C Appendix E/ Table 31: Carbaryl Occupational Postapplication Cancer Risk Assessment For Leafy Vegetable Crop Group Risk values are presented for each exposure duration considered in the assessment (i. e., short term and intermediate term duration exposures, respectively).

C Appendix E/ Table 33: Carbaryl Occupational Postapplication Cancer Risk Assessment For Root Vegetable Crop Group Risk values are presented for each exposure duration considered in the assessment (i. e., short term and intermediate term duration exposures, respectively). C Appendix E/ Table 35: Carbaryl Occupational Postapplication Cancer Risk Assessment For Vine Crop Group Risk values are presented for each exposure duration considered in 87 the assessment (i. e., short term and intermediate term duration exposures, respectively).

C Appendix E/ Table 37: Carbaryl Occupational Postapplication Cancer Risk Assessment For Nursery Stock Crop Group Risk values are presented for each exposure duration considered in the assessment (i. e., short term and intermediate term duration exposures, respectively).

Cancer risks for private growers (i. e., 10 exposures/ year) and commercial farmworkers (i. e., 30 exposures/ year) were calculated for different crop groups as described above and summarized in Table 19 below. Within each crop group, differing transfer coefficients were used to represent various types of cultural practices. Current label requirements specify 12 hour REIs. For all scenarios, cancer risks are <1x10 4 on the day of application (i. e., at the current REI). Likewise, cancer risks are <1x10 6 on the day of application for most crop/ activity scenarios with private growers and also for low to medium exposures for commercial farmworkers. In fact, risks for all scenarios were in the 10 6 range in all but three scenarios for commercial farmworkers participating in very high exposure activities (e. g., sweetcorn handharvesting) on the day of application. In these three cases, risks were in the 10 5 range on the day of application. For private growers, it takes up to approximately 5 days for risks to decline to <1x10 6 for crop/ activity combinations that exceed 1x10 6 on the day of application. For commercial farmworkers, it takes up to approximately 8 days for risks to reach the target level of concern of <1x10 6 . The 1996 Barolo memo which focused on cancer risk management should be considered in the interpretation of these results. Current label requirements appear to be adequate for all postapplication cancer risks if the 10 4 range is used for risk management. If the 10 6 risk range is considered, it also appears that the current REI appears adequate to address cancer risks for many crop/ activity combinations. However, for higher exposure situations, longer duration REIs are predicted. In all cases, REIs predicted based on cancer risks are less restrictive or similar (i. e., within a day or two for commercial farmworkers) than those predicted based on the noncancer effects of carbaryl. In no cases do cancer risks indicate more restrictive REIs than for noncancer risks calculated for the corresponding crop/ activity exposure scenario.

Table 19: Summary of Carbaryl Cancer Postapplication Worker Risks Crop Group Result Type Exposure Descriptor (From Policy 003/ See Appendix E)

Very Low Low Medium High Very High Low Berry Private Grower Day 0 Risk NA 1.7 x 10 7 NA 6.2x 10 7 NA Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 NA 0 NA Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk NA 5.0 x 10 7 NA 1.9x 10 6 NA Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 NA 4 NA Table 19: Summary of Carbaryl Cancer Postapplication Worker Risks Crop Group Result Type Exposure Descriptor (From Policy 003/ See Appendix E)

Very Low Low Medium High Very High 88 Bunch/ Bundle Private Grower Day 0 Risk NA 7.4 x 10 8 9.6x 10 7 1.5x 10 6 NA Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 0 2 NA Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk NA 2.2 x 10 7 2.9x 10 6 4.4x 10 6 NA Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 5 8 NA Low /Med. Field/ Row Crops Private Grower Day 0 Risk NA 3.1x 10 8 4.7x 10 7 7.8x 10 7 NA Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 0 0 NA Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk NA 9.3x 10 8 1.4x 10 6 2.3x 10 6 NA Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 2 5 NA Tall Field/ Row Crops Private Grower Day 0 Risk NA 1.2 x 10 7 5.0 x 10 7 1.2 x 10 6 2.1 x 10 5 Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 NA0 0 223 Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk NA 3.7 x 10 7 1.5 x 10 6 3.7 x 10 6 8.5 x 10 5 Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 3 10 31 Cut Flowers Private Grower Day 0 Risk NA 1.0 x 10 6 1.7 x 10 6 2.9 x 10 6 NA Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 3 6 NA Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk NA 3.1 x 10 6 5.0 x 10 6 8.7 x 10 6 NA Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 NA 6 9 12 NA Sugarcane Private Grower Day 0 Risk NA NA 5.6 x 10 7 1.1 x 10 6 NA Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 NA NA 0 1 NA Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk NA NA 1.7 x 10 6 3.3 x 10 6 NA Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 NA NA 3 6 NA Decid. Fruit Trees Private Grower Day 0 Risk 2.1 x 10 8 2.1 x 10 7 NA 6.3 x 10 7 NA Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 0 0NA0NA Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk 6.3 x 10 8 6.3 x 10 7 NA 1.9 x 10 6 NA Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 0 0NA6NA Evergreen Fruit Trees Private Grower Day 0 Risk 5.2 x 10 8 5.2 x 10 7 1.6 x 10 6 NA NA Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 0 0 5 NA NA Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk 1.6 x 10 7 1.6 x 10 6 4.7 x 10 6 NA NA Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 0 5 16 NA NA Nut Trees Private Grower Day 0 Risk NA 1.7 x 10 7 NA 8.7 x 10 7 NA Table 19: Summary of Carbaryl Cancer Postapplication Worker Risks Crop Group Result Type Exposure Descriptor (From Policy 003/ See Appendix E)

Very Low Low Medium High Very High 89 Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 NA 0 NA Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk NA 5.7 x 10 7 NA 2.6 x 10 6 NA Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 NA 10 NA Turf/ Sod Private Grower Day 0 Risk NA 8.1 x 10 8 NA 2.7 x 10 6 NA Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 NA 2 NA Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk NA 2.4 x 10 7 NA 8.0 x 10 6 NA Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 NA 4 NA Root Veg. Private Grower Day 0 Risk NA 1.2 x 10 7 6.2 x 10 7 1.0 x 10 6 NA Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 0 0 NA Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk NA 3.7 x 10 7 1.9 x 10 6 3.1 x 10 6 NA Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 4 6 NA Cucurbit Veg. Private Grower Day 0 Risk NA 2.1 x 10 7 6.2 x 10 7 1.0 x 10 6 NA Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 0 0 NA Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk NA 6.2 x 10 7 1.9 x 10 6 3.1 x 10 6 NA Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 4 6 NA Fruiting Veg. Private Grower Day 0 Risk NA 2.1 x 10 7 2.9 x 10 7 4.1 x 10 7 NA Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 0 0 NA Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk NA 6.2 x 10 7 8.7 x 10 7 1.2 x 10 6 NA Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 0 1 NA Brassica Private Grower Day 0 Risk NA 8.3 x 10 7 1.7 x 10 6 2.1 x 10 6 NA Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 3 4 NA Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk NA 2.5 x 10 6 5.0 x 10 6 6.2 x 10 6 NA Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 NA 5 9 10 NA Leafy Veg. Private Grower Day 0 Risk NA 2.1 x 10 7 6.2 x 10 7 1.0 x 10 6 NA Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 0 0 NA Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk NA 6.2 x 10 7 1.9 x 10 6 3.1 x 10 6 NA Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 4 6 NA Stem/ stalk Veg. Private Grower Day 0 Risk NA 2.2 x 10 7 3.7 x 10 7 7.4 x 10 7 NA Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 0 0 NA Table 19: Summary of Carbaryl Cancer Postapplication Worker Risks Crop Group Result Type Exposure Descriptor (From Policy 003/ See Appendix E)

Very Low Low Medium High Very High 90 Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk NA 6.7 x 10 7 1.1 x 10 6 2.2 x 10 6 NA Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 1 4 NA Vine/ trellis Private Grower Day 0 Risk NA 2.1 x 10 7 4.1 x 10 7 2.1 x 10 6 4.1 x 10 6 Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 NA0 0 4 8 Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk NA 6.2 x 10 7 1.2 x 10 6 6.2 x 10 6 1.2 x 10 5 Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 1 10 13 Nursery/ Ornamentals Private Grower Day 0 Risk NA 4.5 x 10 8 7.2 x 10 8 1.7 x 10 7 NA Private Grower Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 0 0 NA Com.. Farmworker Day 0 Risk NA 1.4 x 10 7 2.2 x 10 7 5.0 x 10 7 NA Com.. Farmworker Days < 1x10 6 NA 0 0 0 NA NA = Exposure descriptor not applicable for that crop group.

2.2.5 Summary of Occupational Postapplication Risk Concerns and Data Gaps Current label requirements specify 12 hour REIs. For all but the lowest exposure scenarios in some crops, MOEs do not meet or exceed required uncertainty factors until several days after application. If short term risks are considered, MOEs meet or exceed the Agency uncertainty factor generally in the range of 3 to 5 days after application for lower to medium exposure activities and from 8 to 12 days after application in most higher exposure scenarios. If intermediate term risks are considered, MOEs are not of concern based on a 30 day average exposures except for higher level exposures such as harvesting in some crops. Chronic exposures are of concern for the cut flower industry but not for other general greenhouse and nursery production activities based on the most recent ARTF data.

Cancer risks were calculated for private growers and professional farmworkers with the only difference being the annual frequency of exposure days. Cancer risks for private growers and commercial farmworkers are generally in the 10 8 to 10 6 range on the day of application. If a 1x10 4 cancer risk is the target, the current REI would be adequate for all scenarios considered in the 91 assessment. If a 1x10 6 cancer risk is used, then durations longer than the current REI should be considered for some cases which are not considered low to medium exposures. It should be noted that the cancer risk calculations are less restrictive than noncancer risk estimates for the same scenarios in all cases.

The Agency has used the latest information to complete this postapplication risk assessment for carbaryl. Several data gaps exist such as a lack of exposure data on mechanized or partially mechanized cultural practices where there is a potential for exposure. Additionally, because of the number and breadth of carbaryl uses, there may be many exposure pathways where the transfer coefficient approach is not an appropriate model (e. g., hand transplanting where no foliar contact occurs) that have not been quantitatively addressed due to a lack of data.

2.2.6 Recommendations For Refining Occupational Postapplication Risk Assessment To refine this occupational risk assessment, data on actual use patterns including rates, timing, and the kinds of tasks that are required to produce agricultural commodities and other products would better characterize carbaryl risks. Exposure studies for many cultural practices that lack data or that are not well represented in the revised transfer coefficient policy should also be considered based on the data gaps identified above. Risk managers should consider that the risks associated with the current label REI generally do not meet Agency risk targets.

2.3 Occupational Risk Characterization 2.3.1 Handler Characterization The occupational handler assessment for carbaryl is complex in that three different types of noncancer risk calculations were required based on the recently selected endpoints. The durations of exposure that were considered for noncancer toxicity were short term ( 30 days), intermediateterm (30 days up to several months), and chronic (every working day). A complete array of calculations was completed for all identified exposure scenarios using the short and intermediateterm endpoints because the Agency believes that carbaryl uses fit the criteria for both of these durations. The only calculations that were completed using the chronic endpoint were limited and those associated with the greenhouse and floriculture industries where these kinds of exposures may occur. Cancer risks were also calculated using a linear, low dose extrapolation model (i. e., Q1*) for both private growers (i. e., 10 application days per year) and for those who may more actively use carbaryl such as a commercial applicator (i. e., 30 application days per year). Cancer calculations were completed as well for every scenario that has been identified for both private growers and commercial applicators. For all of the different types of endpoints selected (except chronic where a limited number of calculations were completed), the Agency identified exposures that fit into 28 different scenarios which are defined based on the equipment used to make applications or the type of formulation used. Within each of these categories, different application rates and acres treated values were considered to evaluate the broad range of applications that may occur with each kind of equipment (e. g., a groundboom may be used for turf or agriculture). All totaled, 128 different crop/ rate/ acres combinations were considered within the 28 scenarios for the short and 92 intermediate term toxicity categories plus 4 chronic crop/ rate/ acre combinations. The overall result is that 4 sets of 128 calculations each (516 total calculations) were completed for occupational carbaryl handlers. Finally, it should be noted that each calculation was completed at different levels of personal protection to allow for a more informed risk management decision. Even given the scope of the calculations that have already been completed, it is likely that there are some uses of carbaryl that have not been quantitatively addressed in this document either through lack of exposure data or other information and because carbaryl is such a widely used chemical. These scenarios will be addressed by the Agency when they are identified as carbaryl progresses through the reregistration process. Readers are also encouraged to evaluate novel scenarios by considering the range of estimates already completed as it is likely that many uses could be quantitatively assessed by reviewing those calculations as a wide array of chemical use combinations and equipment types have already been considered.

The data that were used in the carbaryl occupational handler risk assessment represent the best data and approaches that are currently available. While some of the data which have been used may not be of optimal quality, they represent the best available data for the scenario in question. In many cases, the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) was used to develop the unit exposure values. The quality of the data included in PHED vary widely from scenarios that meet guideline requirements for studies to others where a limited number of poor quality datapoints are available. The results for each scenario should be reviewed in the context of the quality of these data. In addition to PHED, the Agency used a number of studies to define unit exposure values. Generally, the quality of these studies is excellent. Most, except for the trigger sprayer data, are very recent and based on the newest analytical requirements and monitoring techniques. PHED unit exposure values represent a central tendency of the data (i. e., geometric mean, median or arithmetic mean depending upon the distribution of the data). As such, the values based on the recent studies also are measures of central tendency (e. g., the geometric means were selected from each study for assessment purposes in most cases). Along with the unit exposure values used in the assessment, other inputs include application rates and daily acres treated values. Selected application rates represent a range for each major market in which carbaryl is used including agriculture, turf (lawncare, golf courses, etc.), ornamentals, and for wide area applications such as mosquito control. Many application rates also represent maximum amounts that are allowed by the label for certain settings. Where available, average use rates were also used to provide for a more informed risk management decision. The application rates that were selected for use in the risk assessment were defined based on labels, information provided by the Aventis Corporation at the September 24, 1998 SMART Meeting for carbaryl, and based on various analyses of carbaryl use patterns completed by the Agency's Biological and Economic Analysis Division. The other key input for completing handler risk assessments used for defining how much chemical can be used in a day is how much can be treated in a day which is generally expressed as the number of acres treated per day. The values that were used for this parameter represent the latest Agency thinking on this issue. In fact, the Science Advisory Council For Exposure recently updated the policy for these inputs (July 2000 Exposure SAC Policy 9: Standard Values for Daily Acres Treated in Agriculture). These most recent values have been used for the calculations.

In addition to the key sources of information considered above, there are many underlying factors that may impact the overall results of a risk assessment. For example, the protection factors 93 used for adding additional levels of dermal and respiratory protection may impact the overall risk picture. The factors used in this assessment by the Agency are the ones that have been used for several years. Other such factors may include the fact that average application rates have been generally used to represent typical application rates to calculate ranges of risks when it is clear that the two values could differ greatly. The Agency has taken this approach because the data required to define typical application rates within each crop are generally unavailable. There are also exposure monitoring issues that should be considered. For example, in many cases the data included in PHED are based on the use of cotton gloves for hand exposure monitoring which are thought by many to overestimate exposure because they potentially retain residues more than human skin would over time (i. e., they may act like a sponge compared to the actual hand). A similar issue was noted with the carbaryl specific dog grooming study that used the handwash approach to monitor exposure after shampooing several dogs. These intangible elements of the risk assessment reflect many of the hidden uncertainties associated with exposure data. The overall impacts of these uncertainties is hard to quantify. The factor to again consider is that the Agency used the best available data to complete the risk assessment for carbaryl.

In summary, the Agency believes that the risk values presented in this occupational assessment represent the highest quality results that could be produced given the exposure, use, and toxicology data that are available. Certainly risk managers and other interested parties should consider the quality of individual inputs when interpreting the results and make decisions accordingly. It is difficult to ascertain where on a distribution the values which have been calculated fall because the distributional data for exposure, application rates, acres treated and many other parameters are unrefined. The Agency does believe, however, that the risks represent conservative estimates of exposure because maximum application rates are coupled with large acreage estimates to define risk estimates that likely fall in the upper percentiles of the actual exposure distributions. Additionally, risk estimates are thought to be conservative even when measures of central tendency are combined because values that would be considered to be in the lower percentile aspect of any input parameter have not been used in the calculations.

2.3.2 Postapplication Characterization Like the occupational handler risk assessment discussed above, the postapplication worker risk assessment for carbaryl is also complex in that three different types of noncancer risk calculations were required based on the recently selected endpoints along with cancer risk calculations using a linear, low dose extrapolation model. For all of the different types of endpoints selected (except chronic where a limited number of calculations were completed), the Agency identified exposures that fit into 18 different crop groups which are defined essentially based on the nature of the crop where a work activity would take place. Within each of these crop groups, ranges of transfer coefficients were considered to reflect differences in exposures that would be associated with the variety of cultural practices that are required to produce the crop/ product. All totaled, 54 different cultural practices were considered within the 18 crop groups for each toxicity category. The overall result is that 4 sets of 54 calculations each (216 plus a few chronic values) were completed for postapplication workers. Finally, it should be noted that each calculation was completed at different days after application to reflect residue dissipation over time in the environment and to allow for a more informed risk management decision. Even given the scope of 94 the calculations that have already been completed, it is likely that there are some uses of carbaryl that have not been quantitatively addressed in this document either through lack of exposure data or other information and because carbaryl is such a widely used chemical. These scenarios will be addressed by the Agency when they are identified as carbaryl progresses through the reregistration process. Readers are also encouraged to evaluate novel scenarios by considering the range of estimates already completed as it is likely that many uses could be quantitatively assessed by reviewing existing calculations as a wide array of crop/ activity combinations have already been considered.

The data that were used in the carbaryl postaapplication worker risk assessment represent the best data and approaches that are currently available. The latest Agency transfer coefficient values have been used to complete this assessment including the recently submitted ARTF studies on greenhouse workers. Most of the values in the current Agency policy are based on the work of the Agricultural Reentry Task Force (ARTF) of which, Aventis is a member. The current Agency policy is interim in nature but represents all of the data that have been submitted by the ARTF and evaluated by the Agency. The work of the ARTF is still ongoing so additional data may become available to refine the exposure estimates as more data are submitted to the Agency. Also, it is possible that there are exposure scenarios that have not been addressed by the Agency because the transfer coefficient model is not appropriate as there is little or no foliar contact associated with the activity. There are also potentially, partially mechanized activities that could lead to exposure where the Agency has no information. These will need to be carefully considered in the reregistration process. In addition to the exposure inputs for specific activities (i. e., transfer coefficients), the Agency used 4 carbaryl specific DFR (Dislodgeable Foliar Residue) dissipation studies and a single TTR (Turf Transferable Residue) study to calculate risks for all postapplication workers in every region in the country. It is standard practice for the Agency to use these kinds of studies in this manner but it is likely that additional crop and region specific data could be used to further refine the risk assessment. Several other key pieces of data and information were considered in the development of the postapplication risk values including use and usage information and exposure frequency in the cancer risk assessment. For many agricultural crops, the maximum application rate is low (e. g., 1.5 to 2 lb ai/ acre) in many crops. As a result, postapplication risks were generally calculated at maximum rate levels because of the already inherent complexity of the assessment and because it is likely that results may not be extremely sensitive to changes in this value.

In addition to the key sources of information considered above, there are many underlying factors that may impact the overall results of a risk assessment. For example, subtle differences between activities in similar crops within each of the 18 agronomic groups considered in the assessment may not be accurately reflected in the current transfer coefficient values. The use of 4 DFR studies to represent all crops and all regions within the country could lead to results that do not reflect actual use practices and conditions in some parts of the country. Additionally, the exposure frequency values that were used for private growers and professional farmworkers tend to be supported by available data but could be refined if data on work patterns and regional carbaryl use becomes available. As with the handler assessment above, the intangible elements reflect many of the hidden uncertainties associated with exposure data. The overall impacts of these uncertainties is hard to quantify. The factor to again consider is that the Agency used the best available data to 95 complete the risk assessment for carbaryl.

In summary, the Agency believes that the risk values presented in this postapplication assessment represent the highest quality results that could be produced given the exposure, use, and toxicology data that are available. Certainly risk managers and other interested parties should consider the quality of individual inputs when interpreting the results and make decisions accordingly. It is difficult to ascertain where on a distribution the values which have been calculated fall because the distributional data for exposure, residue dissipation and many other parameters are unrefined. The Agency does believe, however, that the risks represent conservative estimates of exposure because maximum application rates are used to define residue levels upon which the risk calculations are based. Additionally, risk estimates are thought to be conservative even when measures of central tendency (e. g., most transfer coefficients are thought to be central tendency) are used because values that would be considered to be in the lower percentile aspect of any input parameter have not been used in the calculations.

3.0 Residential and Other Non Occupational Exposures and Risks It has been determined there is a potential for exposure in residential settings during the application process for homeowners who purchase and use products containing carbaryl. There is also a potential for exposure from entering areas previously treated with carbaryl such as lawns where children might play or golf courses and homegardens that could lead to exposures for adults. Carbaryl is also labeled for mosquito adulticide use which has been considered in this assessment. As a result, risk assessments have been completed for both residential handler and postapplication scenarios. Residential handler exposures and risks are addressed in Section 3.1: Residential Handler Exposures and Risks while residential post application risks for adults and children are presented and summarized in Section 3.2: Residential Post Application Exposures and Risks. The calculated risks are characterized in Section 3.3: Residential Risk Characterization.

3.1 Residential Handler Exposures and Risks The Agency uses the term "Handlers" to describe those individuals who are involved in the pesticide application process. The agency believes that there are distinct tasks related to applications and that exposures can vary depending on the specifics of each task as was described above for occupational handlers. Residential handlers are addressed somewhat differently by the Agency as homeowners are assumed to complete all elements of an application with little use of any protective equipment. The scenarios that serve as the basis for the risk assessment are presented in Section 3.1.1: Handler Exposure Scenarios. The exposure data and assumptions that have been used for the calculations are presented in Section 3.1.2: Data and Assumptions For Handler Exposure Scenarios. The calculations and the algorithms that have been used for the noncancer elements of the risk assessment as well as the risk values are presented in Section 3.1.3: Handler Exposure and Non Cancer Risk Estimates while the analogous information using the Q1* for cancer estimates are presented in Section 3.1.4: Handler Exposure and Risk Estimates For Cancer. Section 3.1.5: Summary of Risk Concerns and Data Gaps For Handlers presents the overall risk picture for carbaryl. Finally, recommendations are presented in Section 3.1.6: Recommendations For Refining Residential Handler Risk Assessment. 96 3.1.1 Handler Exposure Scenarios Scenarios are again used, as with the occupational handler risk assessment above, to define risks based on the U. S. EPA Guidelines For Exposure Assessment (U. S. EPA; Federal Register Volume 57, Number 104; May 29, 1992). The purpose of this section is to describe how the exposure scenarios were defined. Much of the process for residential uses is identical to that considered for the occupational assessment with a few notable exceptions that include:

° Residential handler exposure scenarios are only considered to be short term in nature due to the episodic uses associated with homeowner products, as a result, no intermediate term or chronic assessments were completed for handlers;

° A tiered approach for personal protection using increasing levels of PPE is not used in residential handler risk assessments, rather than using PPE, homeowner handler assessments are completed based on individuals using shorts and short sleeved shirts;

° Homeowner handlers are expected to complete all tasks associated with the use of a pesticide product including mixing/ loading if needed as well as the application;

° Label use rates and use information specific to residential products serve as the basis for the risk calculations as opposed to the rates used in the occupational assessment; and ° Area/ volumes of spray or chemical used in the risk assessment are based on Agency guidance specific to residential use patterns.

It has been determined that exposure to pesticide handlers is likely during the residential use of carbaryl in a variety of environments including on lawns, gardens and ornamentals, and pets. The anticipated use patterns and current labeling indicate 17 major residential exposure scenarios based on the types of equipment and techniques that can potentially be used to make carbaryl applications. The quantitative exposure/ risk assessment developed for residential handlers is based on these scenarios. [Note: The scenario numbers correspond to the tables of risk calculations included in the occupational risk calculation aspects of the appendices.]

(1) Garden Uses: Ready to use Trigger Sprayer; (2) Garden Uses: Ornamental Duster; (3) Garden Uses: Hose end Sprayer; (4) Garden Uses: Low Pressure Handwand; (5) Tree/ ornamental Uses: Low Pressure Handwand; (6) Tree/ ornamental Uses: Hose end Sprayer; (7) Garden Uses: Backpack Sprayer; (8) Lawncare Liquid Uses: Hose end Sprayer; (9) Pet (Dog and Cat) Uses: Dusting; (10) Pet (Dog and Cat) Uses: Liquid Application; (11) Lawncare Granular and Bait Uses: Belly Grinder; (12) Lawncare Granular and Bait Uses: Push type Spreader; 97 (13) Ornamental and Garden Uses: Granulars and Baits By Hand; (14) Various Pest Uses: Aerosol Cans; (15) Pet (Dog and Cat) Uses: Collars; (16) Garden and Ornamental Uses: Sprinkler Can; and (17) Garden and Ornamental Uses: Paint on.

3.1.2 Data and Assumptions For Handler Exposure Scenarios A series of assumptions and exposure factors served as the basis for completing the residential handler risk assessments. Each assumption and factor is detailed below. In addition to these factors, unit exposure values were used to calculate risk estimates. Mostly, these unit exposure values were taken from the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED). In other cases, chemical specific exposure data were submitted to support the reregistration of carbaryl. Both PHED and the individual studies are presented below. [Note: Several of the assumptions and factors used for the assessment are similar to those used in the occupational assessment presented above. As such, only factors that are unique to the residential scenarios are presented below.]

Assumptions and Factors: The assumptions and factors used in the risk calculations include:

C Carbaryl is one of the most widely used pesticide chemicals. It has an extraordinary number of use patterns that are impossible to completely capture in this document. As such, the Agency has patterned this risk assessment on a series of likely representative scenarios that are believed to represent the vast majority of carbaryl uses. Refinements to the assessment will be made as more detailed information about carbaryl use patterns become available.

C Exposure factors used to calculate daily exposures to handlers were based on applicable data if available. For lack of appropriate data, values from a scenario deemed similar enough by the assessor might be used. As an example, mixer/ loader/ applicator data for hose end sprayers were used to assess sprinkler can applications. The nature of these application methods are believed to be similar enough to bridge the data. There were other instances where the Agency bridged specific data to represent other scenarios. See Appendix G/ Table 1 for more details. 98 C The exposure duration (i. e., years per lifetime) values used by the Agency in the cancer risk assessment were consistent with those used for other chemicals (i. e., 50 years with home use chemicals and 70 year lifetime).

C The Agency always considers the maximum application rates allowed by labels in its risk assessments to consider what is legally possible based on the label. If additional information such as average or typical rates are available, these values are also used to allow risk managers to make a more informed risk management decision. Average application rates were available from the SMART meeting and BEAD's QUA. These data indicated that in most cases, average application rates differed from maximum application rates on average by a factor of two. In some other cases, the average application rates identified from the studies conducted by Aventis were also used to define "average study use rate values" which were included in the calculations to provide for a more informed risk management decision.

° Residential risk assessments were not based on what could be applied in a typical workday like with the occupational risk assessments presented above. Instead, the Agency based calculations on what would reasonably be treated by homeowners such as the size of a lawn, or the size of a garden. This information was used by the Agency to define chemical throughput values for handlers which in turn were coupled with unit exposure values to calculate risks. The factors used for the carbaryl assessment were those dictated in the Health Effects Division Science Advisory Committee Policy 12: Recommended Revisions To The Standard Operating Procedures For Residential Exposure Assessment which was completed on February 22, 2001. [Note: Information presented at SMART meeting did not include event specific information that would cause the Agency to use different values than those presented below.] The following daily volumes handled and area treated, excerpted from the policy and used in each residential scenario, include:

° 1 container of each ready to use non pet product including garden dusts, trigger sprayers and aerosol cans (scenarios for 25 and 50 % used of the total product volume were also presented for the trigger sprayer and garden dust scenarios to allow for a more informed risk management decision); ° ½ container of each ready to use pet products including dusts and liquid shampoos; ° 1 pet collar; ° 100 gallons of finished spray output for hose end sprayers; ° 5 gallons when mixing/ loading/ applying liquids with a backpack sprayer or a low pressure handwand sprayer, value was also used for sprinkler can applications; ° 1 gallon of paint on solution for ornamental/ garden uses; ° 20,000 square feet is used to represent the surface area treated for broadcast applications to lawns; ° 1000 square feet is used as the treatment area for many spot applications in lawns, gardens, and ornamentals (this value used as appropriate when application rates were based on a square foot basis for spot type treatments); and ° 5 mounds per day treated for fire ant applications. 99 ° At the September 24, 1998 SMART Meeting with the Agency, the Aventis Corporation supplied data focused on the use patterns for carbaryl. The information presented at that meeting supports the inputs used by the Agency in this risk assessment. Several key factors have been summarized below for residential users of carbaryl: ° Carbaryl accounted for approximately 9 percent of the residential insecticide market and was ranked 4 th on the list behind the pyrtethroids, chlorpyrifos, and diazinon [Note: This may be different in 2001 because of registration changes for other chemicals]; ° The maximum turf application rate noted was 8 lb ai/ acre by lawns/ landscape services on residential turf; ° Insect control on vegetables (~ 58% of users), annuals (~ 50% of users), lawns (~ 35% of users), trees/ shrubs (~ 34% of users) account for the majority of uses for carbaryl; ° Pet uses account for ~13 percent of users; ° The annual frequency for use was reported to be 1 (34 th %tile) to 2 times per year (60 th %tile) and 5 times per year (84 th %tile); ° Aphids, ants, fire ants, fleas, and slugs/ snails are the most predominantly controlled pests by residential carbaryl users (~ 30% down to 15% of uses, respectively); ° Most (75%) of vegetable gardens treated with carbaryl are <800 ft 2 but ~8 percent are between 800 and 1500 ft 2 , ~9 percent are between 1500 and 5000 ft 2 , and ~6 percent are greater than 5000 ft 2 ; ° Tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, beans, and fruit trees represent the most treated garden plants; ° Most (82%) of flower gardens treated with carbaryl are <500 ft 2 but ~10 percent are between 500 and 1200 ft 2 , and ~8 percent are greater than 1200 ft 2 ; ° Roses, shrubs, and certain annuals represent the most treated flowering/ ornamental plants; and ° Dusts (65%) and liquid concentrate (25%) account for most carbaryl sales in the residential annual market of ~2.2M pounds active ingredient per year.

° The Aventis Corporation provided data for freqency of annual use among residential applicators that had been used to calculate cancer risks for adults in the general population. These data show that the 50 th percentile is between 1 and 2 uses per year so all cancer risks have been calculated based on a single use event per year. Risk managers should consider this element in their interpretation of the overall results. For example, there might be a smaller population of more frequent users (e. g., 84 th %tile = 5 times per year) that maintain high frequencies of use over their lifetimes which is critical for consideration in cancer risk assessment. Longitudinal data, however, were not available to establish that such populations definitively exist. Additionally, the Agency calculated the number of days exposure per year that would be required to exceed a risk level of 1.0x10 6 to illustrate an exposure limit in order to allow for a more informed risk management decision.

° For pet collar uses, Agency policy outlined in the Residential SOPs, was used to define the exposure level associated with putting the collar on an animal. The SOPs specify 1 percent of the total active ingredient in the collar is considered equal to the exposure. 100 ° For turf, the maximum application rate that was indicated at the SMART meeting was 8 lb ai/ acre even though current labels allow for applications by homeowners at up to 11 lb ai/ acre for Lock n load type packages and 9 lb ai/ acre for granulars.

Residential Handler Exposure Studies: The unit exposure values that were used in this assessment were based on three carbaryl specific residential handler studies which quantified exposures during pet treatments with a dust; applications to gardens using a ready to use trigger sprayer, a dust, a hose end sprayer, and a low pressure handwand; and during applications to trees using a low pressure handwand and a hose end sprayer. Two other studies completed by the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force and the Pesticide Handler Exposure Database (PHED, Version 1.1 August 1998) were also used as sources of surrogate information. For pet collars only, a scenario from the SOPs For Residential Exposure Assessment not based on monitoring data was used to calculate exposures. A citation for each study as well as a brief summary is provided below. [Note: PHED is described above in Section 2.1.2, refer to that section for further information.]

° Carbaryl Applicator Exposure Study During Application of Sevin ® 5 Dust to Dogs By the Non Professional. Agrisearch Study No. 1517. EPA MRID 444399 01. Report date August 22, 1997; Authors: D. Larry Merricks, Ph. D., Sponsor: Rhone Poulenc Ag Company.

° Carbaryl Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Exposure Study during Application of RP 2 Liquid (21%) Sevin ® Ready to Use Insect Spray or Sevin ® 10 Dust to Home Garden Vegetables. Agrisearch Study No. 1519. EPA MRID 444598 01. Report dated August 22, 1998, Author; Thomas C. Mester, Ph. D., Sponsor: Rhone Poulenc Ag Company.

° Carbaryl Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Exposure Study during Application of RP 2 Liquid (21%) to Fruit Trees and Ornamental Plants. Agrisearch Study No. 1518. MRID 445185 01. Report dated January 23, 1998. Author D. Larry Merricks, Ph. D., Sponsor: Rhone Poulenc Ag Company.

°" Integrated Report For Evaluation of Potential Exposures To Homeowners and Professional Lawncare Operators Mixing, Loading, and Applying Granular And Liquid Pesticides To Residential Lawns " EPA MRID 449722 01; October 10, 1999; Author: Dennis R. Klonne, Ph. D.; Sponsor: Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force; EPA Review by Gary Bangs (April 30, 2001).

[Note to Chemical Review Manager: Appendix F contains the data excerpted from each of the carbaryl specific studies which were recently completed by the Aventis Corporation. Some of the handler exposure data used in this assessment are from the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force (ORETF). There is no data compensation issue associated with the use of the ORETF data in the carbaryl risk assessment because the Aventis Corporation, the registrant for carbaryl, is a member of the ORETF. The task force recently submitted proprietary data to the Agency on hoseend sprayers and push type granular spreaders for residential handlers (MRID # 44972201). The ORETF data were used in this assessment in place of PHED data. The ORETF data were designed to replace the present PHED data with higher confidence, higher quality data that contains more 101 replicates than the PHED data for those scenarios. Finally, the Agency identified several occupational exposure studies from the literature by investigators such as Kurtz and Bode. These data have not been used by the Agency quantitatively in this assessment because of several issues but were qualitatively considered and also used to confirm the currently used exposure data.]

MRID 44439901 (Carbaryl homeowner dog dusting study): The objective of the study was to measure homeowner dermal and respiratory exposure to carbaryl while dusting 3 dogs for fleas using Sevin® 5 Dust. The dogs were from a local facility and varied in size and fur length. The product was supplied to the handlers in 1 lb. Ortho Sevin ® 5 Dust canisters. The handlers opened the can, shook the product onto the dogs coat and rubbed the dust into the fur. The first replicate consisted of each applicator applying dust to 3 dogs of varying size with chemical resistant gloves on. The first set of monitoring devices, handwashes and face/ neck wipes and air monitors were taken and replaced with a clean set of dosimeters on the same person for the second set of replicates. The second replicate was the same handler applying Ortho ® Sevin ® 5 Dust without gloves on 3 dogs. A total of 40 replicates were collected, 20 replicates with gloves and 20 replicates without gloves.

Each replicate wore inner and outer dosimeters to simulate skin and clothing respectively. The inner dosimeter layer consisted of 100 percent cotton long leg and long sleeved underwear worn beneath the outer dosimeter of long leg and long sleeved 100 percent cotton work clothes. Each dosimeter was cut into six separate dermal body part samples (i. e., lower and upper arms, lower and upper legs, front and back torso) for a total of 480 dermal samples for handlers with gloves and without gloves. The cloth dosimeter parts (inner and outer), handwashes, face/ neck wipes and air monitoring devices frozen, sent to a laboratory and analyzed for carbaryl. The amount of product used to dust 3 dogs averaged 65.3 grams or 3.51 grams ai. On average to dust 3 dogs required 7 minutes.

Field fortification recoveries for passive dosimeters averaged >90 percent for inner and outer dosimeters. Face and neck wipe fortifications average 87.6 percent. Inhalation OVS tube field fortification averaged 100 percent, however one sample of 30 was damaged in shipping and one day does not have field fortification data. Dosimeter field fortification results that were >90 percent were not adjusted, therefore only the face and neck wipe were adjusted for field recovery. Laboratory method validation for each matrix fell within the acceptable range of 70 to 120 percent. Storage stability tests were done and acceptable.

Unit exposure values were calculated using the data from the study and a commercial spreadsheet program. The study reported the total exposure to carbaryl as only the inner dosimeter. Since this is a residential product, inner dosimeter upper arm and upper legs, front and back torso were combined with the outer dosimeter lower arms and lower legs to account for the handler wearing, a short sleeved shirt, short pants and no gloves. The exposures that were calculated were normalized by the amount of chemical used and by the body weight of the dogs treated by the individual applicators. For each calculation, the arithmetic mean, geometric mean, and median of the data are presented in Table 20 below. No analyses were completed with these data to ascertain the exact type of distribution. The Agency typically uses the best fit values from the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database which are representations of the central tendency. Considering the 102 standard practice, the Agency will use the geometric mean for risk assessment purposes. The other values are presented for comparative purposes.

Table 20: Unit Exposure Values Obtained From Carbaryl Homeowner Dog Dusting Study (MRID 444399 01) Type (mg exp./ lb ai handled) (mg exp./ lb treated dog) Dermal Inhalation Dermal Inhalation Applications with a dust to dogs Arith. Mean 3800 33 0.0080 5.0 x 10 12 Geo. Mean 3300 25 0.0052 3.8 x 10 12 Median 3300 27 0.0057 3.9 x 10 12 MRID 44459801 (Carbaryl application to vegetables study): The data collected reflect the dermal and respiratory exposure of homeowners mixing, loading and applying RP 2 Liquid (21%), a carbaryl end use product. Applications were made by volunteers to two 18 foot rows of tomatoes and one 18 foot row of cucumber. The only test field was located in Florida. For this study, RP 2 Liquid (21%) exposures were monitored using hose end sprayers and low pressure handwand sprayers. Exposures to Sevin ® 10 Dust, using a separate duster device that required transfer from the package and Sevin ® Ready To Use Insect Spray (RTU) in a trigger sprayer package were also monitored. Exposure for each spray method/ product combination was monitored using 40 handlers (replicates). Of the 40 replicates per spray method/ product combination, 20 wore household latex gloves and 20 performed tasks without gloves. The 20 dust product replicates loaded the dusters and applied without gloves only.

Each replicate opened the end use product, added it to the application implement (except the RTU product), adjusted the setting and applied it to the vegetable rows. After application to the vegetable rows, dosimeters were collected. Inhalation exposure was monitored with personal air sampling pumps with OVS tubes attached to the shirt collar in the breathing zone. Dermal exposure was assessed by extraction of carbaryl from inner and outer 100 percent cotton dosimeters, face/ neck wipes, and glove and hand washes. The inner and outer dosimeters were segmented into: lower and upper arms, lower and upper legs, front and back torso.

Field fortification recoveries for passive dosimeters averaged 84.3 percent for inner and 77.7 percent for outer dosimeters. Face and neck wipe fortifications average 84.8 percent. Handwash and Inhalation OVS tube field fortification averaged >90 percent. Inner and outer dosimeter and face and neck wipe residues were adjusted for field fortification results. Handwash and inhalation residues were not adjusted.

Laboratory method validation for each matrix fell within the acceptable range of 70 to 120 percent. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) was 1.0 µg/ sample for all media except the inhalation monitors where the LOQ was 0.01 µg/ sample. The limit of detection (LOD) was 0.5 µg/ sample for all media except the inhalation monitors where the LOQ was 0.005 µg/ sample.

Dermal exposure was determined by adding the values from the bare hand rinses, face/ neck wipes to the outer dosimeter lower legs and lower arms plus the inner dosimeter front and rear torso, upper legs, lower legs, lower arms, and upper arms. This accounts for the residential handler wearing short sleeved shirt and short pants. Unit exposures for each application method are 103 presented below in Table 21.

Table 21: Unit Exposure Values Obtained From Carbaryl Homeowner Vegetable Treatment Study (MRID 444598 01)

Scenario Monitored Dermal Unit Exposure (mg ai/ lb handled) Inhalation Unit Exposure (µg ai /lb handled)

Geometric Mean Median Geometric Mean Median Hand Held Pump Spray 38 35 9 11 Hose End Sprayer 34 31 2 2.3 Ready to Use Spray 54 53 67 34 Duster 148 140 870 1200 MRID 44518501 (Carbaryl application to trees and shrubs study): Applications of Sevin Liquid® Carbaryl insecticide [RP 2 liquid (21%)] were made by volunteers to two young citrus trees and two shrubs in each replicate that was monitored in the study. The test field was located only in Florida. Twenty (20) replicates were monitored using hose end sprayer (Ortho® DIAL or Spray® hose end sprayer), and 20 replicates were monitored using hand held pump sprayers (low pressure handwands).

Each replicate opened the end use product, added it to the hose end sprayer or hand held pump and then applied it to the trees and shrubs. After application to two trees and two shrubs dosimeters were collected. Inhalation exposure was monitored with personal air sampling pumps with OVS tubes attached to the shirt collar in the breathing zone. Dermal exposure was assessed by extraction of carbaryl from inner and outer 100 percent cotton dosimeters. The inner and outer dosimeters were segmented into: lower and upper arms, lower and upper legs, front and back torso. No gloves were worn therefore hand exposure was assessed with 400 ml handwash with 0.01 percent Aerosol OT 75 sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate (OTS). One hundred (100) percent cotton handkerchiefs wetted with 25 ml OTS were used to wipe face and neck to determine exposure.

Field fortification recoveries for passive dosimeters averaged 88.3 percent for inner and 76.2 percent for outer dosimeters. Face and neck wipe fortifications average 82.5 percent. Handwash and inhalation OVS tube field fortification averaged >90 percent. Inner and outer dosimeter and face and neck wipe residues were adjusted for field fortification results. Handwash and inhalation residues were not adjusted.

Laboratory method validation for each matrix fell within the acceptable range of 70 to 120 percent. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) was 1.0 µg/ sample for all media except the inhalation monitors where the LOQ was 0.01 µg/ sample. The limit of detection (LOD) was 0.5 µg/ sample for all media except the inhalation monitors where the LOQ was 0.005 µg/ sample.

For use in reregistration documents, the dermal exposure was calculated by adding the values from the hand rinses, face/ neck wipes to the outer dosimeter lower legs and lower arms plus the inner dosimeter front and rear torso, upper legs, lower legs, lower arms, and upper arms. This accounts for the residential handler wearing short sleeved shirt and short pants. The results are 104 summarized in Table 22 below.

Table 22: Unit Exposure Values Obtained From Carbaryl Homeowner Ornamental Treatment Study (MRID 44518501) Scenario Monitored Hose End Pump Sprayer Applied (lb ai) Dermal Exposure (mg ai/ lb handled) Inhalation (ug ai/ lb handled) Applied (lb ai) Dermal Exposure (mg ai/ lb handled) Inhalation (ug ai/ lb handled) Geo. Mean 0.033 39 2.5 0. 017 56 6.5 Median 0.026 44 2.6 0. 018 49 4.3 EPA MRID 449722 01 (ORETF Handler Studies): A report was submitted by the ORETF (Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force) that presented data in which the application of various products used on turf by homeowners and lawncare operators (LCOs) was monitored. All of the data submitted in this report were completed in a series of studies. The two studies that monitored homeowner exposure scenarios used a granular spreader (ORETF Study OMA003) and a hose end sprayer (ORETF Study OMA004) are summarized below.

OMA003: A total of 30 volunteer test subjects were monitored using passive dosimetry (inner and outer whole body dosimeters, hand washes, face/ neck wipes, and personal inhalation monitors). Each test subject carried, loaded, and applied two 25 lb bags of fertilizer (0.89% active ingredient) with a rotary type spreader to a lawn (a turf farm in North Carolina) covering 10,000 ft 2 (one bag to each of the two 5000 ft 2 test plots). Application to each subplot continued until the hopper was empty. Each participant also disposed of the empty bags at the end of the replicate. The target application rate was 2 lb ai/ acre (actual rate achieved was about 1.9 lb ai/ acre). The average application time was 22 minutes, including loading the rotary push spreader and disposing of the empty bags. Approximately 0.45 lb ai was handled in each replicate. Dermal exposure was measured using inner and outer whole body dosimeters, hand washes, face/ neck washes, and personal air monitoring devices with OVS tubes. Overall, residues were highest on the upper and lower leg portions of the dosimeters. Inhalation exposure was calculated using an assumed respiratory rate of 17 Lpm for light work (NAFTA, 1999), the actual sampling time for each individual, and the pump flow rate. All results were normalized for lb a. i. handled.

All fortified samples and field samples collected on the same study day were stored frozen and analyzed together, eliminating the need for storage stability determination. Seventyseven percent (77%) of the face and neck washes were below the level of quantitation (LOQ) for dacthal, and ten percent (10%) of the air samples were also at or below the LOQ. Where results were less than the reported LOQ, ½ LOQ value was used for calculations, and no recovery corrections were applied. Lab spike recoveries for all matrices were in the range of 83 99 percent. Mean field fortification recoveries over the four study days for each fortification level ranged from 83 to 97 percent.

OMA004: Dermal and inhalation exposures were estimated using passive dosimetry techniques (biological monitoring data were not collected). A total of 60 replicates were monitored using 30 test subjects (two replicates each) during applications to residential lawns in Frederick, Maryland. Thirty applicator replicates were monitored using a ready to 105 use (RTU) product (Bug B Gon) packaged in a 32 fl. oz. screw on container. These containers were attached to garden hose ends. An additional 30 mixer/ loader/ applicator replicates were monitored using Diazinon Plus also packaged in 32 fl. oz. plastic bottles. This product required the test subjects to pour the product into dial type sprayers (DTS) that were attached to garden hose ends.

A nominal application rate of 4 lb ai/ acre was used for all replicates. Each replicate monitored the test subject treating 5,000 ft 2 of turf and handling a total of 0.5 lb ai/ replicate. The average time per replicate was 75 minutes. Dermal and inhalation exposure were measured using inner and outer whole body dosimeters (long pants and long sleeved shirt over long underwear), hand washes, face/ neck washes, and personal air monitoring devices. Lab fortified dosimeters had recoveries of 87 103 percent; field fortified dosimeters had a mean range of 79 104 percent recovery, with very little variance. The study results are corrected for field recoveries using the correction factor for the level of fortification closest to the field result.

The route specific exposure data (dermal and inhalation) from both studies were lognormally distributed. Therefore, the geometric mean of the dermal and inhalation data should be used for exposure assessments. The unit exposure values are presented in Table 23 below.

Table 23: Unit Exposure Values Obtained From ORETF Homeowner Studies (MRID 449722 01) Scenario (mg exp./ lb ai handled) Dermal Inhalation Homeowner Push Granular Spreader 0.68 0.00091 Homeowner Hose End 11.0 0. 016 All unit exposure values are geometric means. Exposure values represent individuals wearing shorts and short sleeved shirts. Hose end sprayer data for mix your own (not the locking/ no contact package) considered.

3.1.3 Residential Handler Exposure and Non Cancer Risk Estimates The residential handler exposure and non cancer risk calculations are presented in this section. Noncancer risks were calculated using the Margin of Exposure (MOE) as described in Section 2.1.3. Much of the process for residential uses is identical to that considered for the occupational assessment with a few notable exceptions as described above in Section 3.1.1 (e. g., all are short term exposures and people wear shorts and short sleeved shirts). The other major difference with residential risk assessments is that the uncertainty factor which defines the level of risk concern also has the additional FQPA safety factor applied. In the case of carbaryl, in January and February 2002 meetings of the FQPA Safety Factor Committee, it was decided that the factor should be reduced to 1 based on the recently revised FQPA SFC standard operating procedures. Therefore, the overall uncertainty factor applied to carbaryl for residential handler risk assessments is 100 which is based on the FQPA safety factor of 1 along with the 100 applied for inter species extrapolation, intra species sensitivity, and the use of a NOAEL for risk assessment.

Noncancer Risk Summary: All of the noncancer risk calculations for occupational carbaryl handlers completed in this assessment are included in Appendix G (Tables 1  3). The 106 specifics of each of table included in Appendix G are described below. A brief summary of the results for each exposure scenario is also provided below.

C Appendix G/ Table 1: Sources of Exposure Data Used In The Carbaryl Homeowner Handler Exposure and Risk Calculations Describes the sources and quality of the exposure data used in all of the residential handler calculations.

C Appendix G/ Table 2: Input Parameters For Carbaryl Homeowner Handler Exposure and Risk Calculations Presents the numerical unit exposure values and other factors used in the residential handler risk assessments.

C Appendix G/ Table 3: Carbaryl MOEs Attributable To Combined Homeowner Handler Dermal and Inhalation Exposures Risk values are presented for each exposure scenario considered in the assessment. Exposures represent individuals wearing shortsleeved shirts and short pants.

The data submitted by the Aventis Corporation accompanied by the other data used by the Agency have provided a basic broad overview of the uses of carbaryl around a residential environment (i. e., the database is fairly complete). As indicated above, however, it is likely that carbaryl can be used in a myriad of ways that have not been identified in this assessment because of different pests or types of application equipment. The Agency will consider risks from these additional scenarios as data become available. It should also be noted that there were many other scenarios where medium to low PHED quality data were used to complete the assessment. Data quality should be considered in the interpretation of the uncertainties associated with each risk value presented.

Short term risks for residential handlers (intermediate term scenarios are not thought to exist because of the sporadic nature of applications by homeowners) are presented in Table 24 (Appendix G/ Table 3 summarized below for the convenience of the reader). For most scenarios (40 out of 52), risks are not of concern because MOEs exceed the required uncertainty factor of 100. As expected, the scenarios for which MOEs do not meet or exceed 100 have a relatively high unit exposure associated with them or the amount of chemical used over a day is relatively high (based on high application rates and/ or high amounts of area treated). The use of dusts in gardens and for pet grooming along with some liquid sprays on ornamentals appear to be the most problematic scenarios. Unlike the occupational handler scenarios, the use of different levels of personal 107 protective clothing and equipment is not considered for residential handlers because of a lack of availability, training, and maintenance. [Note: Scenarios where MOEs are still of concern (i. e., <100) for are highlighted in the table.]

TABLE 24 CARBARYL MOEs ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMBINED SHORT TERM HOMEOWNER HANDLER DERMAL AND INHALATION EXPOSURES SCEN. SCEN. DESCRIPTOR CROP TYPE OR TARGET EXPOSURE FACTORS DERMAL MOEs INHALATION MOEs COMBINED MOEs APPL. RATE (lb ai/ unit) BASIS FOR RATE (defines unit treated) TREATED UNITS ACTIVE USED (lb ai/ event)

1 Garden: Ready to Use Trigger Sprayer (MRID 444598 01) Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.003 32 oz bottle 0.126 % (769 977) 0.25 0.00075 34567.9 1393034.8 33730.9 Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.003 32 oz bottle 0.126 % (769 977) 0.5 0.0015 17284.0 696517.4 16865.4 Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.003 32 oz bottle 0.126 % (769 977) 1 0.003 8642.0 348258.7 8432.7 Average Study Use Rate 0.012 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.012 2160.5 87064.7 2108.2 2 Garden/ Ornamental Dust (MRID 444598 01) Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.4 4 lb bottle 10% (239 1513) 0.25 0.1 94.6 804.6 84.6 Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.4 4 lb bottle 10% (239 1513) 0.5 0.2 47.3 402.3 42.3 Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.4 4 lb bottle 10% (239 1513) 1 0.4 23.6 201.1 21.2 Average Study Use Rate 0.079 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.079 119.7 1018.5 107.1 3 Garden: Hose End (MRID 444598 01) General Use (2% soln) 0.02 (lb ai/ gal spray applied) 100 2 20.6 17500.0 20.6 Perimeter Nuisance Pest 0.19 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.19 216.7 184210.5 216.5 Vegetables 0.012 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.012 3431.4 2916666.7 3427.3 Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.023 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.023 1790.3 1521739.1 1788.2 Vegetables 0.047 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.047 876.1 744680.9 875.1 Average Study Use Rate 0.26 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.26 158.4 134615.4 158.2 Fire Ant 0.0075 (lb ai/ gal spray) 100 0.75 54.9 46666.7 54.8 4 Garden: Low Pressure Handwand (MRID 444598 01) General Use (2% soln) 0.02 (lb ai/ gal spray applied) 5 0.1 368.4 77777.8 366.7 Perimeter Nuisance Pest 0.19 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.19 193.9 40935.7 193.0 Vegetables 0.012 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.012 3070.2 648148.1 3055.7 Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.023 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.023 1601.8 338164.3 1594.3 Vegetables 0.047 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.047 783.9 165484.6 780.2 Average Study Use Rate 0.083 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.083 443.9 93708.2 441.8 Fire Ant 0.0075 (lb ai/ gal spray) 5 0.0375 982.5 207407.4 977.8 TABLE 24 CARBARYL MOEs ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMBINED SHORT TERM HOMEOWNER HANDLER DERMAL AND INHALATION EXPOSURES SCEN. SCEN. DESCRIPTOR CROP TYPE OR TARGET EXPOSURE FACTORS DERMAL MOEs INHALATION MOEs COMBINED MOEs APPL. RATE (lb ai/ unit) BASIS FOR RATE (defines unit treated) TREATED UNITS ACTIVE USED (lb ai/ event)

108 5 Trees/ Ornamentals: Low Pressure Handwand (MRID 445185 01) Ornamental 0.023 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.176 1087.0 468227.4 1084.4 Pome Fruit 0.07 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.07 357.1 153846.2 356.3 Nuts/ Stone Fruit 0.12 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.12 208.3 89743.6 207.9 Citrus 0.176 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.023 142.0 61188.8 141.7 Average Study Use Rate 0.0047 (lb ai/ gal, 17g ai/ 4 min at 2GPM) 5 0.024 1063.8 458265.1 1061.4 6 Trees/ Ornamentals: Hose End Sprayer (MRID 445185 01) Ornamental 0.023 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.176 1560.8 1217391.3 1558.8 Pome Fruit 0.07 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.07 512.8 400000.0 512.2 Nuts/ Stone Fruit 0.12 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.12 299.1 233333.3 298.8 Citrus 0.176 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.023 204.0 159090.9 203.7 Average Study Use Rate 0.005 (lb ai/ gal spray) 100 0.5 71.8 56000.0 71.7 7 Garden: Backpack Sprayer (PHED) General Use (2% soln) 0.02 (lb ai/ gal spray applied) 5 0.1 2745.1 23333.3 2456.1 Perimeter Nuisance Pest 0.19 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.19 1444.8 12280.7 1292.7 Vegetables 0.012 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.012 22875.8 194444.4 20467.8 Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.023 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.023 11935.2 101449.3 10678.9 Vegetables 0.047 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.047 5840.6 49645.4 5225.8 Average Study Use Rate 0.083 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.083 3307.3 28112.5 2959.2 Fire Ant 0.0075 (lb ai/ gal spray) 5 0.0375 7320.3 62222.2 6549.7 8 Lawn Care: Hose End Sprayer (MRID 449722 01/ ORETF OMA 004) Lawn (broadcast) 0.25 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 20 5 25.5 875.0 24.7 Lawn (spot) 0.25 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.25 509.1 17500.0 494.7 9 Dusting Dog (MRID 444399 01) Average Study Use Rate 0.0026 (lb ai/ dog) 1 0.0026 163.2 1076.9 141.7 Dog (10% & 1/ 2 of 2 lb) 0.1 (lb ai/ dog) 1 0.1 4.2 28.0 3.7 Dog (5% & 1/ 2 of 2 lb) 0.05 (lb ai/ dog) 1 0.05 8.5 56.0 7.4 10 Dogs: Liquid Application Dog (0.5% & 1/ 2 of 6 oz) 0.001 (lb ai/ dog) 1 0.001 14000000.0 No Data No Data 11 Granular & Baits Lawn Care: Belly Grinder Lawn (spot) 0.21 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.21 60.6 5376.3 59.9 Lawn (spot) 0.1 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.1 127.3 11290.3 125.9 12 Granular & Baits Lawn Care: Push Type Spreader (MRID 449722 01/ ORETF OMA 003) Lawn (broadcast) 0.21 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 20 4.2 490.2 18315.0 477.4 Lawn (broadcast) 0.1 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 20 2 1029.4 38461.5 1002.6 13 Granulars & Baits By Hand Ornamentals and Gardens 0.21 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0.21 15.5 713.8 15.2 14 Aerosol Various 0.005 (0.5 % ai in soln./ 1 pt can) 16 0.08 79.5 364.6 65.3 15 Collar Dog 0.013 (16 % ai per 1.3 oz collar) 1 0.013 10769230.8 No Data No Data 16 Sprinkler Can (Source: Scenario 6) Ornamentals (2% Soln) 0.02 (2% soln used ad libitum) 5 0.1 359.0 280000.0 358.5 TABLE 24 CARBARYL MOEs ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMBINED SHORT TERM HOMEOWNER HANDLER DERMAL AND INHALATION EXPOSURES SCEN. SCEN. DESCRIPTOR CROP TYPE OR TARGET EXPOSURE FACTORS DERMAL MOEs INHALATION MOEs COMBINED MOEs APPL. RATE (lb ai/ unit) BASIS FOR RATE (defines unit treated) TREATED UNITS ACTIVE USED (lb ai/ event)

109 17 Ornamental Paint On Ornamentals (2% Soln) 0.02 (2% soln used ad libitum) 1 0.02 304.3 12323.9 297.0 3.1.4 Residential Handler Exposure and Risk Estimates for Cancer The residential handler exposure and cancer risk calculations are presented in this section. Cancer risks were calculated using a linear, low dose extrapolation approach (Q1*) using the same formula as described above in Section 2.1.4. In addition to the cancer risk estimates for an annual frequency of 1 time per year, the number of days of exposure per year required to get a 1x10 6 cancer risk have been calculated. In this calculation, the 1x10 6 cancer risk limit was divided by the calculated cancer risk for each scenario for a single day of exposure. Much of the process for residential uses is identical to that considered for the occupational assessment with a few notable exceptions as described above in Section 3.1.1 (e. g., all are short term exposures and people wear shorts and short sleeved shirts). The other major difference with residential risk assessments is that the annual frequency of use is lower for homeowners (i. e., 1 day use per year has been used to complete the calculations).

Cancer Risk Summary All of the cancer risk calculations for residential carbaryl handlers completed in this assessment are included in Appendix G (Table 4). The specifics of this table as well as a brief summary of the results for each exposure scenario is also provided below.

C Appendix G/ Table 4: Carbaryl Cancer Risks Attributable To Combined Homeowner Handler Dermal and Inhalation Exposures Presents cancer risks for combined dermal and inhalation exposures considered in the assessment (i. e., 1 time/ year). Additionally, the number of days of exposure that are allowed per year (i. e., up to a 1x10 6 cancer risk limit) are also presented.

Table 25 presents the quantitative risks associated with each scenario considered in the assessment. For all but one scenario (i. e., treating dogs with ½ bottle of 10 percent dust), cancer risks are less than 1x10 6 (most are in the 10 8 or 10 10 range) when a single application per year is evaluated. This table also includes the allowable number of days exposure per year. There are 5 scenarios where 5 days or less of exposure per year is allowable. These results should be considered in conjunction with the use and usage information supplied by the Aventis Corporation that indicates the 50 th percentile annual frequency of use is between 1 and 2 uses per year and that 5 uses per year is at the 84 th percentile (see Section 3.1.2: Data and Assumptions For Handler Exposure Scenarios above). As with the noncancer risks, the use of dusts in gardens and for pet grooming along with some liquid sprays on ornamentals appear to be the most problematic scenarios. [Note: Scenarios where risks are still of concern (i. e., <1x10 6 ) for are highlighted in the table.] 110 TABLE 25: CARBARYL CANCER RISKS ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMBINED HOMEOWNER HANDLER DERMAL AND INHALATION EXPOSURES SCEN. SCEN. DESCRIPTOR CROP TYPE OR TARGET EXPOSURE FACTORS CANCER RISK ALLOWED DAYS/ YR APPL. RATE (lb ai/ unit) BASIS FOR RATE (defines unit treated) TREATED UNITS ACTIVE USED (lb ai/ event) 1 Garden: Ready to Use Trigger Sprayer (MRID 444598 01) Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.003 32 oz bottle 0.126 % (769 977) 0.25 0.00075 1.27e 10 >365 Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.003 32 oz bottle 0.126 % (769 977) 0.5 0. 0015 2.54e 10 >365 Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.003 32 oz bottle 0.126 % (769 977) 1 0. 003 5.08e 10 >365 Average Study Use Rate 0.012 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 012 2.03e 09 >365 2 Garden/ Ornamental Dust (MRID 444598 01) Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.4 4 lb bottle 10% (239 1513) 0.25 0.1 4. 81e 08 21 Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.4 4 lb bottle 10% (239 1513) 0.5 0. 2 9.62e 08 10 Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.4 4 lb bottle 10% (239 1513) 1 0. 4 1.92e 07 5 Average Study Use Rate 0.079 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 079 3.80e 08 26 3 Garden: Hose End (MRID 444598 01) General Use (2% soln) 0.02 (lb ai/ gal spray applied) 100 2 2. 11e 07 5 Perimeter Nuisance Pest 0.19 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 19 2. 01e 08 50 Vegetables 0.012 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 012 1.27e 09 >365 Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.023 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 023 2.43e 09 >365 Vegetables 0.047 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 047 4.97e 09 201 Average Study Use Rate 0.26 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 26 2. 75e 08 36 Fire Ant 0. 0075 (lb ai/ gal spray) 100 0.75 7.93e 08 13 4 Garden: Low Pressure Handwand (MRID 444598 01) General Use (2% soln) 0.02 (lb ai/ gal spray applied) 5 0. 1 1.18e 08 85 Perimeter Nuisance Pest 0.19 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 19 2. 25e 08 45 Vegetables 0.012 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 012 1.42e 09 >365 Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.023 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 023 2.72e 09 >365 Vegetables 0.047 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 047 5.56e 09 180 Average Study Use Rate 0.083 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 083 9.82e 09 102 Fire Ant 0. 0075 (lb ai/ gal spray) 5 0. 0375 4.44e 09 225 5 Trees/ Ornamentals: Low Pressure Handwand (MRID 445185 01) Ornamental 0.023 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 176 4.01e 09 250 Pome Fruit 0. 07 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 07 1. 22e 08 82 Nuts/ Stone Fruit 0.12 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 12 2. 09e 08 48 Citrus 0.176 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 023 3.06e 08 33 Average Study Use Rate 0.0047 (lb ai/ gal, 17g ai/ 4 min at 2GPM) 5 0. 47 4. 09e 09 244 TABLE 25: CARBARYL CANCER RISKS ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMBINED HOMEOWNER HANDLER DERMAL AND INHALATION EXPOSURES SCEN. SCEN. DESCRIPTOR CROP TYPE OR TARGET EXPOSURE FACTORS CANCER RISK ALLOWED DAYS/ YR APPL. RATE (lb ai/ unit) BASIS FOR RATE (defines unit treated) TREATED UNITS ACTIVE USED (lb ai/ event)

111 6 Trees/ Ornamentals: Hose End Sprayer (MRID 445185 01) Ornamental 0.023 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 176 2.79e 09 359 Pome Fruit 0. 07 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 07 8. 49e 09 118 Nuts/ Stone Fruit 0.12 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 12 1. 45e 08 69 Citrus 0.176 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 023 2.13e 08 47 Average Study Use Rate 0.005 (lb ai/ gal spray) 100 0.025 6.06e 08 16 7 Garden: Backpack Sprayer (PHED) General Use (2% soln) 0.02 (lb ai/ gal spray applied) 5 0. 1 1.66e 09 >365 Perimeter Nuisance Pest 0.19 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 19 3. 15e 09 317 Vegetables 0.012 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 012 1.99e 10 >365 Vegetables/ Ornamentals 0.023 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 023 3.81e 10 >365 Vegetables 0.047 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 047 7.79e 10 >365 Average Study Use Rate 0.083 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 083 1.38e 09 >365 Fire Ant 0. 0075 (lb ai/ gal spray) 5 0. 0375 6.22e 10 >365 8 Lawn C are: H ose E nd Sprayer (MRID 449722 01/ ORETF OMA 004) Lawn (broadcast) 0.25 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 20 5 1. 73e 07 6 Lawn (spot) 0. 25 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 25 8. 64e 09 116 9 Dusting Dog (MRID 444399 01) Average Study Use Rate 0.0026 (lb ai/ dog) 1 0. 0026 2.82e 08 35 Dog (10% & 1/ 2 of 2 lb) 0.1 (lb ai/ dog) 1 0. 1 1.09e 06 1 Dog (5% & 1/ 2 of 2 lb) 0.05 (lb ai/ dog) 1 0. 05 5. 43e 07 2 10 Dogs: Liquid Application Dog (0. 5% & 1/ 2 of 6 oz) 0.001 (lb ai/ dog) 1 0. 001 3.11e 13 >365 11 Granular & Baits Lawn Care: Belly Grinder Lawn (spot) 0. 21 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 21 7. 21e 08 14 Lawn (spot) 0. 1 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 1 3.43e 08 29 12 Granular & Baits Lawn Care: Push Type Spreader (MRID 449722 01/ ORETF OMA 003) Lawn (broadcast) 0.21 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 20 4.2 8. 97e 09 112 Lawn (broadcast) 0.1 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 20 2 4. 27e 09 234 13 Granulars & Baits By Hand Ornamentals and Gardens 0.21 (lb ai/ 1000 ft2) 1 0. 21 2. 83e 07 4 14 Aerosol Various 0.005 (0. 5 % ai in soln./ 1 pt can) 16 0.08 5.94e 08 17 15 Collar Dog 0.013 (16 % ai per 1.3 oz collar) 1 0. 013 4.04e 13 >365 16 Sprinkler Can (Source: Scenario 6) Ornamentals (2% Soln) 0.02 (2% soln used ad libitum) 5 0. 1 1.21e 08 82 17 Ornamental Paint On Ornamentals (2% Soln) 0.02 (2% soln used ad libitum) 1 0. 02 1. 44e 08 69 112 3.1.5 Summary of Risk Concerns and Data Gaps for Handlers Generally, MOEs associated with most scenarios (40 of 52 considered) are not of concern because they exceed the Agency's uncertainty factors for noncancer risk assessments (i. e., 100 uncertainty factor). The scenarios of concern involve the use of dusts in gardens and on pets and some liquid sprays on gardens. Cancer risks for most scenarios are in the 10 8 to 10 10 range although there is one scenario where the risks slightly exceed 1x10 6 (dusting dogs 1.09x10 6 ). It should be noted that there are 5 scenarios where the allowable days per year of exposure is less than or equal to 5 which should be considered in conjunction with the use/ usage data from Aventis that indicates 5 uses per year is the 84 th percentile. The database for carbaryl is fairly complete compared to many other chemicals. Recent, high quality data generated by the Aventis Corporation and the ORETF, of which Aventis is a member, have been used to address the key residential uses of carbaryl on lawns, flower and vegetable gardens, and pets. Use and usage inputs also appear to be essentially consistent with the information provided by the Aventis Corporation at the 1998 SMART meeting. No key data gaps have been identified by the Agency at this time for residential handlers. However, it is likely that there are scenarios that remain unaddressed by the Agency at this time due to a lack of data or other meta information. The Agency will address other appropriate scenarios as they are identified.

3.1.6 Recommendations For Refining Residential Handler Risk Assessment In order to refine this residential risk assessment, more data on actual use patterns including rates, timing, and areas treated would better characterize carbaryl risks. Exposure studies for many equipment types that lack data or that are not well represented in PHED (e. g., because of low replicate numbers or data quality) should also be considered based on the data gaps identified above and based on a review of the quality of the data used in this assessment.

3.2 Residential Postapplication Exposures and Risks The Agency uses the term "postapplication" to describe exposures to individuals that occur as a result of being in an environment that has been previously treated with a pesticide. Carbaryl can be used in many areas that can be frequented by the general population including residential areas (e. g., home lawns and gardens), parks, athletic fields, and golf courses. As a result, individuals can be exposed by entering these areas if they have been previously treated. Carbaryl can also be used on companion animals which can lead to exposures by contact with the treated animal. Finally, carbaryl can also be used as a mosquito adulticide which can result in exposures to the general population because it involves wide area, ultra low volume spraying in residential areas. The Agency generically refers to these exposures as "residential" in nature. Another definition could be any exposures that do not occur as a result of employment or exposures to the general population. The scenarios that serve as the basis for the risk assessment are presented in Section 3.2.1: Residential Postapplication Exposure Scenarios. The exposure data and assumptions that have been used for the calculations are presented in Section 3.2.2: Data and Assumptions For Residential Postapplication Exposure Scenarios. The calculations and the algorithms that have been used for the noncancer elements of the risk assessment as well as the calculated risk values are presented in Section 3.2.3: Residential Postapplication Exposure and Noncancer Risk Estimates 113 while the analogous information using the Q1* for cancer estimates are presented in Section 3.2.4: Residential Postapplication Exposure and Risk Estimates For Cancer. Section 3.2.5: Summary of Residential Postapplication Risk Concerns and, Data Gaps presents the overall risk picture for carbaryl. Finally, recommendations are presented in Section 3.2.6: Recommendations For Refining Residential Postapplication Risk Assessment.

3.2.1 Residential Postapplication Exposure Scenarios Carbaryl uses are extremely varied and include home gardens, ornamentals, turf (golf courses and lawns) and companion animals (e. g., on dogs and cats). Carbaryl also has more limited uses that were considered including as a mosquito adulticide in residential areas and for Ghost/ Mud shrimp control in Washington. As a result, a wide array of individuals of varying ages can potentially be exposed when they do activities in areas that have been previously treated or have contact with treated companion animals. The Agency is concerned about these kinds of exposures. The purpose of this section is to explain how postapplication exposure scenarios were developed for each residential setting where carbaryl can be used. Exposure scenarios can be thought of as ways of categorizing the kinds of exposures that occur related to the use of a chemical. The use of scenarios as a basis for exposure assessment is very common as described in the U. S. EPA Guidelines For Exposure Assessment (U. S. EPA; Federal Register Volume 57, Number 104; May 29, 1992).

The processes that were used by the Agency in the development of scenarios for occupational exposure assessment (Section 2.2.1 above) are essentially the same as those used for residential exposure patterns. There are key differences, however, in the residential exposure assessment that include exposures were calculated for children of differing ages as well as adults; non dietary ingestion exposures were calculated (i. e., soil ingestion, hand/ object to mouth); a dermal "hug" approach has been used instead of transfer coefficients to calculate exposures to companion animals; exposures to swimmers, oyster harvesters, and children playing on a beach were calculated; and cancer risks were not calculated for children per Agency policy.

The Agency relies on a standardized approach for completing residential risk assessments that is based on current carbaryl labels and guidance contained in the following five documents:

° Series 875, Residential and Residential Exposure Test Guidelines: Group B Postapplication Exposure Monitoring Test Guidelines (V 5.4, Feb. 1998) This document provides general risk assessment guidance and criteria for analysis of residue dissipation data.

° Standard Operating Procedures For Residential Exposure Assessment (Dec. 1997) This document provides the overarching guidance for developing residential risk assessments including scenario development, algorithms, and values for inputs.

° Science Advisory Council For Exposure Policy 003.1 (Aug. 2000): Agricultural Transfer Coefficients This document provides transfer coefficients which have been used to assess exposures in home gardens. 114 ° Science Advisory Council For Exposure Policy 12 (Feb. 2001): Recommended Revisions To The Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) For Residential Exposure Assessment This document provides additional, revised guidance for completing residential exposure assessments.

° Overview of Issues Related To The Standard Operating Procedures For Residential Exposure Assessment (August 1999 Presentation To The FIFRA SAP) This document provides rationale for Agency changes in SOPs. Companion animal approach included in document used for risk assessment.

The Agency also completed a specific, screening level risk assessment for Mud and Ghost shrimp control in Washington State. The assessment considering swimming in areas that have been treated as well as oyster harvesting for adults and playing on a beach for toddlers. The calculations for these scenarios were based on the Agency's SOPs described above, the Agency's program, and data generated by the Washington Department of Ecology. The specific documents that were consulted include:

° RAGS, Part A  Risk Assessment Guidance For Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Interim Final (EPA/ 540/ 1 89/ 002, December 1989) This document was consulted for overall guidance on how to address risks from exposure to contaminated sediments.

° RAGS, Part E  Risk Assessment Guidance For Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidelines For Dermal Risk Assessment), Interim Review Draft For Public Comment (EPA/ 540/ R/ 99/ 005, September 2001) This document was consulted for overall guidance on how to address risks from exposure to contaminated sediments. Specific soil adherence values were also obtained from Exhibit 3 3, page 3 18.

° Carbaryl Concentrations In Willapa Bay and Recommendations For Water Quality Guidelines (March 2001, Pub No. 01 03 005, Author: Art Johnson) Water concentration data were obtained from this document. It presented monitoring data collected by the Washington Department of Ecology as well as data collected by the Shoalwater Bay Tribe.

° Screening Survey of Carbaryl (Sevin) and 1 napthol Concentrations in Willapa Bay Sediments (May 1999, Pub No. 99 323, Author: Cynthia Stonick) Sediment and water concentration data were obtained from this document. 115 When the guidance in current labels and these documents is considered, it is clear that the Agency should consider children of differing ages as well as adults in its assessments. It is also clear that different age groups should be considered in different situations. The populations that were considered in the assessment include:

C Residential (homeowner) Adults: these individuals are members of the general population that are exposed to chemicals by engaging in activities at their residences (e. g., in their lawns or gardens) and also in areas not limited to their residence (e. g., golf courses or parks) previously treated with a pesticide. These kinds of exposures are attributable to a variety of activities and usually addressed by the Agency in risk assessments by considering a representative activity as the basis for the exposure calculation.

C Residential Children: children are members of the general population that can also be exposed in their residences (e. g., on lawns, in gardens, or from contact with treated pets) as well as other areas previously treated with a pesticide (e. g., parks). These kinds of exposures are attributable to a variety of activities such as playing outside, home gardening, or playing with a companion animal. Toddlers have been selected as a sentinel (or representative) population for turf and companion animal assessments. Youth aged children (ages 10 to 12) are considered the sentinel population for a fruit harvesting assessment because it is likely that children of this age would help with garden maintenance. They are usually addressed by the Agency in risk assessments by considering a representative activities for each age group in an exposure calculation.

The SOPs For Residential Exposure Assessment define several scenarios that apply to uses specified in current labels. These scenarios served as the basis for the residential postapplication assessment along with the modifications to them and the additional data/ approaches described above. The Agency used this guidance to define the exposure scenarios that essentially include child exposure on treated lawns (dermal and nondietary ingestion considered), child exposure in treated gardens, exposure to children from treated companion animals, and the exposure of adults while doing gardening, lawncare, or golfing. The SOPs and the associated scenarios are presented below:

C Dose from dermal exposure on treated turf calculated using SOP 2.2: Postapplication dermal dose among toddlers from playing on treated turf;

C Dose from ingestion of carbaryl granules from treated turf calculated using SOP 2.3.1: Postapplication dose among toddlers from episodic nondietary ingestion of pesticide granules picked up from treated turf (i. e., those residues that end up in the mouth from a child touching turf and then putting their hands in their mouth); 116 C Dose from hand to mouth activity from treated turf calculated using SOP 2.3.2: Postapplication dose among toddlers from incidental nondietary ingestion of pesticide residues on treated turf from hand to mouth transfer (i. e., those residues that end up in the mouth from a child touching turf and then putting their hands in their mouth);

C Dose from object to mouth activity from treated turf calculated using SOP 2.3.3: Postapplication dose among toddlers from incidental nondietary ingestion of pesticide residues on treated turf from object to mouth transfer (i. e., those residues that end up in the mouth from a child mouthing a handful of treated turf);

C Dose from soil ingestion activity from treated turf calculated using SOP 2.3.4: Postapplication dose among toddlers from incidental nondietary ingestion of pesticide residues from ingesting soil in a treated turf area (i. e., those soil residues that end up in the mouth from a child touching treated soil and turf then putting their hands in their mouth);

C Dose from dermal exposure while working in treated gardens or with various trees (nut, fruit, and ornamentals) calculated using SOPs 3.2 & 4.2: Postapplication dermal dose among adults and youth aged children (ages 10 to 12) while gardening [Note: These series of SOPs also call for addressing nondietary ingestion, these types of exposures have been included in the turf/ toddler calculations. The transfer coefficients used are from updated Agency.];

C Postapplication Potential Dose From Incidental Nondietary Ingestion if Pesticide Residues While Swimming calculated using SOP 5.2.1: Postapplication potential dose among adults while swimming  the general guidance applies, updates to this SOP have been completed in the form of the SWIMODEL (V2.0) which was used for this assessment;

C Dose from dermal contact with treated pets calculated using SOP 9.2.1: Postapplication potential dose among toddlers from the dermal contact with a treated pet and absorption through the skin (i. e., residues that end up as body burden after deposition on and absorption through the skin); and C Dose from hand to mouth activity calculated using SOP 9.2.2: Postapplication potential dose among toddlers from nondietary ingestion of pesticide residues on treated pets from hand to mouth transfer (i. e., those residues that end up in the mouth from a child touching a pet and then putting their hands in their mouth).

The detailed residential postapplication calculations are presented in Appendices H through M of this document. Please refer to them to review the specifics of the risk assessment. Appendix H contains the turf risk assessment for adults and children. Appendix I contains the risk assessment for uses in gardens and fruit trees that addresses such activities as harvesting for adults and youthaged children. Appendix J presents the risks associated with uses on pets. Appendix K provides the background information on how deposition patterns for wide area applications such as mosquito adulticides were calculated. Appendix L presents the risks that result from the use of carbaryl as a mosquito adulticide. This assessment is essentially the same as that done for turf with the addition 117 of a factor to account for the limited amount of residues that are deposited on turf because of how mosquito adulticides are applied. Appendix M presents the data and risk calculations used to address carbaryl use for Ghost and Mud Shrimp control in Washington State.

3.2.2 Data and Assumptions for Residential Postapplication Exposure Scenarios A series of assumptions and exposure factors served as the basis for completing the residential postapplication risk assessments. Each assumption and factor are detailed below. In addition to these values, a study was also submitted by the Aventis Corporation which was not used by the Agency in this assessment. The study, however, is identified below for recordkeeping purposes along with the rationale for not using it in the assessment.

The assumptions and factors used in the risk calculations are consistent with current Agency policy for completing residential exposure assessments (i. e., SOPs For Residential Exposure Assessment). [Note: More detail about the origin of each factor can be obtained in the SOP document and associated documents such as the Agency's 1999 Overview document presented to the FIFRA SAP.] The values used in this assessment include:

C There are many factors that are common to the occupational and residential postapplication risk assessments such as body weights for adults, analysis of residue dissipation data, and transfer coefficients used for the garden exposure scenarios. Please refer to the assumptions and factors in Section 2.1.2 for further information concerning these common values. [Note: The transfer coefficients have not been adjusted for the clothing that someone working in their home garden might be anticipated to wear such as shorts and short sleeved shirt.]

° Carbaryl labels allow for wide area applications in mosquito control (for adulticides) and for the control of other pest species such as black fly. When the Agency considers these use patterns in risk assessments, the amount deposited on the turf is determined by the using the AgDrift model for aerial applications (9.5 percent deposits on turf) and published data from the scientific literature for ground fogger applications (5 percent deposits on turf) as described in Appendix K. All other components are similar to a residential turf risk assessment. The Sevin XLR label for mosquito and fly control was key in defining the input parameters for the AgDrift calculations. This label specified a range of application rates from 0.016 to 1 lb ai/ acre. The label also indicated that the optimal droplet size range is from 8 to 30 µm. However, the label also had specific requirements for aerial applications for droplets "with a calculated VMD of less than 50 µm" and an allowance that "no more than 5 percent of the droplets should be larger than 80 µm." Once the deposition patterns have been defined, a turf type risk assessment was completed accounting for different deposition patterns, compared to a typical turf risk assessment. Different deposition patterns were accounted for in the calculation of the turf transferable residues to which adults and children are exposed. The calculations are presented in Appendix L.

° Exposure frequency values used in cancer risk assessments for adults are the same as those used for residential handlers (1 time per year). However, the Agency does believe that there 118 are higher frequency golfers (i. e., average golfers over all ages play 18 rounds year) based on a 1992 report (Golf Course Operations, Cost of Doing Business/ Profitability by the Center For Golf Course Management). The Agency also believes that individuals may reenter treated home gardens more than one time per year. However, exact information linking the timing of applications and the frequency of reentry is not available. It should be noted that this issue is being addressed by the Agency in the development of calendar based, residential modeling programs such as Lifeline. Therefore, until calendar based approaches are implemented, only single reentry events have been considered in the cancer risk assessment. Risk managers should consider the likelihood of additional reentry events when interpreting the results of the cancer risk assessment. To refine these results, the Agency has also calculated the number of exposure days allowed per year to achieve a 1x10 6 cancer risk ceiling just as with the residential handler assessment above. Risk managers should also consider the likelihood of intermediate term exposures occurring for adults. The Agency calculated intermediate term postapplication risks for adults yet, in reality, the population where these exposures would be expected is likely very small except for maybe home gardeners. The Agency also calculated intermediate term exposures for youth aged children and toddlers where the behaviors used as the basis for the risk assessment are thought to more likely occur on a routine basis (i. e., the population would be expected to be larger).

° The Agency combines or aggregates risks resulting from exposures to individual chemicals when it is likely they can occur simultaneously based on the use pattern and the behavior associated with the exposed population. Within a residential assessment, this can take two forms. The first is to add together risks for individual exposure scenarios from all likely sources of exposure such as after an application to turf or use on a pet. For carbaryl, the Agency has added together risk values (i. e., MOEs) for different kinds of exposures within the turf (dermal, hand to mouth, object to mouth, and soil ingestion) and pet scenarios (dermal and hand to mouth). These represent the standard set of exposures that are typically added together when chemicals are used on turf or on pets because it is logical they can co occur. The second is to add exposures from different residential exposure scenarios that can possibly co occur such as when a homeowner makes an application and then checks their garden for bugs a few hours later on the same day. Typically, the Agency only adds exposures from different exposure scenarios together (e. g., spraying and gardening) when risks from both are not already a concern. For carbaryl, however, there are risk concerns for many residential handler scenarios so the Agency did not add risk values from any postapplication exposure together with applicator risks. 119 ° The frequency of retreatment could not be determined based on information provided by the Aventis Corporation at the SMART meeting or other associated information. Labels generally specify a minimum interval of 1 week between applications. The risk assessments are based on five different residue (DFR or TTR) studies. In all studies except on olives, multiple applications were completed at 1 week intervals so any additivity between applications would also be accounted for in the empirical data used for risk assessment.

C Exposures to children playing on treated turf as well as adults on turf (lawncare and golfing) have been addressed using the latest Agency approaches for this scenario including: ° 5 percent of the application rate has been used to calculate the 0 day residue levels used for defining risks from hand to mouth behaviors, measured TTR values are not used because of differences in transferability versus what would be expected during hand to mouth behaviors; ° 20 percent of the application rate has been used to calculate the 0 day residue levels used for defining risks from object to mouth behaviors, measured TTR values are not used because of differences in transferability versus what would be expected during hand to mouth behaviors, a higher percent transfer has been used for objectto mouth behaviors because it involves a teething action believed to be more analogous to DFR/ leaf wash sample collection where 20 percent is also used; ° the measured TTR levels quantified in MRID 451143 01 have been used to complete the dermal exposure calculations as the 0 day transferability was > 1 percent of the application rate for the short and intermediate term data sources, studies where transferability is less than 1 percent are not used for risk assessment purposes because the transfer coefficients used by the Agency for defining exposures are based on Jazzercize studies in which TTR values were measured by techniques where transferability is generally in the 1 to 5 percent range other than the ORETF roller method where transferability tends to be lower; ° short and intermediate term exposures have been calculated because play and mouthing behaviors are assumed to routinely occur daily and for extended periods such as over 30 days, carbaryl residues are also expected to be present based on residue dissipation data (i. e., slow dissipation rate); ° in cases where 0 day residues have been calculated based on application rates (i. e., hand/ object to mouth residues and for soil dissipation), dissipation over time measured in the TTR study (i. e., slope of decay curve) has been used to predict TTR and soil levels over time, carbaryl residues were detectable even at 14 days after application (i. e., final sampling interval) at all sites in the TTR studies used in this assessment, at 14 days average residues at the Georgia and Pennsylvania study sites were still orders of magnitude above the quantitation limit, this indicates that predicted residue levels for extended durations should be considered appropriate based on the empirical data (e. g., critical for consideration of intermediate term exposures); 120 ° the transfer coefficients used, except golfing, are those presented at the 1999 Agency presentation before the FIFRA Science Advisory Panel that have been adopted in routine practice by the Agency; ° transfer coefficients have been adjusted for differences between short and intermediate term exposures; ° adult golfers have been assessed using a transfer coefficient of 500 cm 2 /hour [Note: The Agency is currently developing a policy on golfer exposures and has used this value in other assessments]; ° 3 year old toddlers are expected to weigh 15 kg; ° hand to mouth exposures are based on a frequency of 20 events/ hour and a surface area per event of 20 cm 2 representing the palmar surfaces of three fingers; ° saliva extraction efficiency is 50 percent meaning that every time the hand goes in the mouth approximately ½ of the residues on the hand are removed; ° object to mouth exposures are based on a 25 cm 2 surface area; ° exposure durations are expected to be 2 hours based on information in the Agency's Exposure Factors Handbook except for golfers where the exposure duration for an 18 hole round of golf is 4 hours based on a 1992 report (Golf Course Operations, Cost of Doing Business/ Profitability by the Center For Golf Course Management); ° soil residues are contained in the top centimeter and soil density is 0.67 mL/ gram; ° dermal, hand and object to mouth, and soil ingestion are added together to represent an overall risk from exposure to turf while granular ingestion is considered to be a much more episodic behavior and is considered separately by the Agency; and ° children of various ages down to the very young (e. g., 4 or 5 years old) are currently playing golf, the Agency recognizes that age may impact exposures because of changes in behavior and skin surface area to body weight ratios but has not yet developed a quantitative approach for calculating their risks.

C Exposures to children and adults working in home gardens have been addressed using the latest Agency approaches for this scenario including: ° youth aged children are considered along with adults; ° 12 year old youth are expected to weigh 39.1 kg; ° exposure durations are expected to be 40 minutes; ° Pre Harvest Intervals (PHIs) are less than 7 days for most crops with some as long as 28 days; ° transfer coefficients for youth were calculated by adjusting the appropriate adult transfer coefficients by a 50% factor as has been done by the Agency since the inception of the SOPs For Residential Exposure Assessment; ° the updated transfer coefficients specified in Agency policy 003 described above in the occupational risk assessment have been used rather than those currently specified in the SOPs because they represent more refined estimates of exposure for the fruiting vegetable and deciduous tree crop groups, these crop groups have been used in the SOPs to represent home garden exposures; 121 ° the combination of adjusting transfer coefficients for youth aged children and using appropriate body weights for the age group results in dose levels that are slightly lower than that of adults in the same activity (the TC reduction and body weight reduction is essentially a 1: 1 ratio); and ° the DFR data used for the assessments are the same as those used in the occupational risk assessment for the selected crop groups.

C Exposures to children after contact with treated pets have been addressed using the latest Agency approaches for this scenario including: ° only toddlers are considered because their exposures are thought to be highest (i. e., they are considered the sentinel population by the Agency); ° a equilibrium approach based on a single child "hug" of the treated animal is used to assess dermal exposure as described in the 1999 Agency SAP Overview document (i. e., the skin loads after a single contact with the treated animal and additional contacts don't proportionally add exposures), the surface area of the dermal hug is based on a toddler skin surface area and typical clothing; ° residue dissipation is 5 percent per day for the shampoo and dust products (based on data from J. Chambers at Mississippi State University on other pet use products); ° the transferability of residues from fur is 20 percent; ° the active lifetime of a collar is expected to be 120 days based on label statements which was used by the Agency, a daily emission term from the collar of 0.000290 mg/ cm 2 /gram ai/ day is also based on measured data from Mississippi State University for a pet collar; ° risks are based on an even loading of residues across the entire surface of a 30 lb dog which has been chosen as a representative animal, the animal surface area was calculated using (12.3 * Body Weight (g) 0.65 ) from the Agency's 1993 Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (i. e., dog surface area of 5986 cm 2 ); ° the daily frequency of hand to mouth contact with dogs is 40 events per day, in each event, the palmar surface of the hands (i. e., 20cm 2 /event) is placed in the mouth of the child contributing to nondietary ingestion exposure; and ° the Agency is currently in the process of considering revisions in its methodologies for completing risk assessments for pet products, some of the key inputs that are potentially subject to modification include the amount of residues which are transferable from pet fur, defining the number of hand to mouth events, and evaluating the emission term for collars.

° For turf, the maximum application rate indicated at the SMART meeting was 8 lb ai/ acre even though current labels allow for applications by homeowners at up to 11 lb ai/ acre for Lock n load type packages and 9 lb ai/ acre for granulars. The TTR study was conducted also, it should be noted, at 8 lb ai/ acre (see below for more details). Based on the design of the TTR study and what was indicated at the SMART meeting, the Agency completed the postapplication assessment using the data directly from the TTR study without any adjustment for application rate. Risks at higher application rates would be worse than those presented at the 8 lb ai/ A application rate (see below). ° For pet uses, the Agency is considering modifications in its pet risk assessment methods. 122 These revisions are based on the availability and interpretation of data from academic researchers and the pesticide industry. These data will be used to refine and better characterize risks associated with uses on pets as they become available.

C Postapplication residential risks are based generally on maximum application rates or values specified in the SOPs For Residential Exposure Assessment.

C The Jazzercise approach is the basis for the dermal transfer coefficients as described in the Agency's Series 875 guidelines, SOPs For Residential Exposure Assessment, and the 1999 FIFRA SAP Overview document C There are many likely studies focused on carbaryl in the published literature or available from various governmental Agencies because it is so widely used. For example, the Agency's Office of Research and Development along with other Agencies have funded a project entitled Pesticide Exposure in Children Living in Agricultural Areas along the United States Mexico Border Yuma County, Arizona. Preliminary results of this study indicate that carbaryl residues were identified in the dust of 20 percent of the 152 houses sampled and in approximately 24 percent in 25 samples collected in 6 schools in the same region. At this point, the Agency has not identified any data from the literature or other sources that would alter the conclusions of this risk assessment. As more data become available, the Agency will consider the information in efforts to refine the assessment (i. e., use additional information to alter numeric risk estimates or to characterize existing estimates if warranted). With regard to this specific example, current Agency policy is not to use house dust estimates to calculate risks because of a lack of an appropriate exposure model. Also, in a 1995 study conducted by the Centers For Disease Control (Hill et al) entitled Pesticide Residues In Urine Of Adults Living In The United States: Reference Range Concentrations, 1000 adults were monitored via urine collection. One of the analytes measured in that study (1 napthol) is a potential metabolite of carbaryl as well as of napthalene and napropamide. This metabolite was identified in 86 percent of the 1000 adults monitored where the mean value was 17 ppb and the 99 th percentile was 290 ppb. These values were not used quantitatively in the risk assessment for carbaryl because of the uncertainties associated with them such as the exact contribution of each possible compound to the overall levels and no linked exposure information. The investigators also reported results for (2 napthol) which is also a metabolite of napthalene and indicated a common source of exposure because 1 napthol and 2 napthol levels were similar based on a Pearson correlation of 0.64 (P= 0.0001). The mean for 2 napthol is 7.2 ppb and the 99 th percentile was 54 ppb. These levels were The Agency instead considers them a qualitative indicator that exposures in the general population are likely to occur.

C The Aventis Corporation is in the process of conducting a biomonitoring study with children who live in households where carbaryl has been used. Preliminary results indicate that levels at the highest percentiles of the distribution are similar to those predicted in the Agency's turf risk assessments for toddlers which are intended to represent the higher percentiles of the exposure distribution. A more detailed analysis will be completed upon submission. Aventis is also a member of the Residential Exposure Joint Venture where the 123 objective is to collect use data for consumer products containing pesticides. These data will also be considered if submitted to the Agency.

C In Washington state, carbaryl is used under a 24C label (WA 900013) to control Ghost and Mud shrimp in Willapa Bay. The Agency considered contact with sediments (e. g., oyster digging for adults and playing on beach for toddlers) and water (adult swimming) that could contain carbaryl residues using commonly accepted risk assessment methods (i. e., RAGS Superfund Guidance and SWIMODEL (V2.0)), water monitoring data, and sediment data. In these assessments, conservative inputs for sediment and water concentrations were used and also conservative exposure factors were used to ensure the screening level nature of the calculations. Such inputs included selection of the highest water concentration estimate from all available data sources for swimmers and highest sediment concentrations for oyster digging or children playing. Other conservative inputs included the permeation coefficient from the SWIMODEL, the use of a 90 th percentile value for the duration of swimming for a noncompetitive swimmer of 3 hours (which would be expected to be conservative in the areas where this use occurs), and the entire surface area of a toddler used for playing on a beach. [Note: The water and sediment concentration data have been reviewed by the Agency's Environmental Fate and Effects Division (D279109, Thomas Steeger  author).]

Postapplication Study: One study, conducted by the Aventis Corporation, which measured concurrent dermal exposure using Jazzercize and turf transferable residues of Ronstar 50WP (oxadiazon) was submitted for use in the risk assessment. The use of this study was not accepted because it is very specific to the use of oxadiazon on turf. In particular, the study was conducted on a dormant grass and the transfer coefficients differ from those currently used in standard Agency risk assessments. In fact, the ORETF, of which Aventis is a member, considered this study for purchase and use in its generic approach to dermal exposures on turf. Based on essentially the same reasons as the Agency has used, the study was not purchased. For clarification purposes, the following information can be used to identify the study:

C Evaluation of Turf Reentry Exposure To a Broadcast Application of Ronstar 50WP EPA MRID 447425 01; Report dated January 18, 1995; Authors: Leah Rosenheck and Shirley Sanchez; Sponsor: Aventis Corporation (formerly Rhone Poulenc).

3.2.3 Residential Postapplication Exposure and Noncancer Risk Estimates The residential postapplication exposure and non cancer risk calculations are presented in this section. Noncancer risks were calculated using the Margin of Exposure (MOE) which is a ratio of the body burden to the toxicological endpoint of concern. Exposures were calculated by considering the potential sources of exposure (i. e., DFRs on garden plants, TTRs on lawns, and transferable residues on treated pets) then calculating dermal and nondietary ingestion exposures. The major difference with residential risk assessments is that the uncertainty factor which defines the level of risk concern also has to consider application of the additional FQPA safety factor specified by the legislation. In the case of carbaryl, in January and February 2002 meetings of the FQPA Safety Factor Committee, it was decided that the FQPA factor should be reduced to 1. Therefore, the overall uncertainty factor applied to carbaryl for residential postapplication risk 124 assessments is 100 which is based on the FQPA safety factor of 1 along with the 100 applied for inter species extrapolation, intra species sensitivity, and the use of a NOAEL for risk assessment.

Dermal exposures and risks from lawn and garden uses were calculated in the same manner as described above in Section 2.2.3. Dermal exposures from treated pets were calculated using a slightly different approach where a "hug" contact is expected to lead to an equilibrium concentration on the skin of the affected individual. Exposures to sediment and water while swimming were calculated using a soil adherence approach analogous to that used in Superfund risk assessments and swimmer exposures were calculated using the SWIMODEL which has been validated and also brought before the FIFRA SAP. Along with calculating these dermal exposures, other aspects of the turf, treated pet, and sediment exposure scenarios involved calculating dose from non dietary ingestion. The algorithms used for each type of calculation are presented below which have not been previously addressed in Section 2.2.3.

Nondietary Ingestion Exposure From Treated Turf: Nondietary ingestion exposure levels from turf were calculated using the following equations. These values were then used to calculate MOEs as illustrated above. The following illustrates the approach used to calculate the nondietary ingestion exposures that are attributable to hand to mouth behavior on treated turf (SOP 2.3.2):

where: D = dose from hand to mouth activity (mg/ day); TTR = Turf Transferable Residue where dissipation is based on TTR study and the 0 day value is based on the 5% initial transferability factor (µg/ cm 2 ); SE = saliva extraction factor (%); SA = surface area of the hands (cm 2 ); Freq = frequency of hand to mouth events (events/ hour); and Hr = exposure duration (hours).

The following illustrates the approach used to calculate exposures that are attributable to object to mouth behavior on treated turf that is represented by a child mouthing on a handful of turf (SOP 2.3.3):

where: D = dose from mouthing activity (mg/ day); TTR = Turf Transferable Residue where dissipation is based on TTR study and the 0 day value is based on the 20% initial transferability factor (µg/ cm 2 ); and IgR = ingestion rate for mouthing of grass per day (cm 2 /day). The following illustrates the basics of the approach, used to calculate exposures that are attributable to soil ingestion (SOP 2.3.4): 125 where: D = dose from soil ingestion activity (mg/ day); SR = Soil Residue where dissipation is based on TTR study and the 0 day value is based on the application rate, 1 cm depth of surface soil, and the density of soil (µg/ cm 3 ); and IgR = ingestion rate for daily soil ingestion (mg/ day).

Dermal Exposure From Treated Pets: Dermal exposure from treated pets was calculated using the following equation. These values were then used to calculate MOEs as illustrated above. This approach is based on the Agency presentation at the 1999 FIFRA Science Advisory Panel and is detailed in the accompanying overview document.

where: D = dose from dermal pet contact (mg/ day); AR = application rate or amount applied to animal in a single treatment (mg ai/ animal); FAR = fraction of the application rate available for dermal contact as transferable residue (%/ 100); SApet = surface area of a treated dog (cm 2 /animal); t = time after application (days); DR = fractional dissipation rate per day (% per day/ 100); and SA hug = surface area of a child hug (cm 2 contact/ hug).

[Note: For collars, the (( AR/ FAR)/ SApet) term is replaced with a measured emission term of 0.00029 mg/ cm 2 /gram ai in collar/ day which is then multiplied by the amount of active ingredient in the collar to calculate risks.]

Nondietary Exposure From Treated Pets: Nondietary exposure from treated pets was calculated using the following equation (SOP 9.2.2). This exposure pathway occurs when children touch animals then put their hands in their mouths. These values were then used to calculate MOEs as illustrated above. 126 where: D = nondietary ingestion dose from with treated pets (mg/ day); AR = application rate or amount applied to animal in a single treatment (mg ai/ animal); FAR = fraction of the application rate available for dermal contact as transferable residue (%/ 100); SApet = surface area of a treated dog (cm 2 /animal); t = time after application (days); DR = fractional dissipation rate per day (% per day/ 100); SAL = saliva extraction factor (% extractability); SAhands = surface area of the hands (cm 2 ); Freq = frequency of hand to mouth events (events/ day). [Note: Collar emissions are defined as described above for dermal exposures.]

Mosquito Control Applications: Mosquito control and other uses (e. g., black fly treatments) have been addressed using a methodology that involves defining how much material is deposited on the ground in impacted areas then using the same methodology that is used for a turf risk assessment. The calculations for defining how much deposited on the ground after such applications involved published literature for ground based techniques and the AgDrift model for aerial application methods (see Appendix K for further information). See above for turf risk assessment calculations.

Ghost and Mud Shrimp 24C Applications: Applications to Willapa Bay in Washington state have been addressed using the SWIMODEL and guidance from RAGS. The SWIMODEL provides exposure rates (mg/ day) from several routes of exposure. Dermal exposures were separated out to apply the NOAEL from the 21 day dermal rat study (i. e., 20 mg/ kg/ day) using a simple proportion. All other calculations were similar to other scenarios for MOEs and dose.

Sediment exposures included a dermal component for adults and toddlers and a hand tomouth component for toddlers. Dermal exposures to sediments were calculated using the following:

where: D = potential dose from dermal sediment contact (mg/ kg/ day); Sed = concentration of carbaryl in sediment (µg/ kg or ppb), varies over time with concentration data obtained from WA state reports and linear extrapolation between Day 2 and Day 30 data; Adh = soil adherence factor (mg/ cm 2 ); SA = surface area of the body parts contacted (cm 2 ); and BW = body weight (kg). 127 Nondietary ingestion exposures that are attributable to hand to mouth behavior for toddlers on beaches were calculated as follows:

where: D = dose from hand to mouth activity (mg/ kg/ day); Sed = concentration of carbaryl in sediment (µg/ kg or ppb), varies over time with concentration data obtained from WA state reports and linear extrapolation between Day 2 and Day 30 data; SE = saliva extraction factor (%); SA = surface area of the hands (cm 2 ); Adh = soil adherence factor (mg/ cm 2 ); and BW = body weight (kg).

Noncancer Risk Summary: All of the noncancer risk calculations for the various residential carbaryl assessments are included in Appendices H, I, J, K, L and M for the turf, home garden, pet, mosquito control and oyster bed scenarios, respectively. [Note: Both Appendices K and L pertain to mosquito control.] The specifics of each of table included in these Appendices are described below. A summary of the results for each scenario considered for each timeframe is also provided below.

C Appendix H/ Table 1 : Carbaryl Postapplication Residential Turf Risk Assessment Inputs Contains each numerical input utilized in the calculation of the residential postapplication risk values.

C Appendix H/ Table 2 : Residue Levels Used For Carbaryl Residential Risk Assessment On Turf Presents the turf transferable residue values used for the dermal, hand to mouth, object to mouth, and soil ingestion risk assessments. Includes daily values which have been used for short term exposures and 30 day average values which have been used for intermediate term exposures.

C Appendix H/ Table 3: Adult Noncancer Risk Values For Carbaryl Residential Risk Assessment on Turf Presents the risks for short term and intermediate term adult dermal exposures in on turf while engaged in high contact activity such as heavy lawncare (" On Residential Turf") or while playing golf on a treated course.

C Appendix H/ Table 5: Toddler Dermal Risk Values For Carbaryl on Turf Presents the risks for short term and intermediate term toddler dermal exposures in on turf while engaged in high contact activity.

C Appendix H/ Table 6: Toddler Hand to Mouth Risk Values For Carbaryl on Turf Presents the risks for short term and intermediate term toddler hand to mouth exposures in on turf while engaged in high contact activity.

C Appendix H/ Table 7: Toddler Object to Mouth Risk Values For Carbaryl on Turf 128 Presents the risks for short term and intermediate term toddler object to mouth exposures in on turf while engaged in high contact activity.

° Appendix H/ Table 8: Toddler Soil Ingestion Risk Values For Carbaryl on Turf Presents the risks for short term and intermediate term toddler soil ingestion exposures in on turf while engaged in high contact activity.

° Appendix H/ Table 9: Toddler Aggregate Risk Values For Carbaryl on Turf Presents the risks for short term and intermediate term toddler aggregate exposures in on turf while engaged in high contact activity.

C Appendix I/ Table 1: Carbaryl Postapplication Residential Garden and Tree Use Risk Assessment Inputs Presents the numerical unit exposure values and other factors used in the tree and garden postapplication risk assessments.

C Appendix I/ Table 2: Carbaryl Residential Postapplication Adult Risk Assessment For Deciduous Tree Crop Group Risk values are presented for each exposure duration considered in the assessment (i. e., short term and intermediate term duration exposures, respectively).

C Appendix I/ Table 4: Carbaryl Residential Postapplication Youth Risk Assessment For Deciduous Tree Crop Group Risk values are presented for each exposure duration considered in the assessment (i. e., short term and intermediate term duration exposures, respectively).

C Appendix I/ Table 5: Carbaryl Residential Postapplication Adult Risk Assessment For Fruiting vegetable Crop Group Risk values are presented for each exposure duration considered in the assessment (i. e., short term and intermediate term duration exposures, respectively).

C Appendix I/ Table 7: Carbaryl Residential Postapplication Youth Risk Assessment For Fruiting vegetable Crop Group Risk values are presented for each exposure duration considered in the assessment (i. e., short term and intermediate term duration exposures, respectively).

C Appendix J/ Table 1: Carbaryl Residential Pet Risk Assessment For Toddlers Presents the risks for short term and intermediate term toddler exposure after contact with treated pets.

C Appendix K: Determination of Deposition Factors For Carbaryl Mosquito Control Uses Presents the calculations and the data used to determine the amount of residues deposited in treated residential areas after mosquito control applications by air and ground.

C Appendix L/ Table 1 : Carbaryl Postapplication Residential Mosquito Control Risk 129 Assessment Inputs Contains each numerical input utilized in the calculation of the residential mosquito control postapplication risk values.

C Appendix L/ Table 2 : Residue Levels Used For Carbaryl Residential Risk Assessment On Turf After Aerial Mosquito Control Application Presents the turf transferable residue values used for the dermal, hand to mouth, object to mouth, and soil ingestion risk assessments. Includes daily values which have been used for short term exposures and 30 day average values which have been used for intermediate term exposures. These values have been adjusted for deposition from ULV aerial application.

C Appendix L/ Table 3 : Residue Levels Used For Carbaryl Residential Risk Assessment On Turf After Ground Mosquito Control Application Presents the turf transferable residue values used for the dermal, hand to mouth, object to mouth, and soil ingestion risk assessments. Includes daily values which have been used for short term exposures and 30 day average values which have been used for intermediate term exposures. These values have been adjusted for deposition from ULV ground application.

C Appendix L/ Table 4: Adult Noncancer Risk Values For Carbaryl Residential Risk Assessment on Turf After Aerial Mosquito Control Application Presents the risks for short term and intermediate term adult dermal exposures in on turf while engaged in high contact activity such as heavy lawncare (" On Residential Turf") or while playing golf on a treated course after the area has been treated for mosquito control using aerial equipment.

C Appendix L/ Table 5: Adult Noncancer Risk Values For Carbaryl Residential Risk Assessment on Turf After Ground Mosquito Control Application Presents the risks for short term and intermediate term adult dermal exposures in on turf while engaged in high contact activity such as heavy lawncare (" On Residential Turf") or while playing golf on a treated course after the area has been treated for mosquito control using ground equipment.

C Appendix L/ Table 8: Toddler Dermal Risk Values For Carbaryl on Turf After Aerial Mosquito Control Application Presents the risks for short term and intermediate term toddler dermal exposures on turf while engaged in high contact activity after the area has been treated for mosquito control using aerial equipment.