Responses
Question: Why did NYC switch from malathion to Anvil?
Response: CDC had the same question. The partial answer given was that the applicators that
were contracted did not express an interest in spraying malathion.
Question: Are West Nile virus and SLV mutually exclusive?
Response: Chances are very low that a mosquito is infected with both viruses.
26
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Question:
Response:
What constitutes a case of WNV?
Laboratory confirmation is needed to corroborate clinical
nerologic symptoms of meningitis.
symptomology and
Question: What were the actual numbers that gave a 2.6% seroprevilance?
Response: A denominator of approximately 50,000, with 62 confirmed cases, 20% of which
tested positive and reported possible symptoms.
Question: What species of birds are affected by WNV?
Response: Crows and bluejays are in the same Family and have an approximate 98% mortality
rate, though 70 other species have been found with the virus. A total of 14 of the
17 Orders of birds have been killed by WNV. Studies have shown that the first
evidence of the virus was not in crows. Crows have been the primary target of
surveillance because of their roosting behavior and large size, and the ease of
finding those killed. However, solitary birds such a warblers have been shown to
be affected. There is also some evidence of bird-to-bird transmission. Other
mammals known to be affected include rabbit, chipmunk, bats and squirrels.
Question: Why did the hot spots of virus detection change?
Response: Not sure. There could be less of a reservoir (crows), as the Audubon Christmas
bird count was lower in 1999, and this would be consistent with typical patterns that
are seen with the tendency of disease to fluctuate with its host. Host populations
either decreased or seroconverted. It is unlikely that it was due to pesticide
persistence.
Question: In the hot spots with the highest numbers, was there any trend in demographics, i.e.,
age, socioeconomic status?
Response: These were reviewed and no significant difference was noted.
27
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Session II:
Highly Exposed and Sensitive Populations
Pesticides and Worker Health, AnaMaria Osorio (OPP)
The topics discussed relative to pesticides and worker health included: surveillance of pesticide
intoxication cases, health care provider initiative, national health surveys, pesticide exposure
pilot projects, and outbreak investigation reports. Through public health surveillance (the
ongoing systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of data), prevention and control
measures can be implemented. Examples of Occupational Health Surveillance and Population-
based Occupational Health Surveillance were illustrated. In States such as California, where
there are mandatory reporting requirements, the data available for reports are more complete.
CDC's Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR) for pesticide-
related intoxications was described. The Rutgers University and Tribal Medicine pilots were
two special projects highlighted in the presentation.
Case Study
In an outbreak investigation reported on a pesticide drift episode among greater than 1000 grape
field workers in California, where there was aerial application of Curacron, Danitol, and Lorsban
pesticides over an adjacent cotton field. Preliminary health data indicated 244 workers were
exposed to pesticide drift. Issues of concern resulting from this episode include:
? The need for coordination between agencies and organizations;
? Clinician need for knowledge regarding pesticide illness evaluation and case reporting;
? Problems with the evaluation of a mobile, non-English speaking, contract and/or non-
unionized workforce;
Evaluation of adequacy of aerial pest control efforts (chemicals & delivery); and
Importance of emergency preparedness and hazard awareness at the worksite.
Exposures to Children, Chris Saint, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Center
for Environmental Research
The STAR Program provides grants for ecological and human health through formal peer review
and solicitation. Information on these studies can be found at www.epa.gov/ncerqa. Research
related to child health falls into two areas: 1) Centers of children's environmental health &
disease prevention research, and 2) studies of children's aggregate exposure to pesticides. A
number of example projects were discussed.
Health Center Studies
Several other programs are coordinated through five different child health centers that focus on
asthma. Each has an intervention project that targets reducing exposure, and all have close ties
with the community and local health departments. Three programs and several studies were
highlighted:
28
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
? University of Washington (UW)- This program is based in the farm community of the
Yakima Valley and evaluates child exposure based on the take-home pathways of parents
who are agricultural workers.
? University of California, Berkeley - In cooperation with UW, a similar program is looking
at farm communities in the Salinas Valley.
? New York - This is an epidemiology study investigating the effects of pesticides on children
living in inter-city homes in East Harlem.
SHELD Study
This is a four-year study which is looking at dust, air and drinking water, for a range of VOCs,
ETS and ten different pesticides. The study involves 800 school aged children attending two
public schools in Minneapolis.
US/Mexico Study
These studies are measuring the exposures of two populations of rural children in Arizona and
Texas to OP pesticides and metals. Both studies include monitoring of children's exposure-
related behavior.
Pet Transmission
A study at the Mississippi State School of Veterinary Medicine involves methods development,
looking at dips and collars and the efficiency of pesticide shampoos. This study will provide
quantification of availability of residues. The final report is due at any time, and a second grant
will address activities related to exposing children to these pesticides.
Exposures to Children, Linda Sheldon/Chuck Steen, US Environmental Protection Agency,
National Exposure Research Laboratory
In general, reliable data do not exist for estimating exposures to children. Protocols for exposure
analysis are not well developed and evaluated; approaches for dermal and non-dietary ingestion
are uncertain; and data are limited on exposure and activity patterns, especially for young
children. The research objectives of FQPA are to improve assessments for children's exposures
to pesticides through:
? Identifying pesticides, pathways and activities with the highest potential for exposure;
Determining key exposure factors;
Developing approaches/protocols for measuring exposures by all relevant pathways;
Demonstrating protocol reliability through field studies; and
Developing a core set of high quality, reliable data on exposure factors.
Several areas of research and analysis were conducted to determine the utility of existing data,
data gaps, and to identify ongoing and needed research.
Data Assessment - In order to assess exposures, there must be an iteration between methods and
models. A data assessment was conducted through evaluation of the literature, workshops, and
29
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
identification of greatest uncertainties and highest potential risks. Data on children's exposures
and activities are limited, and default assumptions for exposure assessments are highly uncertain.
Dermal and non-dietary exposure are two pathways with very high potential for exposure.
Identification of Gaps - Significant gaps in data and models were identified, specifically:
? Age/developmental benchmarks for categorizing children's exposure;
Contaminant use patterns in locations where children spend time;
Activity pattern data, especially for young children;
Distribution of contaminants in specific locations;
Population exposure data on children; and
Approaches and factors for estimating dermal and non-dietary exposure.
A summary was presented of research activities to address these gaps. On-going studies include:
? Multimedia, multipathway studies of chronic exposure to children;
? The Minnesota Pesticide Study (100 kids in 3-12 homes; concentration in environment and
biological samples; limited location and activity information); and
? CTEPP (300 preschool children; concentration in environment and biological samples;
location and activity information).
Planned Studies in method development include:
? Urine collection methods from young children;
Evaluation of whole body dosimeters;
Immunoassay for OP metabolites in urine;
Testing of videotaping methods;
Refinements of Transferable residue methods;
Biomarkers for pyrethoid pesticides; and
Field studies in daycare/residences after pesticide application (environmental measurements
and biomonitoring to evaluate procedures).
Collaborative studies currently supported by the government:
? National Survey of Environmental Hazards in Child Care Centers (HUD);
Exposures and Health of Farm Worker Children in California (STAR Grants);
Potential Pesticide Exposure in Young Children Living in an Urban Area in the Southeastern
U.S.;
Kid's Border XXI Study (STAR Grant); and
Kid's in Schools (OPPTS).
Measuring the Effects of Exposures to Children, Pauline Mendola, US
Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory
Government initiatives and funding have been established to research health effects in children
related to pesticides. The importance of studying children and establishing baseline parameters
30
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
for children separate from those for adults is necessitated by their:
? Vulnerability - There are critical developmental windows in which children may be
particularly sensitive to exposure.
? Differential exposure - Children drink and eat more, breath more and are more active in
different ways and, thus, adult models do not necessarily fit.
? Physiological differences - Children may lack specific enzymes and capacity to detoxify
contaminants.
? Medical Care - Though children go to the doctor more often, they are also the highest group
of uninsured individuals in the US and this may result in skewed samples.
There are many important considerations for the design of research studies on potential
pesticide-related illnesses, including:
? Identifying the characteristics of the person(s) and agents to which they may have been
exposed.
? Determining the biologic plausibility of the observed effect. Is it reasonable to think that
exposure to an identified compound could have caused the effect in question?
? Knowing the mechanism of action for suspect compounds to help target health endpoints for
surveillance.
? Determining whether the health effects in question are most likely the result of chronic or of
acute exposure.
Case Study
The Border XXI initiative, "Pesticide Exposure and Potential Adverse Health Effects in Young
Children Along the US-Mexico Border," has three phases. Phase I involved gathering
information and building capacity to conduct research studies along the border, including
developing GIS capability in all border States. Phase n is ongoing and consists of pilot studies.
Phase m will involve more in-depth studies which will be based on the results of Phase n.
In Phase I, a workshop was held to address the needs for pediatric health endpoints that could
plausibly be associated with pesticide exposure, "Assessment of Health Effects of Pesticide
Exposure in Young Children," El Paso, Texas, December 1997 (EPA/600/R-99/086). This
workshop focused on health endpoints from five domains: Respiratory, Immune, Developmental,
Cancer, and Neurobehavioral.
In Phase II, many studies have confirmed the willingness of parents and clinics to participate in
pilot efforts. More than 20 pilots have been conducted including research on:
? The immune response assessed by collecting urine and blood before and after administering
the MMR (measles/mumps/rubella) vaccine;
? Children in agricultural communities that exhibit flu-like symptoms, concentrating on
periods when chemical use is high but flu virus prevalence is low (October and June); and
? The general health of children in homes in close proximity to agricultural fields.
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
The study of pesticide-related health effects in children is in its infancy. Many people have
compared this body of literature to the initial investigations of lead exposure thirty years ago,
before we had strong biomarkers and clear ideas about the association of lead exposure with
adverse developmental effects. In terms of public health, some developmental disorders appear
to be increasing in children and there are increases in immune system diseases such as asthma
and allergy. There is a general sense that the environment is degraded and some
"environmental" factors may be responsible for these childhood disorders. While there is public
concern about children's exposure to pesticides, there is very little data in this area.
The President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children (co-
chaired by Carol Browner, EPA Administrator, and Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and
Human Services), called for planning and development of a longitudinal cohort study of
children. This initiative was supported in the Child Health Act of 2000 (PL 106-310).
Currently, one of the model hypotheses for the proposed study is related to pesticide exposure.
A longitudinal study is ideal for such purposes because it can account for exposure over time,
during critical windows in child development, and it can measure a variety of health endpoints.
Session Questions and Responses
Question: Were there exposure criteria or a standard set by FQPA?
Response: Don't know. On the toxicity side, protocols first need to be developed to answer
the question. FQPA's goal is to reduce the uncertainty.
Question: In the STAR pilots, is there testing for effects on neurological behavioral
development?
Response: These are planned, but there is presently no money available for collection of
these data. There was preliminary talk regarding such a study at the workshop in
El Paso, including which tests and measures should be used, but nothing has
been finalized.
Question: Has there been any discussion on possible links and study of ADD (Attention
Deficit Disorder)?
Response: There is a great interest in following ADD in the longitudinal studies; it is
estimated that 100,000 families would be the necessary target for study. This
study would also need to include the influence of medications on affected
children.
Question: How do the pilots feed into the larger projects and funding of Border XXI?
Response: Border XXI is still in Phase II where preliminary results are anticipated. After
reviewing the Phase n results, the needs for further research will focus on the
exposure issues (can we identify the "high risk" children?) and then whether a full
scale epidemiologic study of health effects is warranted given the current state of
the science. The aim is to avoid spending large sums to measure the wrong
variables.
32
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Session
Risk Management
Treatment of Pesticides in Drinking Water, Tom Speth, US Environmental Protection
Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
A variety of technologies, used in different combinations, are designed to remove pesticides
from drinking water. The choice of which technologies are used is influenced not only by the
type of contaminant, but the history of the treatment facility - when they were established, what
technologies were first instituted, and what new technologies are complementary. Lists were
presented of over 40 regulated herbicides and of treatment technologies relative to the proportion
of surface and ground water treatment plants that use them.
Examples were discussed of several treatment technologies, including factors that effect
performance, predictors of performance, and detailed data analysis on the efficacy of each
technology. Conclusions on the study of various drinking water treatments are:
? Conventional treatment should not be expected to remove pesticides from drinking water.
Softening can remove select pesticides, but usually by a base-catalyzed reaction.
GAC can remove most pesticides, especially for low-solubility (nonionic) pesticides.
PAC can inexpensively remove most pesticides to a certain extent, especially for seasonal
contamination.
Air stripping can remove volatile pesticides (fumigants).
Oxidation processes, especially ozone or advanced oxidation, can transform pesticides.
Reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes (thin-film composites) can remove most
pesticides.
Current ORD Research on pesticide removal involves:
? Screening-level studies for CCL contaminants, endocrine disrupters, and OPP pesticides; and
? Field-scale work for those pesticides that need more rigorous data as determined by the
screening-level studies.
Session Questions and Responses
Question: What is the DBF Rule?
Response: It is a recent USEPA effort to set regulations regarding disinfection practices. It
balances the need for microbial control with the formation of disinfection
byproducts.
Question: For the data presented on chlorination or oxidation removal, does it imply that it
creates a compound or removes one?
Response: Both; the data on byproducts was not incorporated in the original study, but this is
an important issue, i.e., glyphospate and oxidation.
33
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
ECOLOGICAL ISSUES
Session IV: Ecological Issues
Case Study 4: Lake Apopka Birdkill Winter 1998-1999
Anne Keller, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Statement of the Problem
A large number of birds died at Lake Apopka between December 1998 and March 1999.
Region and others are attempting to understand the cause(s) of this massive bird die-off.
The
Background
The St. Johns River Water Management District in Palatka, FL, is in the midst of a 20-year plan
to restore the water quality of Lake Apopka to its pre-1950 status. The lake has been severely
impacted by the draining of lake bottom for farming in the late 1940s. Maintenance of dry land
required constant pumping of nutrient-laden water off of the property into the lake. The District,
in cooperation with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), purchased the farms in
order to decrease this back-pumping into Lake Apopka, and secondarily, to provide wetland
habitat for resident and migratory birds. The farmland purchase was completed in July 1998.
As the fields accumulated rainwater and seepage from the lake, herons, egrets, wood storks
(endangered species) and white pelicans flocked to the area. Audubon Society's December bird
count at Lake Apopka set a record for number of species recorded at an inland location. Then
hundreds of birds began to die. In total, over 500 pelicans, three dozen wood storks and many
other species died on-site. Other bird deaths in the southeastern U.S. have also been attributed to
Lake Apopka although there is no proof that these animals actually spent time along the lake.
In January 1999, the USFWS began a criminal investigation into the cause of these deaths
because migratory birds and endangered species were involved. EPA joined the effort to
determine what killed the birds after publication of a USFWS press release that the area might
pose a human health threat. To date, soil, sediment, water, fish and bird samples have been
analyzed by several agencies and interested organizations, including EPA Region 4.
Analytical results indicate that chlorinated pesticides were present in soils and tissues, both fish
and bird, and may be the cause of death of these birds. Dieldrin, toxaphene, chlordane, DDD
and DDE are among the pesticides that were detected, often in high concentrations, in the soils
and animal tissues. These long-lived compounds were used extensively in past farming practices
but are currently banned. Necropsies were not able to identify a single cause of death. Several
veterinarians at both universities and agencies looked for signs of disease as well as poisoning
from various pesticides. No evidence was found indicating the presence of disease or
cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. Most stomachs were empty, but the birds were not totally
emaciated.
34
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Important Science Issues
There is very little information about the toxicity of toxaphene to wildlife, and none on the
toxicity of degradation products of toxaphene to wildlife. In particular, there are no data on the
toxicity of toxaphene accumulated via the food chain rather than from oral doses under
experimental conditions. Analytical methods and interpretation of analytical results, particularly
for degraded toxaphene, is very problematic. Many variations on the method are available and
some appear to yield higher results.
Regional Involvement with the Problem
EPA Region 4 scientists provided advice and technical support to District staff as they designed
a second study of the soil contaminants in farmland soils which took place during the summer
and fall of 1999. The focus was on better determining the distribution and concentrations of
pesticides on the property based on over 1200 samples of soils, sediments, fish and bird tissues.
EPA Region 4 provided assistance with quality assurance and analytical issues and interacted
with other agencies to determine how many new fish and bird samples should be analyzed. As a
member of the Technical Advisory Group, EPA played a role in evaluating the results of the
study and in discussing the tasks that were assigned by the District to its contractor, Exponent,
once all the data were collected. Exponent's draft report on the cause of the avian mortalities
has been reviewed by EPA Region 4, ORD and others. A meeting was held on October 11, 2000
to discuss the contractor's conclusions, their acceptability, and how the findings may impact the
management of this large property that was purchased to restore a wetland for migratory birds.
Major Science Needs
? Determine toxicity of toxaphene degradation products/metabolites to fish and wading birds -
chronic and acute;
? Determine route of exposure of birds to "toxaphene" and other chlorinated pesticides on the
site - including organic soil, fish;
? Evaluate analytical procedures for toxaphene in highly organic soils - sonication vs.
extraction, solvent efficiency, etc.;
? Develop better interpretation of chromatograms - including the use of congeners,
quantifying degradation products, and evaluating interferences;
? Evaluate sublethal impacts of metabolites on wading birds; and
? Determine cumulative effects of exposure to multiple pesticides - dieldrin, toxaphene,
chlordane, and DDT.
Conclusions and Next Steps
A District contractor has presented a draft report that suggests more analytical work and better
interpretation of chromatograms is required to clarify whether this birdkill was caused by
pesticides or disease. The Technical Advisory Group will provide comments on the report
which may be modified to address specific issues raised by this group of Agency cooperators
and citizens. Meanwhile, the USFWS has not released its data or publicly withdrawn from its
criminal investigation.
35
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Environmental Databases, Office of Pesticide Programs, Dan Rieder, Office of
Pesticide Programs
Databases of EPA's Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) include:
Toxdata contains information on the toxicity of pesticides to terrestrial and aquatic animals and
plants, specifically: birds and wild mammals (not lab mammals); freshwater and estuarine fish
and invertebrates; terrestrial plants (crop species); and aquatic plants (algae and vascular, but no
rooted aquatic vegetation). It contains over 700 pesticides and over 14,000 records; most of the
data come from studies submitted to pesticide registrations. Some of these are government-
funded studies, published studies, but include any other scientifically sound data.
EIIS (Ecological Incident Information System) contains reports of adverse field effects (fiot field
study results). It contains over 2900 reports of incidents on many terrestrial and aquatic species.
Each report is evaluated and a "certainty" factor is assigned representing the degree to which
information contained in the report showed cause and effect. Sources of reports include States,
federal agencies, wildlife rehabilitation centers, and registrants. Incidents reported are mainly
wildlife mortality, however some are reports of debilitation and recovery. Included are only
those reports in which there is a suggested link between a pesticide and the effects.
Fate Database contains fate and transport information on pesticides (near completion), and
contains fate data for over 150 chemicals. The sources of data are from studies submitted to
support pesticide registration. Included data vary depending on kind of study, but are generally
conditions of study, duration, media used, methods and results. Specific information contained
in the database includes: Hydrolysis and photolysis degradation rates and degradates; aerobic
and anaerobic metabolism rates and metabolites; bioconcentration in fish tissue; and mobility in
soils and sediment.
PGSWD (Pesticide in Ground and Surface Water Database) will contain information on
pesticide residues in groundwater or surface water. Key elements of the database include:
location information, water type/use; sample time/date, QA/QC tags (LOD, LOG, recovery),
purpose of sample collection, and contact person/agency. The database is still under
development and a beta version is expected to be ready for data entry by late FY 2001.
6a2 water database contains reports of detections of pesticides in groundwater or surface water
that were reported under FIFRA section 6a2. Detections must be submitted individually if
detection exceeds the MCL, and may be aggregated if they are less than the MCL but greater
than 1/1 Om the MCL These data are useful to identify problem pesticides and areas, and to
confirm assessment, but are not useful statistically.
Two other databases were mentioned: 1) PGWDB (Pesticides in Groundwater Database) which
contains documents of compiled results of ground water monitoring studies and a compilation of
supporting reports; it is not automated; and 2) Fate Oneliner which is no longer supported.
36
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Pesticide Ecological Risk Assessment, Dan Rieder, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs
Risk characterization is the integration of exposure and effects data. EFED typically compares
the levels of exposure expected in the field (exposure data) to laboratory derived toxic effects
data. The Risk Quotient (RQ) is a ratio of exposure data to effects data, and provides risk
managers with an indication of situations where the presumed risk suggests the need for
mitigation, further study, or further refinement. EFEDs Level of Concern (LOG) is the threshold
with which the RQ is compared to determine which pesticides exceed a critical risk threshold.
Sample LOCs for aquatic organisms and terrestrial organisms were presented.
Aquatics
Examples of effects data were presented for freshwater and aquatic organisms, estuarine and
marine organisms, and the general parameters were discussed that guide the use of effects data
by EFED. Sample RQ calculations were presented for aquatic organisms and birds. An
overview was presented of the types of models used to estimate wildlife exposures. For aquatic
organisms, EFED uses a tiered approach with two models. Both models estimate the runoff
from a 10 hectare field into a 1 hectare pond, two meters deep.
1. The GEN eric Expected Exposure Concentration (GENEEC) model uses Koc and
degradation half-life to estimate the runoff. It provides estimated peak, 96-hour, 21-day and
56-day average concentrations.
2. The Pesticide Root Zone Model and Exposure Analysis Model System (PRZM/EXAMS) is
a combination of a pesticide transport model and an aquatic dispersion model. The transport
model (PRZM) estimates how much pesticide moves to the edge of a field with runoff and
eroded soil. The dispersion model (EXAMS) projects the distribution and dissipation of the
pesticide in the pond. It provides estimated 1 in 10 year peak, 96-hour, 21-day, and 60-day
average concentration.
Key issues for aquatic organisms are:
? ? Accounting for sediment toxicity; and
? Exposure models for water bodies other than small ponds.
Terrestrial
For terrestrial organisms, two models approaches are used:
Approach 1 is used to quantify possible ingestion of residues on vegetative matter and insects,
based on a "nomogram". The nomogram is a set of estimated residues relative to a known
application rate.
Approach 2 is used for granular and bait applications, and is based on field-testing that related
mortality to an application rate. It is intended to account for exposure via multiple routes (not
just direct ingestion).
Key issues for terrestrial organisms are:
? How to take into account and quantify and routes of exposure other than dietary;
? How to move from pesticide on food to dose;
37
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Assessing chronic risk from granular formulations;
Collecting data to characterize animal behavior relative to exposure.
Key issues for all organisms are:
? How to account for uncertainty at Level 1 and still have a viable screen;
? Determining how many species are needed to characterize
differences;
Improving test design for dose-response curves in chronic tests;
Estimating exposure duration, particularly laboratory versus field;
Testing additional species (more invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians); and
Moving from individual to population, and determining community effects estimates.
inter-species sensitivity
Overview of Aquatic and Terrestrial Toxicity Databases & Introduction to
ORD Wildlife Strategy, Rick Bennett, US Environmental Protection Agency, National
Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Three databases which house a variety of aquatic and terrestrial toxicity data, are currently under
development by NHEERL.
ECOTOX is a source of lexicological effects data for aquatic and terrestrial species. The
database is a combination of AQUIRE, TERRETOX, and PHYTOTOX databases, and it
contains primarily peer-reviewed literature, plus data from OECD, Russia, and USEPA OPP.
There are over 250,000 toxic effects records from 15,000 references for 9,024 chemicals and
4,900 aquatic and terrestrial species. ECOTOX web search features include: unrestricted
access, FAQs, HTML user manual, output in delimited or tabular formats, unlimited input for
chemical and species search parameters, and use of Netscape 4.X or higher browser features.
Search parameters include: chemicals, species, test conditions, test results and publication
criteria. ECOTOX can be reached through www.epa.gov/ecotox
TOXRES (Toxicity/Residue) is designed to link toxic residues to tissues residues for aquatic
organisms exposed to inorganic and organic chemicals. There are over 3,000 effect and no-
effect endpoints for survival, growth and reproductive parameters for invertebrates, fish and
aquatic life-stage of amphibians (74% are survival endpoints). TOXRES contains over 500
literature references on approximately 200 chemicals and 190 freshwater and marine test species.
It is anticipated to be available on the web in December 2001. Future plans include integrating
wildlife data.
EVISTRA (Evaluation and Interpretation of Suitable Test Results in AQUIRE) is a designed to
present results that (a) were obtained from AQUIRE and (b) were evaluated for suitability and
quality and interpreted when necessary. A draft guidance document titled "Guidance for
Evaluating Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests" is available at:
www.epa.gov/med/databases/evistra.html. Water quality criteria document tables are planned to
be available on the web site in October 2001.
38
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Other available databases are:
The US Geological Society (USGS) houses the Contaminant Exposure and Effects for Terrestrial
Vertebrates (CEE-TV) database which links necropsies to biomarker endpoints and tissue
residues. It can be reached through www.pwrc.usgs.gov/ceetv. This site provides linkage with
the USGS breeding bird surveys and Christmas bird count.
Exposure Factor and Toxicity Database at Cal/EPA at www.oehha.org/cal_ecotox
EXTOXNET (Extension TOXicology NETwork) at the University of California, Davis, at
http ://ace. orst. edu/info/extoxnet
Aquatic and Terrestrial Exposure Models, Larry Burns, US Environmental Protection
Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory
A variety of models were presented in the context of Office of Pesticide Programs use for
regulation and writing of pesticide labels. Models can extend new chemical submission data to
field conditions. All models presented are mechanistic models, based on process and pathways,
and consider the fundamental physical and chemical properties of the active ingredient.
For conceptual models:
? Regional scale sets the framework;
Small watershed at the farm scale sets the PRZM/EXAMS "scenario";
Ecosystem scale defines the processes and phenomena for modeling; and
Conservation of mass is the organizing principle throughout.
Several models were discussed, such as the Formal Ecosystem Conceptual Model, the
Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM), and the Exposure Analysis Modeling System
(EXAMS) in the context of the Lake Apopka Case Study. Also presented was the process of
integration of these models with data management systems, and the use of algorithms to
determine exposure and characterize risk.
Nonpoint Source Assessment in Agricultural Watersheds and Stream
Riparian Zones: Modeling and GIS, Mohamed Hantush, US Environmental Protection
Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Soil and groundwater pollution potential indices and dynamic pesticides' transport and fate
models were presented using the Lake Apopka case study as an example. General routes of
pesticide transport and fate were described, including volatilization, adsorption, degradation,
passive root uptake, advection and dispersion. Estimates and calculations of these components
were explained.
39
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
The utility of the models within a Geographical Information System (GIS) demonstrated with
application to a different site (Mid-Atlantic coastal plane watersheds) of somewhat similar soil
characteristics. The results were linked to the Lake Apopka area by analogy. A GIS facilitated
the incorporation of soil and climate data, drainage rates, and pesticide chemical properties into
the pollution assessment framework. The integrated modeling-GIS framework provides an
effective tool for management of pesticides in watersheds. Lumped-parameters and physically
based dynamic models were presented for transport and fate of pesticides in soils and wetlands.
Preliminary model runs were made to estimate the cumulative impact of historical annual
applications of selected pesticides on soil and wetlands contaminations in agricultural areas to
the north of Lake Apopka.
Conclusions from this analysis specific to Lake Apopka are:
? The NFS models are potential tools for assessment of relative importance of different
exposure pathways;
? Exposure to pesticides at soil surfaces is more likely in poorly drained landscapes, as
predicted by NFS models, where soil retention of pesticides is greater than in moderately to
well drained soil landscapes;
? Groundwater vulnerability to pesticides is more likely in moderately to well drained soil
landscapes;
? Contaminated soils may be contributing to residues of chlordane, DDT, and toxaphene in
wetlands at Lake Apopka, as predicted by the soil-wetland interface model;
? Recycling of contaminated waters in wetlands to the lake during the years of agricultural use
may have contributed to pesticide residues in the waters; and
? The contributions of contaminated sediments and atmospheric depositions at Lake Apopka
are unknown, but could be significant.
Current and Future Implications of Biotechnology to Chemical Pesticide Use,
Bob Frederick, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental
Assessment
In the last 10 years, there has been a large increase in the development of Genetically Modified
Organisms (GMOs), particularly for agricultural and medical uses. A common agricultural
example is plants modified through molecular biology techniques to contain a naturally
occurring pesticide producing gene, normally found in the bacteria Bacillus thurigensis (Bt).
Several diverse views prevail regarding GMO's:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes that the use of biotechnology can
reduce our reliance on chemical pesticides, resulting in a win for agriculture and a win for the
environment.
The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), a trade association of the biotechnology
industry, believes GMOs in agriculture are beneficial because :
? Herbicide tolerant crops give farmers greater flexibility and safer, more innovative choices in
pest management;
40
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
They promote conservation tillage; and
Bt crops reduce pesticide use.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a non-profit environmental advocacy group,
believes biotechnology is "a very powerful technology...able to produce combinations of genes
that have never been produced before... [Yet] it's far from clear what the impact will be on the
environment and on humans who consume them".
The Entomological Society of America's position is that genetically engineered crop plants that
express insect pest resistance traits could facilitate a shift away from reliance on broad-spectrum
insecticides toward more biointensive pest management.
Risk Assessment
There are challenges for risk assessment of GMOs including assessing the "absolute" risk and
assessing the relative risk. Given the complexity of ecological systems, the sources and
significance of variability in effects are many (geographic site, scale, cultivar, ecological
interactions). Defining "significant" effects will depend upon our ability to conduct long-term
experiments and to increase confidence in negative results. Finally, it is difficult to find
appropriate baseline comparisons in conventional counterparts for this relatively new
technology.
Specifically they
Agricultural Concerns
There are specific concerns related to agricultural GMOs and the environment.
may:
? Result in unintentional gene transfer to surrounding crops or native species;
? Reduce agricultural efficiencies due to monomorphic crops;
? Produce adverse impacts on indigenous species (non-target pests), such as killing beneficial
species that may consume the GMO;
? Result in evolution of target and other pests which may produce enhanced insect tolerance to
biopesticides; and
? Increased chemical use, particularly in the cases where GMOs are herbicide resistant. Some
believe farmers will become comfortable with an injudicious use of chemicals knowing it
will not affect their crop.
Current Trends
From a review of data on the use of pesticides and GMOs for the last five years (1996-1999),
adopters of GMOs used fewer acre-treatments of pesticides than non-adopters. Generally:
? Genetically modified crops have been adopted enthusiastically in the United States over the
last five years;
The prediction of chemical use reduction accompanying GM crop use, appears to be true;
With the current "volatility" in general acceptance of the technology, it is difficult to predict
what the future trends of environmental impacts (positive or negative) may be; and
Targeted monitoring and research will improve the robustness of environmental risk
assessment and further the safe use of biotechnology products in the future.
41
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Remaining Issues
? With biotechnology adoption rates of more than 50% for certain crops in some areas of the
US, what impact will a return to conventional crops have on environmental loads of
pesticides/herbicides?
? How will the reductions in chemical use be reflected in environmental concentrations? Is
there sufficient existing information to allow targeting sites for data collection (e.g., heavy
use areas where the largest reduction in volumes are occurring)?
? How do we weigh the trend for a decrease in pesticide/herbicide use against other potential
environmental impacts from genetically modified crops?
Session Questions and Responses
Question: Is there a connection between the ECOTOX and TORES database?
Response: There will be an internet link.
Question: Is there a distinction between EXOTOX, ToxNET and AQUIRE?
Response: The ToxNET data are whatever are available, and there may be overlap. Most are
industry-submitted information.
Question: There are a lot of data, should we put a premium on validation similar to human
health information? Should EPA provide a screening mechanism?
Response 1: EVTSTRA database will be a subset of the AQUIRE database that has been
evaluated and interpreted to provide high quality information for use in
environmental decisions.
Response 2: This is particularly an issue for old data sets that may have few data points, thus
low stringency. There needs to be some decision on whether EPA should make
the call.
Question: What could EPA do to look at toxaphene since the only data available is from old
studies? Is someone doing studies to evaluate the problem?
Response: ORD is looking at artificial degradation of toxaphene in soil, and trying to
emulate longer-term scenarios looking at toxaphene shift, degradation and
toxicity.
Question: Is anyone looking at lab testing to determine how the patterns of brain chemistry
appeared in the dead birds?
Response: There is a feeding study on mallards, but it may not be current.
Question: Since the chemicals were found in birds and not in the fish, were other pesticides
evaluated besides toxaphene?
Response: There are also detectable residues of DDT and dieldrin in this system, and in the
fish and bird samples. Although DDT and dieldrin were present, the evidence
seems to indicate that they were less likely the cause of death.
42
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Question: What is the theory behind the criminal investigation?
Response: There is a question regarding potential mismanagement of the original cleanup
before the land was purchased, or whether there was deliberate dumping. The
Fish and Wildlife Service is required to do a criminal investigation whenever
endangered species are involved.
Question: Do you see a possibility that the agricultural industry will contribute to research
in the safety of biotechnology?
Response: The industry is eager to help, but they are faced with a credibility issue on
whether the research would be tainted if they provide the funds. Seed companies
do perform risk assessments and submit the data to agencies for approval of the
product.
43
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Appendix I: Break-Out Group Summary
HUMAN HEALTH: Indoor Exposure Issues
1. What are the uncertainties in our knowledge which limit our ability to draw decisive
assessment conclusions and take fully informed actions to prevent or mitigate pesticide
problems?
• Information on how to identify clusters;
• Centralized data from kids at daycare and pediatric centers;
• Education for communities on how to consider pertinent poisons;
• Absence of baseline data;
• Absence of test kits (rapid and cheap field tests); and
• Information on how to use of pets as indicators.
Specific information on:
Chemicals
* Henry 'slaw
* phase
* partitioning
Processes (Physical and chemical)
T transport (+micrometeorological and climatological)
* fate (measurement method and actual fate)
T source/application characterization
Targets
susceptibles
receptor location/proximity
penetration
presence of sentinel species
dose
2. How might the Regions use the science described in this session to respond to the issues
raised in this case study?
To assess the severity of exposure
There are uncertainties in understanding the link between known exposure (absorbed dose)
and health effects (ambient does not equal absorbed dose);
• Science can be used to calculate potential exposures;
• These must focus on behavior; and
• There is a need to transfer this science.
1-1
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
3. Are there other opportunities to integrate science into the Regional decision making?
ORD is looking for increased exposures/Regions see these; there needs to be an exchange of
information on what data are needed and what are available;
• Make better use of existing programs such as that of Dan Horochec (Univ. IL), Cook Co.
Pediactric Clinic. He reports results of his health evaluation of increased exposures (all
chemicals) mostly on children, that are often referred by the Regions.
4. What scientific fact sheets or other tools would be useful to the Regions in carrying out
their mandates, e.g., enforcement of pesticide regulations and communicating relevant
science information to interested communities?
• Develop sensitivity analyses;
• Establish cut-off points for actions;
• Develop alerts for local health communities;
• Develop urban pesticide outreach;
• Establish links from veterinarians to public health community for reporting of "sentinel
events";
• Education programs for recognition of pesticide poisoning;
• Development of tools to address scale changes (local vs large, i.e. watershed).
HUMAN HEALTH: Exposure Issues from Spray Drift
1. How might the Regions use the science described in this session to respond to the issues
raised in this case study?
To identify what happens and where (air monitors) using AgDrift, SHEDS, and technical
review;
• To develop effective responses for:
T decontamination
T evacuate/closure
T measurements/methods
To develop proper exposure tracking methodologies;
• To evaluate CDDs - Breakdown products, mixtures; and
• To evaluate best use for and effects on adjacent land.
2. Are there other opportunities to integrate science into the Regional decision making?
Discussed with other questions.
1-2
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
3. What are the uncertainties in our knowledge which limit our ability to draw decisive
assessment conclusions and take fully informed actions to prevent or mitigate pesticide
problems?
• Particle penetration (outdoor and indoor);
• Definition of drift: multiple factors, e.g. harm threshold also biotech products;
• Primary and secondary drift combined and linked to local GIS; cumulative effects;
• Linkage research - exposures to pesticide applications;
• Linkage - transport to human exposure, thresholds for health effects (need to collaborate);
• Predictive tools to target outreach;
• Using exposure parameters, or use data from States;
• Proximity of fields, dwellings, effect of buffers; and
• Pesticides remaining in soil.
4. What scientific fact sheets or other tools would be useful to the Regions in carrying out
their mandates, e.g., enforcement of pesticide regulations and communicating relevant
science information to interested communities?
• Monitoring techniques:
* GCIMS
T Immuno Assays- quick method
* Wipes - need better locations
• Model activity patterns of children
HUMAN HEALTH: Exposure from Vector Control Options
1. What are the uncertainties in our knowledge which limit our ability to draw decisive
assessment conclusions and take fully informed actions to prevent or mitigate pesticide
problems?
• What are the results of environmental spraying and implications to the lower end of food
web/chain?
• What should agencies do when public health comes head-to-head with environmental risks?
• What is the influence of religion (globally)?
• What are effects of multiple spraying (risks)?
• More measurements of (outdoor and indoor) pesticides via spraying.
• Is turning air-conditioning off effective in reducing exposure; what about restarting?
• What is the efficacy of spraying, especially ground spraying without aerial?
• What is/are ideal droplet sizes, and what is the best way to deliver these?
• Almanac/maps of occurrence within a year showing the spread of disease and mosquitoes.
• When is it safe allow children and pets out after spraying?
• Include secondary information sources, e.g. web sites, or fact sheets.
• Communication of risk of disease vs. risk of control.
1-3
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
2. How might the Regions use the science described in this session to respond to the issues
raised in this case study?
ORD research is focused on FQPA, fate and transport models to EC;
• Use of air measurements;
• Use of data on residential penetration of fine particles;
• Understanding residues and comparison between products;
• Addressing the issue of the effects of syn pyrethroids that are not well characterized; and
• Using NHANES data.
3. Are there other opportunities to integrate science into the Regional decision making?
• Need "rapid-response" team;
• RSC program;
• Involvement in research planning process is of limited value;
• "Institutionalized" means to communicate scientific information to Regions where needed;
• Need a coordinated group for information exchange.
4. What scientific fact sheets or other tools would be useful to the Regions in carrying out
their mandates, e.g., enforcement of pesticide regulations and communicating relevant
science information to interested communities?
ORD studies for indoor exposure and relate these to the public;
ORD data on risks to cats and dogs to adulticiding;
• CDC information transmission of WNV from wild mammals to humans; and
• Implication on other wildlife, especially non-targets such as bees.
HUMAN HEALTH: Highly Exposed and Sensitive Populations
1. How might the Regions use the science described in this session to respond to the issues
raised in this case study?
To elucidate:
• Physics (data scare on mechanism, differing scales - needed to validate model).
• Is the model tool sensitive enough to use?
• Additional complexities when scale increases.
• Time lag from incident to response.
• Absence of direct causal link.
• Decrease in toxic response (time, detection, baseline).
• Decrease awareness and diagnosis.
• Social/cultural factors.
• Demographic profile.
• Details are needed on acute vs. sub chronic; ecological; and multiple and causal.
1-4
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
2. What are the uncertainties in our knowledge which limit our ability to draw decisive
assessment conclusions and take fully informed actions to prevent or mitigate pesticide
problems?
• What activities does EPA do that are most effective in modifying behavior (what is/is not
working)?
• How to address pesticides that are EDCs + inerts.
• Most sensitive endpoint notation in IRIS regarding what endpoints are included?
• Mechanistic data for adverse health effects.
• Knowing D/R curve (information on severity of effect + acute to chronic) to help determine
action.
• Increase rate of reviewing new data and putting into IRIS; need to flag less-rigorously
developed risk numbers (e.g. HEAST values).
• WML: qualitative risk relationship to quantitative pesticide.
• What is the generic risk versus risk comparison?
• What are the endpoints: case/mort/sero conversion?
• What is the cost of morbidity symptoms (e.g. influenza vaccine)?
• Risk perception (obscure pathway, voluntary exposure, routine).
• Are acute exposures underestimated (e.g. droplet distribution, drift is different - 1%
available for inhalation, 20 minute exposure)?
• What proportion of exposed individuals are sensitive (respiratory, not organo phosphate)?
• What is the difference in persistence and chronic exposure (breakdown products)?
• Inert ingredients need study.
3. Are there other opportunities to integrate science into the Regional decision making?
Discussed with other questions.
4. What scientific fact sheets or other tools would be useful to the Regions in carrying out
their mandates, e.g., enforcement of pesticide regulations and communicating relevant
science information to interested communities?
Discussion combined with other exposure topics.
Suggested Workshop Follow-up on Health
Brief senior managers on what was learned at the workshop.
Executive summary of workshop report.
Paper on how Regions can access opportunities for collaboration, e.g. Community Science
Council.
Invite ORD on OECA call.
ORD work through Regions to do community research.
1-5
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
ECOLOGICAL ISSUES
1. What are the uncertainties in our knowledge which limit our ability to draw decisive
assessment conclusions and take fully informed actions to prevent or mitigate pesticide
problems?
• Brain concentrations of pesticides not fully explained.
• Research ended and pesticide was banned, so how did exposures occur - ingestion, dermal?
• Degradation products - different susceptibility.
• Were there other exposures of birds during migration (upper Midwest summers)?
• Missing some fish data.
One hot spot (1%) found, are there others?
• Methodology for identifying degradation products.
• Mechanisms for recognizing and responding to incidents.
• Best resolution for GIS-Mapping pesticide application?
• Use of constrains model for larger applications.
• List of which office in EPA knows about a given compound.
• Very difficult to ascertain pesticide application data.
• Interagency coordinated evaluation of utility of ecological toxicology.
2. How might the Regions use the science described in this session to respond to the issues
raised in this case study?
Discussed with other questions.
3. Are there other opportunities to integrate science into the Regional decision making?
• Developing call contacts within the Agency;
Get data useful for modeling;
• Historical aerial photography from EPIC/NERL; and
• When States/Feds buy up farmland to restore natural environments, EPA should advise/help
to dispose of on-site pesticides.
4. What scientific fact sheets or other tools would be useful to the Regions in carrying out
their mandates, e.g., enforcement of pesticide regulations and communicating relevant
science information to interested communities?
Discussed with exposure topics.
1-6
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Appendix II: Proposed Discussion Groups
PESTICIDE SCIENCE DISCUSSION GROUP 1
EVALUATING and REDUCING PESTICIDE EXPOSURES
I. RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS
Target Audience: Public
Volunteers:
Donald Baumgartner
Terry Harvey
Rick Hertzberg
Mark Johnson
Robert Koethe
Kelly Leovic
Dan Stout
Nicolle Tulve
Topics for Consideration:
?? Indoor applications
a. Routes of exposure
b. Persistence/half life on different surfaces, e.g., hard surfaces, carpet, furniture
c. Relative effectiveness of different avoidance and exposure reducing approaches
1) starting with proper application methods
2) special emphasis on children (including activity patterns) and pets
2. Outdoor applications
a. Routes of exposure, including tracking indoors
b. Persistence/half life under different climatic conditions
c. Relative effectiveness of different avoidance and exposure reducing approaches
1) starting with proper application methods
2) special emphasis on children (including activity patterns) and pets
II-1
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
PESTICIDE SCIENCE DISCUSSION GROUP 2
EVALUATING and REDUCING PESTICIDE EXPOSURES
II. A GRICUL TURAL APPLICA TIONS
Target Audience: Public
Volunteers:
Ray Chavira
John Cicmanec
Carol Kemker
Topics for Consideration:
1. Workers
a. Routes of exposure
b. Relative effectiveness of different avoidance and exposure reducing approaches
1) starting with proper application methods
2) observing and responding to weather variables
3) precautions to avoid bringing residues into workers' homes
2. Residents/Schools/Other located adjacent to agricultural fields
a. Routes of exposure
b. Relative effectiveness of different avoidance and exposure reducing approaches
1) starting with proper application methods
2) observing and responding to weather variables
3) precautions to avoid bringing residues into homes/schools/other
(NOTE: There may be sufficient overlap in information related to workers and residents that they can be
combined.)
II-2
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
PESTICIDE SCIENCE DISCUSSION GROUP 3
EVALUATING and REDUCING PESTICIDE EXPOSURES
III. MOSQUITO CONTROL
Target Audience: Public
Volunteers:
Donald Baumgartner
Fatima El Abdaoui
Carol Kemker
Robert Koethe
Topics for Consideration:
?? Description and relative efficacy of different mosquito control methods, e.g., habitat
modification (in rural and urban areas), behavior modification, integrated pest management,
larvacides, adulticides, aerial vs ground spraying, personal repellants.
?? What you see and hear during different types of community spray applications.
?? Relative effectiveness of different pesticide avoidance and exposure reducing approaches.
Include special emphasis on children (including activity patterns) and pets (when to let out
after spraying).
?? West Nile Virus
a. Maps showing spread (When will it get to my town?)
b. How do I reduce my likelihood of being exposed to the virus?
c. How do I know if I have been exposed?
II-:
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
PESTICIDE SCIENCE DISCUSSION GROUP 4
E VALUA TING and REDUCING PESTICIDE EXPOSURES
IV. PESTICIDE APPLICA TORS
Target Audience:
Applicators
(residential and agricultural)
Volunteers:
John Kinsey
Robert Koethe
Renee Sandvig
Topics for Consideration:
1. Reducing personal and public exposure, what applicators should tell their clients.
2. How to recognize symptoms of pesticide exposure.
3. How to observe and respond to key variables such as wind shift and moisture.
4. How to use " spotters" or monitors for observing drift.
5. Use of tools, such as AgDRJJT, to modify and reduce drift and subsequent exposure.
6. Ideal droplet size and best way to deliver it.
?? Reading and using chemical labels properly.
II-4
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
PESTICIDE SCIENCE DISCUSSION GROUP 5
PESTICIDE HEALTH RISKS for HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS
Target Audience: Health Care Professionals
(human and veterinary)
Volunteers:
John Kinsey
Robert Koethe
Renee Sandvig
Topics for Consideration:
?? How to recognize symptoms of pesticide exposure.
?? How to report cases and possible trends to proper authorities.
?? Identify and explain the Central Medical Exam Centers, providing contacts.
?? Detail record keeping needed to document cases.
?? Describe patient sampling and sample preservation, what may be useful for future analysis.
?? Provide guidance in explaining to patients about risk, risk reduction, and health benefits of
pesticide use.
?? Relative risks of pesticide toxicity vs. diseases controlled by pesticides.
II-5
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Appendix III: Pesticides Workshop Participant Evaluation Summary
Most participants found the content of the workshop to be very useful. In addition to the
excellent quality of material presented and ORD resources identified, valuable contacts were
established between the Regions and ORD. It was the majority opinion that the case studies
were an excellent mechanism for presenting the Regional science issues. Comments from the
Regions suggested that it would be useful to focus on presentations illustrating in detail how to
quickly solve real-life problems in Human Health and Ecosystem pollution with less emphasis
on heavy modeling. Participants felt the breakout groups were effective; however, one per day
would have been adequate. A common desire was expressed for a question and answer
discussion period after each presentation.
The use of PlaceWare did detract from the learning experience in some cases. Suggestions for
future use of PlaceWare included: 1) use a Local Area Network (LAN); 2) including a second
screen with PlaceWare communications, and 3) distribute an electronic copy of presentation
slides to PlaceWare participants prior to the workshop.
Greater ORD involvement in regular pesticides meetings via conference calls would facilitate
continued interaction on science issues. The list of participants produced for the workshop will
be used to maintain and establish contacts. Interest was expressed for a list of web sites for
information on current research and results.
III-l
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Appendix IV: List of Participants
EPA Regional Offices
Koethe, Robert (Rl)
U.S. EPA (CPT)
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 22114-2023
Tel: 617-918-1535
E-mail: koethe.robert@epa.gov
Chaput, Rachel (R2)
U.S. EPA
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
Tel: 212-637-4001
Fax: 212-637-4942
E-mail: chaput.rachell@epa.gov
Rupp, Henry (R2)
U.S. EPA (MS500)
PTSD/TECA (Pesticide Team)
Raritan Depot
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Tel: 732-906-6178
E-mail: rupp.henry@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Caporale, Cynthia (R3)
U.S. EPA
Environmental Science Center
701 Mapes Road
Fort Meade, MD 20755-5350
Tel: 410-305-2732
Fax: 410-305-3095
E-mail: caporale.cynthia@epa.gov
(Place Ware)
El Abdaoui, Fatima (R3)
U.S. EPA (3WC32)
Pesticides/Asbestos Programs and Enforcement Branch
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Tel: 215-814-2129
Fax: 215-814-3113
E-mail: el-abdaoui.fatima@epa.gov
Landy, Ronald (R3)
U.S. EPA
Regional Scientist
Environmental Science Center
701 Mapes Road
Fort Meade, MD 20755-5350
Tel: 410-305-2757
Fax: 410-305-3095
E-mail: landy.ronald@epa.gov
(PlaceWare)
Barnett, Felicia (R4)
U.S. EPA
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Tel: 404-562-8659
E-mail: barnett.felicia@epa.gov
(Place Ware)
Baugh, Tom (R4)
U.S. EPA
Office of the Regional Administrator
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Tel: 404-562-8275
Fax: 404-562-8269
E-mail: baugh.thomasl@epa.gov
IV-1
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Bloeth, Mark (R4)
U.S. EPA
APTMD
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Keller, Anne (R4)
U.S. EPA
Science and Ecosystems Support Division
980 College Station Road
Athens, GA 30605-2720
Tel.: 404-562-9013
E-mail: bloeth.mark@epa.gov
(Place Ware)
Tel: 706-355-8767
E-mail: keller.anne@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Kemker, Carol (R4)
U.S. EPA (APTMD)
Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Tel: 404-562-8975
Fax: 404-562-8972
E-mail: kemker.carol@epa.gov
Pierce, Troy (R4)
U.S. EPA
Air Division
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Tel: 404-562-9016
E-mail: pierce.troy@epa.gov
(PlaceWare)
Nawyn, Rich (R4)
U.S. EPA
0PM
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Tel: 404-562-8320
E-mail: nawyn.richard@epa.gov
(PlaceWare)
Samaritan, Jeanette (R4)
U.S. EPA
Water Division
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Tel: 404-562-9339
E-mail: samaritan.jeanette@epa.gov
(PlaceWare)
Schroeder, Lora Lee (R4)
U.S. EPA
Air Division
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Tel: 404-562-9015
E-mail: schroeder.lora@epa.gov
(PlaceWare)
West, James (R4)
U.S. EPA
APTM
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Tel: 404-562-9014
E-mail: west.james@epa.gov
(PlaceWare)
Thorns, Sharon (R4)
U.S. EPA
Waste Division
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Tel: 404-562-8666
E-mail: thoms.sharon@epa.gov
(PlaceWare)
Williams, Kent (R4)
U.S. EPA
Waste Division
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Tel: 404-562-8664
E-mail: williams.kent@epa.gov
(PlaceWare)
IV-2
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Woolheater, Tim (R4)
U.S. EPA
Waste Division
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Tel: 404-562-8510
E-mail: woolheater.tim@epa.gov
(PlaceWare)
Barney, Jonathan (R5)
U.S. EPA (WA-16J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel.: 312-886-6102
Fax: 312-886-4235
E-mail: barney.jonathan@epa.gov
Alwan,Al (R5)
U.S. EPA (WT-15J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-353-2004
Fax: 312-886-0168
E-mail: alwan.al@epamail.epa.gov
Batka, Sheila (R5)
U.S. EPA (AE-17J)
Air and Radiation Division
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-6053
Fax: 312-886-0617
E-mail: batka.sheila@epa.gov
Baumgartner, Donald (R5)
U.S. EPA (DT-8J)
Urban Pesticide Specialist
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, II 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-7835
Fax: 312-353-4788
E-mail: baumgartner.donald@epa.gov
Brauner, David (R5)
U.S. EPA (SR-6J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-1526
E-mail: brauner.david@epa.gov
Dibblee, Seth (R5)
U.S. EPA (DT-8J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-5992
E-mail: dibblee.seth@epa.gov
Draugelis, Arunas (R5)
U.S. EPA (SR-6J)
Superfund
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-353-1420
E-mail: draugelis.arunas@epa.gov
Johnson, Rosalyn (R5)
U.S. EPA (B-19J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-353-5692
Fax: 312-353-5374
E-mail: johnson.rosalyn@epa.gov
Johnson, Mark (R5)
U.S. EPA (B-19J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-353-9298
E-mail: johnson.mark@epa.gov
iv-:
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Jones, Brenda (R5)
U.S. EPA (SR-6J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-7188
Fax: 312-886-4071
E-mail: jones.brenda@epa.gov
Lopez, Ernie (R5)
U.S. EPA (WU-16J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-3017
E-mail: lopez.ernesto@epa.gov
Lukascyk, Joseph (R5)
U.S. EPA (DT-8J)
WPTD, PTES
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, II 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-6233
Fax: 312-353-4788
E-mail: lukascyk.joseph@epa.gov
Macarus, David (R5)
U.S. EPA(DT-SJ)
Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-353-5814
Fax: 312-353-4788
E-mail: macarus.david@epa.gov
Mangino, Mario (R5)
U.S. EPA (DRP-8J)
WPTD
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-2589
E-mail: mangino.mario@epa.gov
Marouf, Afif (R5)
U.S. EPA (SR-6J)
Superfund
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-353-5550
E-mail: marouf.afif@epa.gov
Master, Edward (R5)
U.S. EPA (DT-8J)
Pesticides and Toxics Branch
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-353-5830
Fax: 312-353-4788
E-mail: master.edward@epa.gov
Maurice, Charles (R5)
U.S. EPA(T-13J)
Office of Strategic Environmental Analysis
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-6635
Fax: 312-886-9697
E-mail: maurice.charles@epa.gov
Mazur, Daniel (R5)
U.S. EPA (DW-8J)
WPTD, Waste Management Branch
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-353-7997
Fax: 312-353-4788
E-mail: mazur.daniel@epa.gov
McDonald, Heather (R5)
U.S. EPA(DT-SJ)
Pesticides Program Section
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-3275
Fax: 312-353-4788
E-mail: mcdonald.heather@epa.gov
IV-4
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
McDonald, Holly (R5)
U.S. EPA (DRT-8J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-6012
E-mail: mcdonald.holly@epa.gov
Morgan, Steven (R5)
U.S. EPA(DT-SJ)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel.: 312-353-1524
Fax: 312-353-4788
E-mail: morgan.steven@epa.gov
Mysz, Amy (R5)
U.S. EPA (DT-8J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-0224
Fax: 312-353-4788
E-mail: mysz.amy@epa.gov
Olsberg, Colleen (R5)
U.S. EPA (DRP-8J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-353-4686
E-mail: olsberg.colleen@epa.gov
Ostodka, Steve (R5)
U.S. EPA (SMF-8J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-3011
E-mail: ostrodka.stephen@epa.gov
Pepin, Robert (R5)
U.S. EPA (WT-15J)
Water Division
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-1505
Fax: 312-886-0168
E-mail: pepin.robert@epa.gov
Petrovski, David (R5)
U.S. EPA (DRP-8J)
RCRA
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-0997
E-mail: petrovski.david@epa.gov
Restaino, Anthony (R5)
U.S. EPA(DT-SJ)
PTES
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-6879
E-mail: restaino.anthony@epa.gov
Silvasi, Tony (R5)
U.S. EPA (DT-8J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-6878
Fax: 312-353-4788
E-mail: silvasi.anthony@epa.gov
Spivey, Kimberly (R5)
U.S. EPA(DT-SJ)
PPS, WTPD
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-0910
Fax: 312-353-4788
E-mail: spivey.kimberly@epa.gov
IV-5
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Stanfield, Lucy (R5)
U.S. EPA (G-17J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-1121
Fax: 312-353-2018
E-mail: stanfield.lucy@epa.gov
Star, David (R5)
U.S. EPA(DT-SJ)
PTES
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-6009
E-mail: star.david@epa.gov
Stearns, Arlyce (R5)
U.S. EPA (DT-8J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-1489
E-mail: stearns.arlyce@epa.gov
Uhlken, Lavarre (R5)
U.S. EPA (DRT-8J)
Pesticides Program Section
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-6016
E-mail: uhlken.lavarre@epa.gov
Ullrich, David (R5)
U.S. EPA (R-19J)
Deputy Regional Administrator
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-3000
E-mail: ullrich.david@epa.gov
Van Leeuwen, Patricia (R5)
U.S. EPA (SR-6J)
Superfund
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-4904
E-mail: vanleeuwen.patricia@epa.gov
Ward, John (R5)
U.S. EPA (DT-8J)
Pesticides Program Section
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-5220
Fax: 312-353-4788
E-mail: ward.john@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Wilkinson, Bruce (R5)
U.S. EPA(DT-SJ)
Pesticides Program Section
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-6002
Fax: 312-353-4788
E-mail: wilkinson.bruce@epa.gov
Zar, Howard (R5)
U.S. EPA (B-19J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-886-1491
Fax: 312-353-5374
E-mail: zar.howard@epa.gov
Zimmerman, Dea Maria (R5)
U.S. EPA(DT-SJ)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Tel: 312-353-6344
Fax: 312-353-4788
E-mail: zimmerman.dea@epa.gov
IV-6
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Overstreet, Cheryl (R6)
U.S. EPA (6PD-NB)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Tel: 214-655-6643
Fax: 214-665-7263
E-mail: overstreet.cheryl@epa.gov
Stuckey, Troy (R6)
U.S. EPA (6PD-P)
Pesticides Section
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Tel: 214-665-6432
Fax: 214-665-7263
E-mail: stuckey.troy@epa.gov
Kovacs, Debbie (R8)
U.S. EPA (8P-P3T)
Pesticides Team
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Tel: 303-312-6020
Fax: 303-312-6044
E-mail: kovacs.debbie@epa.gov
Chavira, Ray (R9)
U.S. EPA (CMD-4-3)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415-744-1926
E-mail: chavira.raymond@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Hiatt, Gerald (R9)
U.S. EPA (SFD-8)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415-744-2319
E-mail: hiatt.gerald@epa.gov
(PlaceWare)
Victery, Winona (R9)
U.S. EPA (PMD-1)
Policy and Management Division
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415-744-1021
Fax: 415-744-1678
E-mail: victery.winona@epa.gov
Stralka, Daniel (R9)
U.S. EPA (SFD-8)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415-744-2310
E-mail: stralka.daniel@epa.gov
(PlaceWare)
Barich, John (RIO)
U.S. EPA (OEA-095)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: 206-553-8562
E-mail: barich.john@epa.gov
(Place Ware)
Brough, Sally (RIO)
U.S. EPA(OW-131)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: 206-553-1295
E-mail: brough.sally@epa.gov
(PlaceWare)
Cirone, Pat (RIO)
U.S. EPA (OEA-095)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: 206-553-1597
E-mail: cirone.patricia@epa.gov
(PlaceWare)
IV-7
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Duncan, Bruce (RIO)
U.S. EPA (OEA-095)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: 206-553-8086
E-mail: duncan.bruce@epa.gov
(PlaceWare)
Garnas, Dick (RIO)
U.S. EPA (OEA-095)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel.: 206-553-8664
E-mail: garnas.richard@epa.gov
(PlaceWare)
Hastings, Jan (RIO)
U.S. EPA (OEA-095)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: 206-553-1582
E-mail: hastings.janis@epa.gov
(Place Ware)
Jennings, Marie (RIO)
U.S. EPA (ECO-084
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: 206-553-1173
E-mail: jennings.marie@epa.gov
(Place Ware)
Liu, Linda (RIO)
U.S. EPA (OEA-084)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: 206-553-1447
E-mail: liu.linda@epa.gov
(Place Ware)
Watson, Michael (RIO)
U.S. EPA (OEA-095)
Office of Environmental Assessment
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: 206-553-1072
Fax: 206-553-0119
E-mail: watson.michael@epa.gov
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Office of Science Policy
Troyer, Michael
U.S. EPA (MC-642)
Office of Science Policy
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Tel: 513-569-7399
Fax: 513-569-7089
E-mail: troyer.michael@epa.gov
Klauder, David
U.S. EPA (8103R)
Office of Science Policy
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-564-6496
Fax: 202-565-2926
E-mail: klauder.david@epa.gov
IV-8
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Morris, Jeff
U.S. EPA(8104R)
Office of Science Policy
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-564-6756
Fax: 202-565-2916
E-mail: morris.jeff@epa.gov
Turner, Vivian
U.S. EPA(8104R)
Office of Science Policy
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-564-6793
Fax: 202-565-2917
E-mail: turner.vivian@epa.gov
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Research Laboratories and Centers
Hertzberg, Richard
U.S. EPA
National Center for Environmental Assessment
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel: 404-562-8663
Fax: 404-562-9964
E-mail: hertzberg.rick@epa.gov
Hammerstrom, Karen
U.S. EPA (MD-8601-D)
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-564-3258
Fax: 202-565-0059
E-mail: hammerstrom.karen@epa.gov
Harvey, Terry
U.S. EPA(MS-117)
National Center for Environmental Assessment
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Tel: 513-569-7531
Fax: 513-569-7475
E-mail: harvey.terry@epa.gov
Frederick, Bob
U.S. EPA (8623D)
National Center for Environmental Research
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-564-3207
E-mail: frederick.bob@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Saint, Chris
U.S. EPA (8723R)
National Center for Environmental Research
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-564-6909
Fax: 202-565-2448
E-mail: saint.chris@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Bird, Sandy
U.S. EPA
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Ecosystems Research Division
960 College Station Road
Athens, GA 30605-2720
Tel: 706-355-8124
E-mail: bird.sandra@epa.gov
(Speaker)
IV-9
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Burns, Larry
U.S. EPA
National Exposure Research Laboratory
960 College Station Road
Athens, GA 30605-2700
Tel: 706-355-8119
E-mail: burns.lawrence@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Fortmann, Roy
U.S. EPA Mailroom (MD-56)
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel.: 919-541-1021
Fax: 919-541-0205
E-mail: fortmann.roy@epa.gov
Pitchford, Ann
U.S. EPA (LEE)
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Environmental Sciences Division
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
Tel: 702-798-2366
Fax: 702-798-2692
E-mail: pitchford.ann@epa.gov
Highsmith, Ross
U.S. EPA Mailroom (MD-56)
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-7828
Fax: 919-541-0905
E-mail: highsmith.ross@epa.gov
Lewis, Bob
U.S. EPA Mailroom (MD-44)
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-3065
E-mail: lewis.bob.dr@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Perry, Steven
U.S. EPA Mailroom (MD-81)
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-1896
Fax: 919-541-1379
E-mail: perry.steven@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Steen, William "Chuck"
U.S. EPA Mailroom (MD-75)
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-1571
E-mail: steen.william@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Ozkaynak, Haluk
U.S. EPA Mailroom (MD-56)
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-5172
E-mail: ozkaynak.haluk@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Sheldon, Linda
U.S. EPA Mailroom (MD-56)
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-2205
E-mail: sheldon.linda@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Stout, Daniel
U.S. EPA Mailroom (MD-56)
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-5767
E-mail: stout.dan@epa.gov
(Speaker)
IV-10
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Tulve, Nicolle
U.S. EPA Mailroom (MD-56)
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-1077
Fax: 919-541-0905
E-mail: tulve.nicolle@epa.gov
Vallero, Daniel
U.S. EPA Mailroom (MD-76)
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-0150
E-mail: vallero.daniel@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Bennett, Rick
U.S. EPA
Natiional Health & Environmental Effects Research Lab
Mid-Continent Ecology Division
6201 Congdon Boulevard
Duluth, MN 55804
Tel: 218-529-5212
E-mail: bennett.rick@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Mendola, Pauline
U.S. EPA Mailroom (MD-58A)
National Health & Environmental Effects Research Lab
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-966-6953
Fax: 919-966-7584
E-mail: mendola.pauline@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Avel, Andy
U.S. EPA 235
National Risk Management Research Lab
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Tel: 513-569-7951
E-mail: avel.andy@epa.gov
Glaser, John
U.S. EPA 498
National Risk Management Research Lab
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Tel: 513-569-7568
E-mail: glaser.john@epa.gov
McMaster, Sue
U.S. EPA Mailroom (MD-51A)
National Health & Environmental Effects
Research Lab
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-3844
E-mail: mcmaster.suzanne@epa.gov
Hantush, Mohamed
U.S. EPA
National Risk Management Research Lab
Subsurface Protection & Remediation Division
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820-1198
Tel: 580-436-8531
E-mail: hantush.mohamed@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Cicmanec, John
U.S. EPA (G75)
National Risk Management Research Lab
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Tel: 513-569-7481
E-mail: cicmanec.john@epa.gov
Speth, Tom
U.S. EPA (B24)
National Risk Management Research Lab
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Tel: 513-569-7208
E-mail: speth.thomas@epa.gov
(Speaker)
IV-11
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Kinsey, John
U.S. EPA Mailroom (MD-61)
National Risk Management Research Lab
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-4121
E-mail: kinsey.john@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Mason, Mark
U.S. EPA Mailroom (MD-54)
National Risk Management Research Lab
Air Pollution and Prevention Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-4835
Fax: 919-541-2157
E-mail: mason.mark@epa.gov
Office of Pesticide Programs (OFF)
Keaney, Kevin
U.S. EPA (7506C)
Office of Pesticide Programs
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 703-305-5557
E-mail: keaney.kevin@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Osorio, Ana Marie
U.S. EPA (7506C)
Office of Pesticide Programs
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 703-305-7891
E-mail: osorio.anamarie@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Rieder, Daniel
U.S. EPA (7507C)
Office of Pesticide Programs
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 703-305-5314
E-mail: rieder.daniel@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Sweeney, Kevin
U.S. EPA (7505C)
Office of Pesticide Programs
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 703-305-5063
E-mail: sweeney.kevin@epa.gov
(Speaker)
Sandvig, Renee
U.S. EPA (7509C)
Office of Pesticide Programs
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 703-305-5450
E-mail: sandvig.renee@epa.gov
IV-12
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
OPEI/National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE)
Miller, Greg
U.S. EPA (MC-2174)
OPEI/National Center for Environmental Economics
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-260-6217
Fax: 202-401-0454
E-mail: miller.gregory@epa.gov
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Nasci, Roger
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Division of Vector-Borne Infectious Diseases (DVBID)
P.O. Box 2087
Ft. Collins, CO 80522-2087
Tel: 970-221-6432
E-mail: rsnO@cdc.gov
(Speaker)
New York City - Department of Health
Miller, James
Department of Health Box 22A
Parasitic Disease Unit
125 Worth St., Room 326
New York, NY 10013
Tel: 212-788-9636
E-mail: jmiller@dohlan.cn.ci.nyc.ny.us
(Speaker)
New York State - Department of Health
Chinery, Robert
New York Department of Health
Center for Environmental Health
Flanigan Square, 5th Floor
547 River Street
Troy, NY 12180-2216
Tel: 518-402-7511
Fax: 518-402-7509
E-mail: rlc07@health.state.ny.us
Leach, James
New York Department of Health
Center for Environmental Health
Flanigan Square, 3rd Floor
547 River Street
Troy, NY 12180-2216
Tel: 518-402-7820
Fax: 518-402-7819
E-mail: jfl03@health.state.ny.us
IV-13
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
Appendix V: Slides from Presentations
1. Opening Remarks
2. Methyl Parathion Misuse
3. The Movement and Deposition of Pesticides
Following Their Application In and Around
Dwellings
4. Exposure Routes and Pathways: Indoor
Factors and Scenarios
5. Models for Estimating Exposure
6. Drift from Agricultural Fields to Nearby Homes,
Farms, and Gardens
7. Overview and Application of the AgDRIFTModel
for Agricultural Spraying
8. Multimedia, Multipathway Aggregate Exposure
Modeling
9. Spray Drift and Risk Management Tools
10. New York City Spraying ofMalathion to Control
Mosquitoes Carrying West Nile Virus
11. Mosquito-Proof New York City
12. West Nile Virus: Evaluating Risk
13. Malathion Application for Control of West Nile
Virus Vectors: Pesticide Risk and Exposure
14. Exposure Implications: Methods, Measurements,
and Models
15. Pesticides and Worker Health
16. Exposures to Children
17. Measuring the Effects of Exposure on Children
18. Treatment of Pesticides in Drinking Water
19. Lake Apopka Birdkill: Winter 1998-1999
20. Environmental Databases, Office of Pesticide
Programs
21. Pesticide Ecological Risk Assessment
David Klauder
John Ward
Dan Stout/Bob Lewis/Renee Falconer
Linda Sheldon
Haluk Ozkaynak
Ray Chavira
Sandy Bird/Steven Perry
Haluk Ozkaynak
John Kinsey
Henry Rupp
James Miller
Roger Nasci
Kevin Sweeney
Daniel Vallero
AnaMaria Osorio
Chuck Steen/Linda Sheldon/Chris Saint
Pauline Mendola
Tom Speth
Anne Keller
Dan Rieder
Dan Rieder
V-l
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Pesticides Workshop Summary Report
October 31-November 2, 2000
22. Overview of Aquatic and Terrestrial Toxicity
Databases & Introduction to ORD Wildlife
Strategy
23. Aquatic and Terrestrial Exposure Models
24. Nonpoint Source Assessment in Agricultural
Watersheds and Stream Riparian Zones:
Modeling and GIS
25. Current and Future Implications of Biotechnology
to Chemical Pesticide Use
Rick Bennet
Larry Burns
Mohamed Hantush
Bob Frederick
V-2
------- |