June 15, 2001 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: REVISED OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR THE REREGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY DECISION DOCUMENT FOR DISULFOTON FROM: Richard Griffin Reregistration Branch 2 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

TO: Christina Scheltema Reregistration Branch 3 Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508W)

THRU: Al Nielsen, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch 2 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

Please find attached the revised occupational exposure and risk assessment for disulfoton. Please note that there are unresolved data compensation issues related to the Agency   s use of proprietary data to assess the risks for handler scenarios involving loading/ applying granular formulations with a pump or gravity feed backpack spreader.

The following changes necessitated this revised occupational exposure and risk assessment for disulfoton:

1) The registrant notified the Agency that it would not support several crops and use patterns that were included in the original risk assessment; 2) The registrant notified the Agency that it was reducing the maximum supported application rate for several crops; 3) The REVISED ( 3 nd ) Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee for disulfoton issued January 18, 2001 established the short term dermal NOAEL for use in occupational and residential risks assessments at 0.5 mg/ kg/ day based on a newly submitted 3 day dermal rat study   the previous short  term dermal NOAEL for such assessments was 0.4 mg/ kg/ day; 4) The Health Effects Division on August 7, 2000 adopted revised Policy 3.1 from the Science Advisory Council for Exposure that presents interim transfer coefficients ( TC) for agricultural or commercial activities for use in post application exposure assessments; 5) The Health Effects Division on June 23, 2000 adopted revised Policy 9 from the Science Advisory Council for Exposure that provides standard values for the number of acres that can be treated in a single day by various types of agricultural equipment; 6) Newly available and better quality ORETF data for the push type granular spreader equipment is used in place of the PHED data set for this scenario; 7) Additional exposure scenarios were added because proprietary data became available to assess applying granular formulation with backpack equipment; 8) Newly available proprietary data were used to assess the exposure from the occupational scenario for applying granular with a bucket and spoon   previously PHED data for applying granular bait by hand was used as a surrogate for this scenario;

DP Barcode: D275169 Pesticide Chemical Codes: 032501 EPA Reg Nos. : 4 153, 4 253, 4 420, 16 171, 70 236, 192 74, 192 119, 192 126, 192 164, 239 2134, 572 346, 769 908, 802 426, 869 76, 869 223, 904 138, 3125 83, 3125 116, 3125 152, 3125 172, 3125 307, 3125 517, 5887 67, 5887 171, 7401 4, 4701 26, 7401 235, 7401 323, 9404 3, 8660 125, 8660 191, 11474 17, 32802 32, 34704 475, 42057 51, 46260 2, 46260 12, 46260 35, 59144 23; SLNs for 3125 172:  WA 850036;  ID 850016;  MT 800004;  OR 8000034;  NM 880001; NC 880001;  NC 920011;  WA 980004; SLNs for 3125 307:  CA 840192;  WA840036;  CA 760019;  CA 770036;  CA 770036;  CA 810044;  TX 900004;  OR 910027;  TX 860007;  WA 920026;

PHED: Yes, Version 1.1 EXPOSURE AND RISK ASSESSMENT/ CHARACTERIZATION Purpose In this document, which is for use in EPA' s development of the Disulfoton Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document ( RED) , EPA presents the results of its review of the potential human health effects of occupational exposure to disulfoton. This memorandum revises the occupational exposure section of the February 7, 2000 memorandum titled   Revised Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment and Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document for Disulfoton   and the August 24, , 2000 memorandum titled   Amendment to the the Disulfoton Occupational and Residential Exposure and Risk Assessment.   1,2 Criteria for Conducting Exposure Assessments An occupational exposure assessment is required for an active ingredient if ( 1) certain toxicological criteria are triggered and ( 2) there is potential exposure to handlers ( mixers, loaders, applicators, etc. ) during use or to persons entering treated sites after application is complete. For disulfoton, both criteria are met.

Summary of Toxicity Concerns Relating to Occupational Exposure Acute Toxicology Categories Table 1 below presents the acute toxicity categories based on the active ingredient as outlined in the Hazard Identification document. 3 Table 1: Acute Toxicity Categories for Disulfoton Guideline No. Study Type MRID # . Results Toxicity Category 81 1 Acute Oral Acc# 072293 LD50 = M: 6. 2 mg/ kg; F: 1. 9 mg/ kg I 81 2 Acute Dermal Acc# 07793 LD50 = M: 15. 9 mg/ kg; F: 3. 6 mg/ kg I 81 3 Acute Inhalation Acc# 258569 LC50 = M: 0. 06 mg/ L; F: 0. 89 mg/ L I 81 4 Primary Eye Irritation None Data requirement waived. N/ A 81 5 Primary Skin Irritation None Data requirement waived. N/ A 81 6 Dermal Sensitization None Data requirement waived. N/ A 81 7 Acute Delayed Neurotoxicity 00129384 Equivocal. NA 81 8 Acute Neurotoxicity 42755801 Reversible neurotoxic signs consistent with the cholinesterase inhibition 1. 5 mg/ kg in females and 5. 0 mg/ kg in males. N/ A 1 Occupational and Residential Endpoints of Concern The revised Hazard Identification document for disulfoton, indicates that there are toxicological endpoints of concern for occupational exposure. The endpoints used in assessing the risks for disulfoton are presented in the following Table 2. 3 Table 2: Endpoints for Assessing Occupational Risks for Disulfoton Test Results Short term Dermal Exposure ( 1 to 7 days) 0. 5 mg/ kg/ day based on a 3 day dermal study in rats ( Target MOE = 100)

Intermediate term Dermal Exposure ( 1 week to several months) 0.03 mg/ kg/ day based on a special 6 month cholinesterase inhibition feeding study ( Target MOE = 100)

Inhalation Exposure ( All time periods) 0. 00016 mg/ L or 0.045 mg/ kg/ day based on a 90 day inhalation study in rats ( Target MOE = 100)

Dermal Absorption ( intermediate term dermal endpoint only) 36%

Inhalation Absorption 100%

SUMMARY OF USE PATTERN AND FORMULATIONS Type of pesticide/ target pests Disulfoton, ( O, O Diethyl S [ 2 ( ethylthio) ethyl ] phosphorodithioate) ) is a selective systemic organophosphate insecticide used to control a variety of sucking insects. Examples of the type of insects that disulfoton controls include, but are not limited to, the following: 4 C vegetables and field crops: aphids, leafhoppers, Mexican bean beetle larvae, mites, thrips and potato psyllid, grasshoppers, flea beetles, southern potato wireworms, root aphids, green peach aphids, Colorado potato beetles, hessian fly; and C ornamental shrubs, trees and rose bushes: aphids, birch leaf miner, elm leaf beetle, European elm scale, lace bug, leafhoppers, mites, thrips, whiteflies, birch leafminers, camellia scale, holly leafminer, leafhoppers, mimosa webworm, pine tip moth, soft scale, spider mites, tea scale, thrips and whiteflies.

Formulation types and percent active ingredient for occupational products 2 Disulfoton is formulated as a technical product ( 98.5 percent active ingredient) . It is formulated for occupational use as an emulsifiable concentrate ( 85, 23, and 17.5 percent active ingredient) , and as a granular ( 15, 10, 6.5, 2, 1, 0.625, 0.5, and 0.37 percent) . It is often formulated in combination with fertilizers. 4 Registered use sites for occupational products 4,5 C Agricultural Crops ( food and feed crops) , including peppers, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, Chinese cabbage, cauliflower, clover grown for seed ( SLN only) , lettuce, asparagus ( SLN only) , radishes grown for seed ( SLN only) , barley, wheat, cotton, peanuts ( SLN only) , peas, sorghum, soybeans, white/ Irish potatoes, dried, lima, and snap beans, lentils, and tobacco;

In the original assessment, the following crops were included, however, they are no longer being supported by Bayer and other registrants and have been dropped from this revised assessment: spinach, black and red raspberries, tomatoes, field corn, oats, triticale, sweet corn, sugar beets, popcorn, and strawberries ( propagating plants only)

C Nut Trees and Non Bearing Fruit Trees: coffee trees;

In the original assessment, the following crops were included, however, they are no longer being supported by Bayer and other registrants and have been dropped from this revised assessment: pecan trees and nonbearing apple, crabapple, pear, apricot, cherry, peach, plum and prune trees.

C Forest Trees: poplars grown for pulp ( SLN only) ;

C Ornamental Flowers/ Groundcover, including annuals and bulbs;

C Ornamental Shrubs and Trees, including Christmas trees; and C Potted Plants: outdoor only In the original assessment, indoor ( i. e. , greenhouse) potted plants were included, however greenhouse uses are no longer being supported by Bayer and other registrants and have been dropped from this revised assessment. . Occupational Application Rates 4,5 C Emulsifiable Concentrate formulations: 4.0 lb/ A tobacco ( Reg # 3125 307) 3.0 lb/ A potatoes: foliar OR, WA, ID UT ( Reg # 3125 307) ; potatoes: soil ( Reg # 3125 307) ; poplars grown for pulpwood ( Reg # 3125 307  OR 910027) 2.5 lb/ A peas and lentils ( Reg # 3125 307)

3 2.0 lb/ A beans: dry, snap, lima ( Reg # 3125 307) ; cabbage ( Reg # 3125 307) ; lettuce ( Reg # 3125 307) ; peppers ( Reg # 3125 307) ; radish grown for seed ( Reg # 3125 307 WA 920026) ; 1.0 lb/ A asparagus ( Reg # 3125 307 CA 840192) ; barley ( Reg # 3125 307) ; broccoli ( Reg # 3125 307) ; Brussels sprouts ( Reg # 3125 307) ; cauliflower ( Reg # 3125 307) ; cotton ( Reg # 3125 307) ; sorghum ( Reg # 3125 307) ; wheat ( Reg # 3125 307) ; 0.75 lb/ A wheat ( Reg # 3125 307) 0.5 lb/ A sorghum ( Reg # 3125 307) ; potatoes: foliar ( Reg # 3125 307) 0.2 lb/ A cotton ( Reg # 3125 307 TX 860007)

C Granular formulations: 109 lb/ A field grown ornamental shrubs ( Reg # 3125 172) based on the assumption that the shrubs are two feet tall and occupy two square feet ( i. e. , roses) ; 78 lb/ A Christmas trees ( Reg # 3125 172) based on the assumption that the trunk is 2 inches in diameter and trees are planted at 1700 per acre; 37 lb/ A field grown ornamental trees ( Reg # 3125 172) based on the assumption that the trunk is 2 inches in diameters and trees are planted at 800 per acre; 29 lb/ A field grown flowers and groundcover ( Reg # 3125 172) 11 lb/ A field grown ornamental trees and shrubs: injection ( Reg # 3125 172) and lower rate for noninjection ( Reg # 3125 172) 8.3 lb/ A coffee trees ( Reg # 3125 172) based on the assumption that the trees are 8 feet tall and are planted 435 trees per acre 4.5 lb/ A Christmas trees ( ( Reg # 3125 172 NC 880001) 4.0 lb/ A tobacco ( Reg # 3125 172) ; 3.0 lb/ A potatoes: soil ( Reg # 3125 172) ; 2.5 lb/ A peas and lentils ( Reg # 3125 172) ; 2.0 lb/ A peanuts ( Reg # 3125 172 NC 920011) ; peppers ( Reg # 3125 172) ; radish grown for seed ( Reg # 3125 172 WA 920027) ; 1.5 lb/ A cabbage ( Reg # 3125 172) ; 1.0 lb/ A barley ( Reg # 3125 172) ; beans: dry, snap, lima: ( Reg # 3125 172) ; broccoli ( Reg # 3125 172) ; Brussels sprouts ( Reg # 3125 172) ; cauliflower ( Reg # 3125 172) ; clover grown for seed ( Reg # 3125 172 WA 980004) ; cotton ( Reg # 3125 172) ; peanuts ( Reg # 3125 172) ; sorghum ( Reg # 3125 172) ; soybeans ( Reg # 3125 172) ; wheat ( Reg # 3125 172) ; 0.2 lb/ day potted ornamentals ( Reg # 3125 172) ; based on the assumption that 350 pots that are 12 inches in diameter are treated each day.

Application Methods, Types of Equipment Used, and Size of Area Treated 4,5 EPA estimates the area treated per day based on the type of equipment used on a specific crop. Acres treated per day values are based on HED Exposure SAC Policy # 009   Standard 4 Values for Daily Acres Treated in Agriculture,   revised June 23, , 2000, or best professional judgment when data is not available.

C For aerial equipment ( mix/ load, apply) the daily acres treated is 1200 acres per day for barley, cotton ( SLN) , sorghum, and wheat; flagging for such crops is given as 350 and 1200 acres per day; for aerial equipment ( mix/ load, apply, and flag) for all other crops is 350 acres per day;

C For chemigation equipment the daily acres treated is 350 acres for broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, cotton, lettuce, poplars grown for pulp, and potatoes;

C For groundboom spray equipment ( mix/ load and apply) the daily acres treated is 200 acres per day for barley, cotton, sorghum, and wheat; groundboom spray equipment for all other crops is 80 acres per day;

C For tractor drawn granular equipment ( load and apply) the daily acres treated is 200 acres per day for barley, cotton, sorghum, soybeans, and wheat; tractor drawn granular equipment for coffee and all ornamental crops is 40 acres per day; the assumption for other crops is 80 acres per day;

C For push type granular equipment ( load/ apply) the daily acres treated is 5 acres per day for ornamental shrubs, trees, Christmas trees, flowers, and groundcover;

C For bellygrinder granular equipment ( load/ apply) the daily acres treated is 5 acres per day for ornamental shrubs, trees, Christmas trees, flowers, and groundcover;

C For pump feed and gravity feed backpack granular spreaders and scoop/ bucket techniques ( load/ apply) , the daily acres treated ranges from 5 to 10 acres per day for ornamental shrubs, trees, Christmas trees, coffee trees, flowers, and groundcover; for applying to individual potted plants, the amount treated is 350 pots per day.

OCCUPATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND CHARACTERIZATION Occupational Handler Exposures Scenarios HED has determined that occupational handlers are likely to be exposed during disulfoton use. The anticipated use patterns and current labeling indicate several major exposure scenarios based on the types of equipment that potentially can be used to make disulfoton applications. These scenarios include: ( 1a) mixing, loading liquid formulations ( emulsifiable concentrates) for aerial application; ( 1b) mixing, loading liquid formulations ( emulsifiable concentrates) for chemigation application; ( 1c) mixing, loading liquid formulations ( emulsifiable concentrates) for groundboom application; ( 2a) loading granulars for aerial application; ( 2b) loading granulars for tractor drawn spreader application; ( 3) applying sprays with aircraft; ( 4) applying granulars with aircraft; ( 5) applying sprays with a groundboom; ( 6) applying granulars 5 with a tractor drawn spreader; ( 7) loading and applying granulars with a push type granular spreader; ( 8) loading and applying granulars using a belly grinder; ( 9a) loading and applying granulars with a pump feed backpack spreader; ( 9b) loading and applying granulars with a gravity feed backpack spreader; ( 10) loading and applying granulars with a scoop and bucket; ( 11) flagging during aerial spray applications; and ( 12) flagging during aerial granular applications. Loading and applying granulars with a motorcycle or all terrain vehicle equipped with a spreader is another known application method for ornamentals, including Christmas trees, however no data are available to assess this scenario.

Handler Exposure Data  Surrogate Pesticide Handler Exposure Database ( PHED)

The PHED Task Force is comprised of representatives from the U. S. EPA, Health Canada, the California Department of Pesticide regulation, and member companies of the American Crop Protection Association. PHED is a software system consisting of two parts: a database of measured exposure values for workers involved in the handling of pesticides under actual field conditions and a set of computer algorithms used to subset and statistically summarize the selected data. Currently, the database contains values for over 1,700 monitored individuals ( i. e. , replicates) .

Users select criteria to subset the PHED database to reflect the exposure scenario being evaluated. The subsetting algorithms in PHED are based on the central assumption that the magnitude of handler exposures to pesticides are primarily a function of activity ( e. g. , mixing/ loading, applying) , formulation type ( e. g. , wettable powders, granulars) , application method ( e. g. , aerial, groundboom) , and clothing scenarios ( e. g. , gloves, double layer clothing) .

Once the data for a given exposure scenario have been selected, the data are normalized ( i. e. , divided by) by the amount of pesticide handled resulting in standard unit exposures ( milligrams of exposure per pound of active ingredient handled) . Following normalization, the data are statistically summarized. The distribution of exposure values for each body part ( e. g. , chest upper arm) is categorized as normal, lognormal, or   other   ( ( i. e. , neither normal nor lognormal) . A central tendency value is then selected from the distribution of the exposure values for each body part. These values are the arithmetic mean for normal distributions, the geometric mean for lognormal distributions, and the median for all   other   distributions. . Once selected, the central tendency values for each body part are composited into a   best fit   exposure value representing the entire body.

The unit exposure values calculated by PHED generally range from the geometric mean to the median of the selected data set. While data from PHED provide the best available information on handler exposures, it should be noted that some aspects of the included studies ( e. g. , duration, acres treated, pounds of active ingredient handled) may not accurately represent labeled uses in all cases. HED has developed a series of tables of standard unit exposure values for many occupational scenarios that can be utilized to ensure consistency in exposure assessments ( PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide, August 1998) . 6 6 In the revised assessment for occupational handlers, PHED data are used to assess exposure to scenarios ( 1) through ( 6) , ( 8) , ( 11) , and ( 12) .

Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force ( ORETF)

The handler exposure data for loading/ applying granules with push type spreader equipment used in this revised occupational and residential assessment are from the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force ( ORETF) . 7 The task force recently submitted proprietary data to the Agency on hose end sprayers, push type granular spreaders, and handgun sprayers ( MRID # 44972201) . The ORETF data were used in this assessment in place of PHED data for the   loading/ applying granulars using a push type spreader   scenario. . The ORETF data were designed to replace the present PHED data with higher confidence, higher quality data that contains more replicates than the PHED data for those scenarios. 6,7 Proprietary Studies Worker Exposure Study During Application In Banana Plantation With Temik 10G , EPA MRID 451672 01: 8 In the revised occupational risk assessment, EPA used data from the aldicarb ( Temik) study to assess exposures and risks to handlers applying granulars with a pump feed backpack sprayer. In the original assessment, no data were available to assess this exposure scenario.

Exposure during the application of a granular formulation of the insecticide, aldicarb ( i. e. , Temik 10G) , was monitored during granular backpack application to bananas for control of insects, mites, and nematodes. A total of 12 mixer/ loader/ applicator events during granular backpack ( i. e. , a specialized pump feed device manufactured by Swissmex Rapid) application to bananas were monitored during August of 1998 on the island of Martinique is in the French West Indies. Weather was typical of the application season in that it was hot, humid, and rainy at points.

Monitoring was completed using whole body dosimeters, handwashes, facial wipes, and personal sampling pumps equipped with XAD resin/ filter combination samplers. Temik 10G was supplied in 22 pound boxes which was loaded directly into the backpack devices ( i. e. , 4 to 8 boxes were used per replicate) . The application rate for aldicarb used in this study is 20 grams of Temik 10G ( i. e. , 2 grams ai/ plant) which is equivalent to about 3.56 lb ai/ acre at approximately 2000 plants per acre. The numbers of acres treated ranged from approximately 2.5 to 5 acres. The pounds of active ingredient handled ranged from 8.8 up to 17.6 per replicate. Each applicator wore the whole body dosimeters covered by a cotton coverall, Tyvek gloves supplied with the Temik 10G formulation, and an apron on their backs between their backs and the backpack applicator. The Tyvek gloves were changed with each box of Temik 10G used. In many instances, the gloves were compromised because they were ripped. In one case, the gloves filled with rainwater. In many other cases, when the whole body dosimeters were removed, they were found to be wet and muddy.

Analysis of aldicarb and its sulfoxide and sulfone degradates was completed. The 7 residue levels were added together to obtain total exposure levels. The limits of quantification ( LOQ) were 1.0 F g per sample for the whole body dosimeters and handwashes ( 600 mL volume) . The LOQ for the facial wipes was 0.10 F g per sample and 0.050 0.10 F g per sample for the air filters. Field and laboratory recovery data were generated for all media for all residues measured ( i. e. , parent and metabolites) . Field recovery data were generated in a manner that addressed field sampling, field storage, transport, laboratory storage, and analysis. Residues were corrected for the overall average field recovery for each residue/ matrix combination. Generally, recovery data were adequate for all media/ residue combinations. If the PHED grading criteria are applied all residue/ matrix combinations ( except facial wipes with sulfone residues) have at least grade   B   data and in many cases the data meet the grade   A   criteria. . The grade   B   criteria require laboratory recovery data with an average of at least 80 percent and a coefficient of variation of 25 or less accompanied with field recoveries that are at least 50 percent but not exceeding 120 percent. The grade   A   criteria require laboratory recovery data with an average of at least 90 percent and a coefficient of variation of 15 or less accompanied with field recoveries that are at least 70 percent but not exceeding 120 percent.

Unit exposure values were calculated using the data from the study and a commercial spreadsheet program. The exposures that were calculated were normalized by the amount of chemical used, the duration of the application interval, and by the body weight of the individual applicators. For each calculation, the arithmetic mean, geometric mean, and various percentiles were calculated. 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 standard practice, the Agency will use the geometric mean for risk assessment purposes.

Unit Exposure Values Type ( mg exp. / lb ai handled) ( mg exp. / hour) ( mg exp. / kg body weight/ day) Dermal Inhalation Dermal Inhalation Dermal Inhalation Geo. Mean 0.0995 0.0042 0.3979 0.0169 0.0409 0.0017 Worker Exposure Study During Application of Regent 20GR In Banana Plantation , EPA MRID 452507 02 9 In the revised occupational risk assessment, EPA used data from the fipronil ( Regent 20 GR) study to assess exposures and risks to handlers loading and applying granulars with a gravity feed backpack sprayer. In the original assessment, no data were available to assess this exposure scenario. In addition, in the revised occupational risk assessment, EPA used data from the fipronil study to assess exposures and risks to occupational handlers loading and applying granulars using a scoop and bucket. In the original assessment, PHED data for applying granulars by hand were used. However, this proprietary study is being substituted for the PHED data because the study data is higher confidence and higher quality. The Agency notes that unit exposure values derived from the fipronil study and used in place of PHED data for the disulfoton assessment are range finding estimates only.

Exposure during the application of a granular formulation of the insecticide, fipronil ( i. e. , Regent 20GR) , was monitored during granular gravity feed backpack ( i. e. , Horstine Farmery 8 Microspread ® ) applications and spoon applications to bananas for control of insects, mites, and nematodes. A total of 18 mixer/ loader/ applicator events during granular backpack ( i. e. , a specialized gravity feed device manufactured by Horstine Farmery) or spoon application to bananas were monitored during applications on three different days in June, 1994 on the same banana plantation in Cameroon. The 18 replicates were distributed over the 3 sampling days as follows: 6 spoon/ hand applications on day 1; 4 spoon/ hand applications on day 2; and 8 backpack events on day 3. Weather was typical of the application season in that it was hot and humid. Monitoring was completed using whole body dosimeters, cotton gloves, cotton caps, and personal sampling pumps equipped with filters. Regent 20GR was supplied in 22 pound boxes which was loaded directly into the backpack devices or buckets for the spoon applicators. The application rate for fipronil used in this study is 7.5 grams of Regent 20GR ( i. e. , 0.15 grams ai/ plant) which is equivalent to about 0.26 lb ai/ acre ( 0.00033 lb ai/ plant) at approximately 800 plants per acre. The numbers of acres treated ranged from approximately 0.75 to 1 acre. The pounds of active ingredient handled ranged from about a quarter to half a pound per replicate.

Each applicator wore whole body dosimeters that also served as the normal work clothing. PVC gloves were also worn over cotton gloves which served as the dosimeters. A protection factor of 50 percent was used by the Agency to calculate exposure levels under a layer of normal work clothing. Dosimeter samples were segmented into arms, legs, and torso for analysis.

Analysis of fipronil residues was completed with gas chromatography and electron capture detection. The limits of quantification ( LOQ) were 9.7 F g per sample for all media used. The limit of detection ( LOD) varied for each media. The LOD for the cotton gloves was 0.5 F g per sample, 0.10 F g per sample for the air filters, and 2.0 to 4.0 F g per sample for the whole body dosimeters depending upon the sample analyzed. Field and laboratory recovery data were generated for all media. Field recovery data were generated in a manner that addressed field sampling, field storage, transport, laboratory storage, and analysis. However, the laboratory recovery data were indeterminate because the sample media could not be identified for each reported result. The overall recovery values do appear to be quantitative. Residues were corrected for the overall average field recovery for each residue/ matrix combination. Generally, recovery was adequate for all media/ residue combinations ( i. e. , all correction factors were greater than 85 percent) . If the PHED grading criteria are applied and the overall laboratory recovery averages are used all residue/ matrix combinations are considered grade   A   data. . The grade   A   criteria require laboratory recovery data with an average of at least 90 percent and a coefficient of variation of 15 or less accompanied with field recoveries that are at least 70 percent but not exceeding 120 percent.

Unit exposure values were calculated using the data from the study and a commercial spreadsheet program. The exposures that were calculated were normalized by the amount of chemical used, the duration of the application interval, and by the body weight of the individual applicators ( see table below) . The values are based on a 50 percent clothing penetration factor and are separated for each equipment type monitored in this study. For each normalization factor, the arithmetic mean, geometric mean, and various percentiles were calculated. 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 9 representations of the central tendency. Considering the standard practice, the Agency will use the geometric mean for risk assessment purposes.

Unit Exposure Values For Single Layer Clothing and Gloves Type ( mg exp. / lb ai handled) ( mg exp. / hour) ( mg exp. / kg body weight/ day) Dermal Inhalation Dermal Inhalation Dermal Inhalation Applications with a Spoon Geo. Mean 1.978 0.045 0.246 0.006 0.014 0.0003 Applications with a Horstine Farmery Microspread Geo. Mean 0.598 0.044 0.056 0.004 0.003 0.0002 Occupational Handler Exposure Scenario Data and Assumptions An exposure assessment for each scenario was developed, where appropriate data are available, using the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database ( PHED) Version 1.1, 6 ORETF data, 7 and proprietary data. 8,9 Appendix Table 5 summarizes the caveats and parameters specific to the surrogate data used for each scenario and corresponding exposure/ risk assessment. These caveats include the source of the data and an assessment of the overall quality of the data. The assessment of data quality is based on the number of observations and the available quality control data. The quality control data are based on a grading criteria established by the PHED task force. 6 The following assumptions and factors were used in order to complete this occupational exposure assessment:

C Average body weight of an adult handler is 70 kg.

C Average work day interval represents an 8 hour workday ( e. g. , the acres treated or volume of spray solution prepared in a typical day are based on an 8 hour workday) .

C Calculations are completed at the maximum application rates for specific crops recommended by the available disulfoton labels to estimate reasonable worse case risk levels associated with the various use patterns.

C Due to a lack of scenario specific data, HED often calculates unit exposure values using generic protection factors ( PF) that are applied to represent various risk mitigation options ( i. e. , the use of Personal Protective Equipment ( PPE) and engineering controls) . PPE protection factors include those representing a double layer of clothing ( 50 percent PF) , chemical resistant gloves ( 90 percent PF) and respiratory protection ( 80 percent PF) for use of dust/ mist mask. Engineering controls are generally assigned a PF of 98 percent.

Occupational Handler Exposure and Risk Estimates The calculations of daily dermal and inhalation exposure, short term and intermediate term doses, and dermal, inhalation, and total short and intermediate term MOEs were made 10 using the following formulae.

Potential daily dermal exposure is calculated using the following formula:

Daily Dermal Exposure mg ai ' Unit Exposure mg ai xUse Rate lb ai x Daily Acres Treated A day lb ai A day The potential short term and intermediate term dermal doses were calculated using the following formulae:

Short & term Daily Dermal Dose mg ai ' Short & term Daily Dermal Exposure mg ai x 1 kg / day day Body Weight ( kg )

Interm & term Daily Dermal Dose mg ai ' Interm & term Daily Dermal Exposure mg ai x DermalAbsorption ( 0. 36) x 1 kg / day day BW ( kg )

The short term MOEs were calculated using a NOAEL of 0.5 mg/ kg/ day. The intermediate term MOEs were calculated using a NOAEL of 0.03 mg/ kg/ day assuming 36 percent dermal absorption.

Potential daily inhalation exposure was calculated using the following formula:

Daily Inhalation Exposure mg ai '

day 1 mg A Unit Exposure F gai x Conversion Factor 1, 000 F g xUse Rate lb A ai x Daily Acres Treated day lb ai The potential short term and intermediate term inhalation doses were calculated using the following formulae:

Short & term Daily Inhalation Dose mg ai ' Short & term Daily Inhalation Exposure mg ai x 1 kg / day day Body Weight ( kg )

Intermediate & term Daily Inhalation Dose mg ai ' Intermediate & term Daily Inhalation Exposure mg ai x 1 kg / day day Body Weight ( kg )

For disulfoton, the inhalation doses were calculated using a 70 kg body weight and an inhalation absorption rate of 100 percent.

Occupational handler exposure assessments are completed by EPA using a baseline exposure scenario and, if required, increasing levels of risk mitigation ( PPE and engineering 11 controls) to achieve an appropriate margin of exposure ( MOE) . The baseline scenario represents a handler wearing long pants, a long sleeved shirt, and no chemical resistant gloves. Table 3 below presents a summary of occupational handler risks of disulfoton by crop. The Appendix Tables 1 through 5 present risk assessment calculations for the occupational handling of disulfoton. Appendix Table 1 presents the dermal, inhalation, and total short and intermediate term risks at baseline attire. Appendix Table 2 presents the occupational dermal, inhalation, and total short term risks when wearing PPE risk mitigation. Appendix Table 3 presents the occupational dermal, inhalation, and total intermediate term risks when wearing PPE risk mitigation Appendix Table 4 presents the dermal, inhalation, and total short and intermediate term risks when engineering controls ( e. g. , closed systems for mixing/ loading, enclosed cab for applying or flagging, and enclosed cockpit for aerial applications are used. Appendix Table 5 summarizes the caveats and parameters specific to the surrogate data used for each scenario and corresponding exposure/ risk assessment.

Engineering Controls for Mixing and Loading The engineering control available for mixing and loading pesticides is a closed system. In the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides ( WPS)   40 CFR Parts 156 and 170, closed systems are defined as systems designed by the manufacturer to enclose the pesticide to prevent it from contacting handlers or other people while it is being handled. Such systems must function properly and be used and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer' s written operating instructions. Under the WPS, when correctly using a closed system to mix and/ or load pesticides, handlers need not wear all the personal protective equipment listed on the pesticide labeling for handlers, but must wear at least: long sleeved shirt and long pants, shoes and socks, and chemical resistant gloves specified on the pesticide labeling for mixing, loading, and other handling tasks. If the formulation is a liquid, a chemical resistant apron is also required. The gloves and chemical resistant apron are required to protect the mixers/ loaders in case the closed systems breaks down. When using a closed system for liquid formulations that operates under pressure, handlers may wear the reduced PPE specified above, but must add protective eyewear even if the handler PPE does not require protective eyewear. NOTE: Under the WPS, when reduced PPE is worn because a closed system is being used, handlers must be provided all PPE specified on the labeling for handlers and have such PPE immediately available for use in a emergency, such as a spill or equipment break down.

Closed Mixing/ Loading Systems for Liquid Formulations. There are various types of closed systems currently available for use with liquid formulations:

C Water Soluble Packaging : One closed system is a type of packaging system where the liquid pesticide is formulated by the registrant into a gel and packaged into water soluble packets. When used correctly, water soluble packaging qualifies as a closed loading system under the WPS. Water soluble packaging provides both dermal and inhalation protection and is reflected in the risk assessment for mixing/ loading liquid formulations under the columns for engineering controls with inhalation protection ( i. e. , engineering control inhalation) . Handlers handling a product while it is enclosed in intact water soluble packets are permitted to wear the reduced PPE described above, as long as 12 the full required PPE is immediately available.

C Mechanical Closed Mixing System : Another type of closed system for liquid formulations is a mechanical system operated by the users that consists of a probe that is inserted into the pesticide container ( either by puncturing the container or through the container' s opening) and seals tightly to the pesticide container to prevent leaks. A transfer pump may be used to move the pesticide from its original container to the sprayer tank or the closed system equipment may be connected to the pressure system of the sprayer itself. Some type of metering device is used to measure the quantity of pesticide being transferred. This type of system provides both dermal and respiratory protection and is reflected in the risk assessment for mixing/ loading liquid formulations under the columns for engineering controls with inhalation protection ( i. e. , engineering control inhalation) . Handlers using this closed system are permitted to wear reduced PPE describe above, as long as the full required PPE is immediately available. NOTE: If the closed mixing system does not automatically rinse the container for return to the tank, a handler wearing full PPE must rinse the container and add the rinsate to the spray tank.

C Mechanical Transfer System : A mechanical transfer system usually does not meet the definition of a closed system under the WPS, unless inhalation exposure is not a concern. A Mechanical Transfer System is designed by the manufacturer to transfer liquid pesticide in a manner that prevents the liquid ( but not necessarily any vapor) from contacting handlers or other people during the transfer. Often the systems are equipped with dry disconnect fittings. However, a probe and pump system without dry disconnect fittings also is a mechanical transfer system. This type of system provides both dermal and respiratory protection and is reflected in the risk assessment for mixing/ loading liquid formulations under the columns for engineering controls with no inhalation protection ( i. e. , baseline inhalation) . If inhalation is not a concern for mixers and loaders, the Agency may determine that a mechanical transfer system ( particularly coupled with a dry disconnect system   see below) , when functioning correctly and used and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer' s written operating instructions, qualifies as a closed system and permit handlers using this system to wear reduced PPE described above, as long as the full required PPE is immediately available.

C Dry Disconnect System : A dry disconnect systems does not meet the definition of a closed system under the WPS unless it is part of a mechanical closed system. Dry disconnect systems are fittings designed by the manufacturer to minimize pesticide leakage at each hose disconnect point. These systems are often used in conjunction with mechanical transfer systems. Dry disconnect systems greatly reduce leakage of liquid when connecting pipes or hoses are uncoupled from equipment or from other pipes or hoses.

13 Closed Loading Systems for Granular Formulations . Currently, the only engineering control for loading granular formulations are proprietary systems with proprietary names, such as   LockNLoad   or   Smartbox.   These closed systems are a type of packaging system where the granular pesticide is packaged by the registrant into specially designed containers that fit onto specific application equipment. When used correctly, these granular packaging systems qualify as a closed loading system under the WPS. Such packaging systems provides both dermal and inhalation protection and are reflected in the risk assessment for loading granular formulations into tractor drawn spreader equipment under the columns for engineering controls with inhalation protection ( i. e. , engineering control inhalation) . Handlers handling a granulars in these special packing systems are permitted to wear the reduced PPE described above, as long as the full required PPE is immediately available. NOTE: currently, the Agency is unaware of any closed systems for granular formulations that are compatible with aerial application equipment. However, EPA believes that such systems are feasible and reflected them in the disulfoton risk assessment to promote the development of closed systems for loading granular formulations into aerial equipment. When developed, such packaging systems are expected to provide both dermal and inhalation protection and are reflected in the risk assessment for loading granular formulations into aerial equipment under the columns for engineering controls with inhalation protection ( i. e. , engineering control inhalation) .

Engineering Controls for Application Enclosed Cockpits for Aerial Application . The engineering control available for applying pesticides in aerial equipment is an enclosed cockpit. The Agency assumes that an enclosed cockpit provides dermal and inhalation protection and it is reflected in the risk assessment for aerial application under the columns for engineering controls with inhalation protection ( i. e. , engineering control inhalation) . In the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides ( WPS)   40 CFR Parts 156 and 170, applicators in an enclosed cockpit need not wear all the PPE listed on the pesticide labeling, but must wear at least: long sleeved shirt, and long pants, shoes, and socks. In addition, such applicators must ( 1) wear chemical resistant gloves when entering or leaving an aircraft contaminated by pesticide residues, and ( 2) store used gloves in a closed, chemical resistant container, such as a plastic bag, to prevent contamination of the inside of the cockpit.

Enclosed Cabs for Motorized Ground Application. The engineering control available for applying pesticides in motorized ground equipment is an enclosed cab. In the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides ( WPS)   40 CFR Parts 156 and 170, an enclosed cab must have a nonporous barrier that totally surrounds the occupants and prevents contact with pesticides outside of the cab. If inhalation is not a concern for ground applicators ( i. e. , no inhalation protection is required) , any enclosed cab that surrounds occupants with a nonporous barrier meets the definition of enclosed cab. Enclosed cabs that provide dermal protection only are reflected in the risk assessment for ground equipment application ( i. e. , groundboom and tractor drawn spreader) under the columns for engineering controls with no inhalation protection ( i. e. , baseline inhalation) . If the risks with no inhalation protection are of concern, then the occupants of the enclosed cabs must either wear the appropriate type of respirator or use an enclosed cab that provides the appropriate level of respiratory protection. The risks for such 14 situations are reflected in the risk assessment for ground equipment application under the columns for engineering controls with inhalation protection ( i. e. , engineering control inhalation) . Some enclosed cab systems provide respiratory protection equivalent to a dust/ mist filtering respirator and could, therefore, be used as a substitute when that type of respirator is specified on the product labeling. Other enclosed cab systems are equipped to remove organic vapors as well as dusts and mists and could be used as a substitute when either the dust/ mist filtering respirator or an organic vapor removing respirator is specified on the product labeling. Enclosed cabs that provide respiratory protection must have a properly functioning ventilation system that is used and maintained according to the manufacturer' s written operating instructions. The cab must be declared in writing by the manufacturer or by a governmental agency to provide at least as much respiratory protection as the type of respirator listed on the pesticide labeling. NOTE: Occupants of enclosed cabs need not wear all the PPE listed on the pesticide labeling, but must wear at least: long sleeved shirt and long pants, shoes and socks. They must also wear a respirator inside the enclosed cab if a respirator is listed on the labeling for ground equipment applicators, unless the enclosed cab provides respiratory protection equivalent to the type of respirator required. In any enclosed cab where reduced PPE is worn, handlers must: ( 1) keep immediately available all PPE listed on the labeling for the type of task being performed, ( 2) wear the PPE if it is necessary to leave the cab and contact pesticide treated surfaces in the treated area, ( 3) take off PPE that was worn in the treated area before reentering the cab, and ( 4) store all PPE in a chemical resistant container, such as a plastic bag, to prevent contamination of the inside of the cab.

Engineering Controls for Flagging The engineering controls available for flagging to support aerial applications is enclosed cabs and mechanical or remote flaggers. The enclosed cab engineering control is the same as the enclosed cab described under Enclosed Cabs for Motorized Ground Application . By definition, mechanical flaggers and other remote flagging devices do not result in significant exposures to humans.

15 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF HANDLER RISKS FOR DISULFOTON BY CROP Crop Handler Scenario Application Rate / Area Treated a, b Baseline Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves + Double Layers)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) Engineering Controls Total MOE c ( UF= 100)

Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No I Inh No I Inh Tobacco Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for aerial application 4 lb/ A & 350 A 0. 0086 0. 0014 0. 69 0. 97 0. 17 0. 18 0. 82 1. 3 0. 22 0. 24 1. 1 2. 6 0. 39 0. 4 8 Applying sprays with aircraft ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NF 4.3 NF 0. 8 1 Flagging for aerial spray applications 1. 7 0. 36 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 1. 8 NG 2. 3 NG 0. 39 NG 0. 41 NG 6. 1 84 4. 8 18 Loading granular formulations for aerial application 4 lb/ A & 350 A 0. 92 0. 36 0. 97 2. 3 0. 41 0. 55 1. 1 3. 5 0. 64 1 NF 46 NF 18 Applying granules with aircraft ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NF 1.5 NF 1 Flagging for aerial granular applications 5.6 1. 4 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 7. 7 NG 13 NG 2. 2 NG 2. 5 NG 15 280 12 68 Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for groundboom application 4 lb/ A & 80 A 0. 038 0. 0063 3 4. 3 0. 72 0. 78 3. 6 5. 6 0. 95 1 5 11 1. 7 2. 1 Applying sprays with groundboom equipment 4. 9 1. 2 4. 9 7 1. 2 1. 3 5. 7 8. 6 1. 5 1. 6 8. 3 20 2. 9 3. 6 Loading granular formulations for ground application 4 lb/ A & 80 A 4 1. 6 4. 2 10 1. 8 2. 4 4. 9 15 2. 8 4. 5 NF 200 NF 78 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 4. 7 1. 5 5. 3 11 1. 9 2. 4 6. 2 16 2. 8 3. 9 7. 1 24 4. 2 7. 3 Asparagus ( SLN) Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for aerial application 1 lb/ A & 350 0. 034 0. 0057 2. 8 3. 9 0. 66 0. 71 3. 3 5. 1 0. 87 0. 96 4. 6 11 1. 5 1. 9 Applying sprays with aircraft ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NF 17 NF 3.3 Flagging for aerial spray applications 6. 7 1. 4 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 7. 2 NG 9. 3 NG 1. 6 NG 1. 6 NG 24 340 19 72 Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for groundboom application 1 lb/ A & 80 0. 15 0. 025 12 17 2. 9 3. 1 14 22 3. 8 4. 2 20 46 6. 7 8. 3 Applying sprays with groundboom equipment 20 4. 7 20 28 4. 7 5. 1 23 35 5. 9 6. 5 33 80 11 14 Barley Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for aerial application 1 lb/ A & 1200 A 0. 01 0. 0017 0. 8 1. 1 0. 19 0. 21 0. 96 1. 5 0. 25 0. 28 1. 3 3. 1 0. 45 0. 5 6 Applying sprays with aircraft ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NF 5.1 NF 0. 9 5 Flagging for aerial spray applications 1 lb/ A & 1200 A 2 0. 42 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 2. 1 NG 2. 7 NG 0. 46 NG 0. 48 NG 7. 1 98 5. 6 21 16 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF HANDLER RISKS FOR DISULFOTON BY CROP continued Crop Handler Scenario Application Rate / Area Treated a, b Baseline Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves + Double Layers)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) Engineering Controls Total MOE c ( UF= 100)

Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No I Inh No I Inh 1 lb/ A & 350 A 6. 7 1. 4 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 7. 2 NG 9. 3 NG 1. 6 NG 1. 6 NG 24 340 19 72 Loading granular formulations for aerial application 1 lb/ A & 1200 A 1. 1 0. 42 1. 1 2. 7 0. 48 0. 65 1. 3 4. 1 0. 74 1. 2 NF 53 NF 21 Applying granules with aircraft ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NF 1.8 NF 1. 2 Flagging for aerial granular applications 1 lb/ A & 1200 A 6. 5 1. 6 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 8. 9 NG 15 NG 2. 6 NG 2. 9 NG 17 330 15 79 1 lb/ A & 350 A 5. 6 1. 4 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 7. 7 NG 13 NG 2. 2 NG 2. 5 NG 15 280 12 22 Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for groundboom application 1 lb/ A & 200 A 0. 06 0. 01 5. 8 8. 9 1. 2 1. 2 4. 8 6. 8 1. 5 1. 7 8 18 2. 7 3. 3 Applying sprays with groundboom equipment 7. 9 1. 9 7. 9 11 1. 9 2 9. 1 14 2. 4 2. 6 13 32 4. 6 5. 7 Loading granular formulations for ground application 1 lb/ A & 200 A 6. 4 2. 5 6. 8 16 2. 9 3. 9 7. 9 24 4. 5 7. 2 NF 320 NF 130 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 7. 5 2. 4 8. 5 18 3. 1 3. 8 10 25 4. 5 6. 3 11 39 6. 7 12 Soybeans Loading granular formulations for ground application 1 lb/ A & 200 A 6. 4 2. 5 6. 8 16 2. 9 3. 9 7. 9 24 4. 5 7. 2 NF 320 NF 120 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 7. 5 2. 4 8. 5 18 3. 1 3. 8 10 25 4. 5 6. 3 11 39 6. 7 12 Wheat Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for aerial application 0. 75/ A & 1200 A 0. 013 0. 0022 1. 1 1. 5 0. 26 0. 28 1. 3 2 0. 34 0. 37 1. 8 4. 1 0. 6 0. 7 4 Applying sprays with aircraft ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NF 6.8 NF 1. 3 Flagging for aerial spray applications 0. 75/ A & 1200 A 2.6 0. 56 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 2. 8 NG 3. 6 NG 0. 61 NG 0. 64 NG 9. 5 130 7. 5 28 0. 75/ A & 350 A 9 1. 9 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 9. 6 NG 12 NG 2. 1 NG 2. 2 NG 32 450 26 95 Loading granular formulations for aerial application 1 lb/ A & 1200 A 1. 1 0. 42 1. 1 2. 7 0. 48 0. 65 1. 3 4. 1 0. 74 1. 2 NF 53 NF 21 Applying granules with aircraft ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NF 1.8 NF 1. 2 1 lb/ A & 1200 A 6. 5 1. 6 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 8. 9 NG 15 NG 2. 6 NG 2. 9 NG 17 330 15 79 Flagging for aerial granular applications 17 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF HANDLER RISKS FOR DISULFOTON BY CROP continued Crop Handler Scenario Application Rate / Area Treated a, b Baseline Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves + Double Layers)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) Engineering Controls Total MOE c ( UF= 100)

Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No I Inh No I Inh 1 lb/ A & 350 A 5. 6 1. 4 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 7. 7 NG 13 NG 2. 2 NG 2. 5 NG 15 280 12 68 Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for groundboom application 1 lb/ A & 200 A 0. 06 0. 01 4. 8 6. 8 1. 2 1. 2 5. 8 8. 9 1. 5 1. 7 8 18 2. 7 3. 3 Applying sprays with groundboom equipment 7. 9 1. 9 7. 9 11 1. 9 2 9. 1 14 2. 4 2. 6 13 32 4. 6 5. 7 Loading granular formulations for ground application 1 lb/ A & 200 A 6. 4 2. 5 6. 8 16 2. 9 3. 9 7. 9 24 4. 5 7. 2 NF 320 NF 130 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 7. 5 2. 4 8. 5 18 3. 1 3. 8 10 25 4. 5 6. 3 11 39 6. 7 12 Sorghum Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for aerial application 0. 5/ A & 1200 A 0. 02 0. 0033 1. 6 2. 3 0. 39 0. 41 1. 9 3 0. 51 0. 56 2. 7 6. 1 0. 9 1. 1 Applying sprays with aircraft ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NF 10 NF 1.9 Flagging for aerial spray applications 0. 5/ A & 1200 A 3. 9 0. 83 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 4. 2 NG 5. 4 NG 0. 91 NG 0. 96 NG 14 200 11 42 0. 5/ A & 350 A 13 2. 9 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 14 NG 19 NG 3. 1 NG 3. 3 NG 49 670 38 140 Loading granular formulations for aerial application 1 lb/ A & 1200 A 1. 1 0. 42 1. 1 2. 7 0. 48 0. 65 1. 3 4. 1 0. 74 1. 2 NF 53 NF 21 Applying granules with aircraft ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NF 1.8 NF 1. 2 Flagging for aerial granular applications 1 lb/ A & 1200 A 6. 5 1. 6 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 8. 9 NG 15 NG 2. 6 NG 2. 9 NG 17 330 15 79 1 lb/ A & 350 A 22 5. 5 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 31 NG 52 NG 8. 9 NG 10 NG 58 1100 50 270 Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for groundboom application 1 lb/ A & 200 A 0. 06 0. 01 4. 8 6. 8 1. 2 1. 2 5. 8 8. 9 1. 5 1. 7 8 18 2. 7 3. 3 Applying sprays with groundboom equipment 7. 9 1. 9 7. 9 11 1. 9 2 9. 1 14 2. 4 2. 6 13 32 4. 6 5. 7 Loading granular formulations for ground application 1 lb/ A & 200 A 6. 4 2. 5 6. 8 16 2. 9 3. 9 7. 9 24 4. 5 7. 2 NF 320 NF 130 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 7. 5 2. 4 8. 5 18 3. 1 3. 8 10 25 4. 5 6. 3 11 39 6. 7 12 Potatoes ( foliar) Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for aerial application 0. 5/ lbA & 0. 069 0. 011 5. 5 7. 8 1. 3 1. 4 6. 6 10 1. 7 1. 9 9. 1 21 3. 1 3. 8 350 A 18 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF HANDLER RISKS FOR DISULFOTON BY CROP continued Crop Handler Scenario Application Rate / Area Treated a, b Baseline Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves + Double Layers)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) Engineering Controls Total MOE c ( UF= 100)

Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No I Inh No I Inh Applying sprays with aircraft ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NF 35 NF 6.5 Flagging for aerial spray applications 13 2. 9 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 14 NG 19 NG 3. 1 NG 3. 3 NG 49 670 38 140 Mixing/ loading/ applying liquid formulation through chemigation ( OR,

WA, ID, UT) 3. 0 lb/ A &

350 A 0. 011 0. 0019 0. 92 1. 3 0. 22 0. 24 1. 1 1. 7 0. 29 0. 32 1. 5 3. 5 0. 51 0. 6 3 Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for groundboom application 0. 5 lb/ A & 80 A 0. 3 0. 05 24 34 5. 8 6. 2 29 44 7. 6 8. 4 40 92 13 17 Applying sprays with groundboom equipment 39 9. 5 39 56 9. 5 10 46 69 12 13 66 160 23 29 Potatoes ( soil directed) Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for groundboom application 3 lb/ A & 80 A 0. 05 0. 0084 4 5. 7 0. 96 1 4. 8 7. 4 1. 3 1. 4 6. 6 15 2. 2 2. 8 Applying sprays with groundboom equipment 6. 6 1. 6 6. 6 9. 3 1. 6 1. 7 7. 6 12 2 2. 2 11 27 3. 8 4. 8 Loading granular formulations for aerial application 3 lb/ A & 350 A 1. 2 0. 48 1. 3 3. 1 0. 55 0. 74 1. 5 4. 6 0. 85 1. 4 NF 61 NF 24 Applying granules with aircraft ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NF 2.1 NF 1. 4 Flagging for aerial granular applications 7.5 1. 8 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 10 NG 17 NG 3 NG 3. 4 NG 19 370 17 90 Loading granular formulations for ground application 3 lb/ A & 80 A 5. 3 2. 1 5. 7 14 2. 4 3. 2 6. 5 20 3. 7 6 NF 270 NF 100 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 6. 3 2 7. 1 15 2. 6 3. 2 8. 3 21 3. 8 5. 2 9. 4 32 5. 6 9. 7 Cotton ( SLN) Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for aerial application 0. 2 lb/ A &

1200 A 0. 05 0. 0084 4 5. 7 0. 96 1 4. 8 7. 4 1. 3 1. 4 6. 6 15 2. 2 2. 8 Applying sprays with aircraft ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NF 25 NF 4.7 Flagging for aerial spray applications 0. 2 lb/ A &

1200 A 34 7. 2 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 36 NG 46 NG 7. 8 NG 8. 2 NG 120 1700 96 360 0. 2 lb/ A &

350 A 9.8 2. 1 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 11 NG 14 NG 2. 3 NG 2. 4 NG 35 490 28 100 Cotton Mixing/ loading/ applying liquid formulation through chemigation 1 lb/ A &

350 A 0. 034 0. 0057 2. 8 3. 9 0. 66 0. 71 3. 3 5. 1 0. 87 0. 96 4. 6 11 1. 5 1. 9 Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for groundboom application 1 lb/ A & 200 A 0. 06 0. 01 4. 8 6. 8 1. 2 1. 2 5. 8 8. 9 1. 5 1. 7 8 18 2. 7 3. 3 19 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF HANDLER RISKS FOR DISULFOTON BY CROP continued Crop Handler Scenario Application Rate / Area Treated a, b Baseline Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves + Double Layers)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) Engineering Controls Total MOE c ( UF= 100)

Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No I Inh No I Inh Applying sprays with groundboom equipment 7. 9 1. 9 7. 9 11 1. 9 2 9. 1 14 2. 4 2. 6 13 32 4. 6 5. 7 Loading granular formulations for ground application 1 lb/ A & 200 A 6. 4 2. 5 6. 8 16 2. 9 3. 9 7. 9 24 4. 5 7. 2 NF 320 NF 130 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 7. 5 2. 4 8. 5 18 3. 1 3. 8 10 25 4. 5 6. 3 11 39 6. 7 12 Poplars Grown for Pulpwood ( SLN) Mixing/ loading/ applying liquid formulation through chemigation 3 lb/ A & 350 A 0. 011 0. 0019 0. 92 1. 3 0. 22 0. 24 1. 1 1. 7 0. 29 0. 32 1. 5 3. 5 0. 51 0. 6 3 Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for groundboom application 3 lb/ A & 80 A 0. 05 0. 0084 4 5. 7 0. 96 1 4. 8 7. 4 1. 3 1. 4 6. 6 15 2. 2 2. 8 Applying sprays with groundboom equipment 6. 6 1. 6 6. 6 9. 3 1. 6 1. 7 7. 6 12 2 2. 2 11 27 3. 8 4. 8 Cabbage Mixing/ loading/ applying liquid formulation through chemigation 2 lb/ A & 350 A 0. 017 0. 0029 1. 4 1. 9 0. 33 0. 36 1. 6 2. 5 0. 43 0. 48 2. 3 5. 3 0. 77 0. 9 5 Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for groundboom application 2 lb/ A & 80 A 0. 075 0. 013 6 8. 5 1. 4 1. 6 7. 2 11 1. 9 2. 1 10 23 3. 4 4. 2 Applying sprays with groundboom equipment 9. 8 2. 4 9. 8 14 2. 4 2. 6 11 17 2. 9 3. 2 17 40 5. 7 7. 2 Loading granular formulations for ground application 1. 5 lb/ A & 80 A 11 4. 2 11 27 4. 8 6. 5 13 41 7. 4 12 NF 530 NF 210 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 13 4 14 30 5. 2 6. 4 17 42 7. 6 10 19 64 11 19 Lettuce Mixing/ loading/ applying liquid formulation through chemigation 2 lb/ A & 350 A 0. 017 0. 0029 1. 4 1. 9 0. 33 0. 36 1. 6 2. 5 0. 43 0. 48 2. 3 5. 3 0. 77 0. 9 5 Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for groundboom application 2 lb/ A & 80 A 0. 075 0. 013 6 8. 5 1. 4 1. 6 7. 2 11 1. 9 2. 1 10 23 3. 4 4. 2 Applying sprays with groundboom equipment 9. 8 2. 4 9. 8 14 2. 4 2. 6 11 17 2. 9 3. 2 17 40 5. 7 7. 2 Broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower Mixing/ loading/ applying liquid formulation through chemigation 1 lb/ A & 350 A 0. 034 0. 0057 2. 8 3. 9 0. 66 0. 71 3. 3 5. 1 0. 87 0. 96 4. 6 11 1. 5 1. 9 Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for groundboom application 1 lb/ A & 80 A 0. 15 0. 025 12 17 2. 9 3. 1 14 22 3. 8 4. 2 20 46 6. 7 8. 3 Applying sprays with groundboom equipment 20 4. 7 20 28 4. 7 5. 1 23 35 5. 9 6. 5 33 80 11 14 20 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF HANDLER RISKS FOR DISULFOTON BY CROP continued Crop Handler Scenario Application Rate / Area Treated a, b Baseline Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves + Double Layers)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) Engineering Controls Total MOE c ( UF= 100)

Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No I Inh No I Inh Loading granular formulations for ground application 1 lb/ A & 80 A 16 6. 3 17 41 7. 3 9. 7 20 61 11 18 NF 800 NF 310 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 19 6 21 44 7. 7 9. 5 25 64 11 16 28 96 17 29 Peas, Lentils Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for groundboom application 2. 5 lb/ A & 80 A 0. 06 0. 01 4. 8 6. 8 1. 2 1. 2 5. 8 8. 9 1. 5 1. 7 8 18 2. 7 3. 3 Applying sprays with groundboom equipment 7. 9 1. 9 7. 9 11 1. 9 2 9. 1 14 2. 4 2. 6 13 32 4. 6 5. 7 Loading granular formulations for aerial application 2. 5 lb/ A & 350 A 1. 5 0. 58 1. 6 3. 7 0. 66 0. 89 1. 8 5. 6 1 1. 7 NF 73 NF 29 Applying granules with aircraft ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NF 2.5 NF 1. 6 Flagging for aerial granular applications 9 2. 2 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 12 NG 21 NG 3. 6 NG 4 NG 23 450 20 110 Loading granular formulations for ground application 2. 5 lb/ A & 80 A 6. 4 2. 5 6. 8 16 2. 9 3. 9 7. 9 24 4. 5 7. 2 NF 320 NF 130 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 7. 5 2. 4 8. 5 18 3. 1 3. 8 10 25 4. 5 6. 3 11 39 6. 7 12 Beans ( dry,

snap, lima) Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for groundboom application 2 lb/ A & 80 A 0. 075 0. 013 6 8. 5 1. 4 1. 6 7. 2 11 1. 9 2. 1 10 23 3. 4 4. 2 Applying sprays with groundboom equipment 9. 8 2. 4 9. 8 14 2. 4 2. 6 11 17 2. 9 3. 2 17 40 5. 7 7. 2 Loading granular formulations for ground application 1 lb/ A & 80 A 16 6. 3 17 41 7. 3 9. 7 20 61 11 18 NF 800 NF 310 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 19 6 21 44 7. 7 9. 5 25 64 11 16 28 96 17 29 Peppers, Radish grown for seed ( SLN) Mixing/ loading liquid formulation for groundboom application 2 lb/ A & 80 A 0. 075 0. 013 6 8. 5 1. 4 1. 6 7. 2 11 1. 9 2. 1 10 23 3. 4 4. 2 Applying sprays with groundboom equipment 9. 8 2. 4 9. 8 14 2. 4 2. 6 11 17 2. 9 3. 2 17 40 5. 7 7. 2 Loading granular formulations for ground application 2 lb/ A & 80 A 8 3. 2 8. 5 20 3. 6 4. 8 9. 8 30 5. 6 9 NF 400 NF 160 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 9. 4 3 11 22 3. 9 4. 8 12 32 5. 7 7. 8 14 48 8. 4 15 21 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF HANDLER RISKS FOR DISULFOTON BY CROP continued Crop Handler Scenario Application Rate / Area Treated a, b Baseline Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves + Double Layers)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) Engineering Controls Total MOE c ( UF= 100)

Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No I Inh No I Inh Peanuts ( SLN) Loading granular formulations for aerial application 2 lb/ A & 350 A 1. 8 0. 72 1. 9 4. 7 0. 83 1. 1 2. 2 7 1. 3 2. 1 NF 91 NF 36 Applying granules with aircraft ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NF 3.1 NF 2 Flagging for aerial granular applications 11 2. 7 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 15 NG 26 NG 4. 4 NG 5 NG 29 560 25 140 Loading granular formulations for ground application 2 lb/ A & 80 A 8 3. 2 8. 5 20 3. 6 4. 8 9. 8 30 5. 6 9 NF 400 NF 160 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 9. 4 3 11 22 3. 9 4. 8 12 32 5. 7 7. 8 14 48 8. 4 15 Peanuts Loading granular formulations for ground application 1 lb/ A & 80 A 16 6. 3 17 41 7. 3 9. 7 20 61 11 18 NF 800 NF 310 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 19 6 21 44 7. 7 9. 5 25 64 11 16 28 96 17 29 Clover grown for seed ( SLN) Loading granular formulations for aerial application 1 lb/ A & 350 A 3. 7 1. 4 3. 9 9. 4 1. 7 2. 2 4. 5 14 2. 5 4. 1 NF 180 NF 72 Applying granules with aircraft ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NF 6.2 NF 4. 1 Flagging for aerial granular applications 22 5. 4 N \ A N \ A N \ A N \ A 31 NG 52 NG 8. 9 NG 10 NG 58 1100 50 270 Loading granular formulations for ground application 1 lb/ A & 80 A 16 6. 3 17 41 7. 3 9. 7 20 61 11 18 NF 800 NF 310 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 19 6 21 44 7. 7 9. 5 25 64 11 16 28 96 17 29 Field Grown Ornamental Shrubs Loading granular formulations for ground application 109 lb/ A & 40 A 0. 29 0. 12 0. 31 0. 75 0. 13 0. 18 0. 36 1. 1 0. 2 0. 33 NF 15 NF 5. 7 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 0. 35 0. 11 0. 39 0. 81 0. 14 0. 18 0. 46 1. 2 0. 21 0. 29 0. 52 1. 8 0. 31 0. 5 3 Loading/ Applying with Push Type Spreader 109 lb/ A & 5 A 0. 15 0. 029 0. 21 0. 27 0. 046 0. 048 0. 33 0. 51 0. 086 0. 095 NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Bellygrinder 109 lb/ A & 1 A 0. 03 0. 0053 0. 032 0. 034 0. 0057 0. 0057 0. 05 0. 055 0. 0092 0. 0094 NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Pump Feed Backpack Spreader 109 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 57 AP 1. 7 AP 0. 3 AP 0. 46 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 109 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 1. 1 AP 3. 3 AP 0. 6 AP 0. 93 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Gravity Feed Backpack Spreader 109 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 029 0. 046 0. 0079 0. 0087 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 109 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 0. 059 0. 092 0. 016 0. 017 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 22 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF HANDLER RISKS FOR DISULFOTON BY CROP continued Crop Handler Scenario Application Rate / Area Treated a, b Baseline Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves + Double Layers)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) Engineering Controls Total MOE c ( UF= 100)

Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No I Inh No I Inh Loading/ Applying with Scoop and Bucket 109 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 013 0. 015 0. 0026 0. 0027 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 109 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 0. 026 0. 031 0. 0051 0. 0053 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Field Grown Ornamental Trees Loading granular formulations for ground application 37 lb/ A & 40 A 0. 87 0. 34 0. 92 2. 2 0. 39 0. 52 1. 1 3. 3 0. 6 0. 98 NF 43 NF 17 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 1 0. 33 1. 2 2. 4 0. 42 0. 52 1. 3 3. 4 0. 61 0. 85 1. 5 5. 2 0. 91 1. 6 Loading/ Applying with Push Type Spreader 37 lb/ A & 5 A 0. 44 0. 087 0. 62 0. 8 0. 13 0. 14 0. 98 1. 5 0. 25 0. 28 NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Bellygrinder 37 lb/ A & 1 A 0. 088 0. 016 0. 095 0. 1 0. 017 0. 017 0. 15 0. 16 0. 027 0. 028 NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Pump Feed Backpack Spreader 37 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 1. 7 AP 4.9 AP 0.89 AP 1.4 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 37 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 3. 3 AP 9.8 AP 1.8 AP 2.7 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Gravity Feed Backpack Spreader 37 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 087 0. 14 0. 023 0. 026 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 37 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 0. 17 0. 27 0. 046 0.051 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Scoop and Bucket 37 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 038 0. 045 0. 0076 0. 0078 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 37 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 0. 076 0. 09 0. 015 0. 016 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Field Grown Ornamental Flowers and Groundcover Loading granular formulations for ground application 29 lb/ A & 40 A 1. 1 0. 44 1. 2 2. 8 0. 5 0. 67 1. 4 4. 2 0. 77 1. 2 NF 55 NF 22 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 1. 3 0. 41 1. 5 3. 1 0. 53 0. 66 1. 7 4. 4 0. 78 1. 1 2 6. 6 1. 2 2 Loading/ Applying with Push Type Spreader 29 lb/ A & 5 A 0. 56 0. 11 0. 8 1 0. 17 0. 18 1. 2 1. 9 0. 32 0. 36 NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Bellygrinder 29 lb/ A & 1 A 0. 11 0. 02 0. 12 0. 13 0. 021 0. 022 0. 19 0. 21 0. 035 0. 035 NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Pump Feed Backpack Spreader 29 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 2. 1 AP 6.2 AP 1.1 AP 1.7 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 29 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 4. 3 AP 12 AP 2.3 AP 3.5 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Gravity Feed Backpack Spreader 29 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 11 0. 17 0. 03 0. 033 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 29 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 0. 22 0. 35 0. 059 0.065 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Scoop and Bucket 29 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 048 0. 057 0. 0097 0. 01 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 29 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 0. 097 0. 11 0. 019 0. 02 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Field Grown Flowers &

Groundcover ( lower rate) Loading granular formulations for ground application 11 lb/ A & 40 A 2. 9 1. 1 3. 1 7. 4 1. 3 1. 8 3. 6 11 2 3. 3 NF 150 NF 57 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 3. 4 1. 1 3. 9 8. 1 1. 4 1. 7 4. 5 12 2. 1 2. 9 5. 2 18 3. 1 5. 3 23 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF HANDLER RISKS FOR DISULFOTON BY CROP continued Crop Handler Scenario Application Rate / Area Treated a, b Baseline Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves + Double Layers)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) Engineering Controls Total MOE c ( UF= 100)

Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No I Inh No I Inh Loading/ Applying with Push Type Spreader 11 lb/ A & 5 A 1. 5 0. 29 2. 1 2. 7 0. 45 0. 48 3. 3 5 0. 86 0. 94 NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Bellygrinder 11 lb/ A & 1 A 0. 3 0. 052 0. 32 0. 34 0. 056 0. 057 0. 5 0. 55 0. 091 0. 093 NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Pump Feed Backpack Spreader 11 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 5. 6 AP 16 AP 3 AP 4.6 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 11 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 11 AP 33 AP 6 AP 9.2 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Gravity Feed Backpack Spreader 11 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 29 0. 46 0. 078 0.086 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 11 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 0. 58 0. 91 0. 16 0. 17 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Scoop and Bucket 11 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 13 0. 15 0. 025 0.026 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 11 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 0. 25 0. 3 0.051 0.053 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Field Grown Ornamental Trees & Shrubs ( Injection) Loading granular formulations for ground application 11 lb/ A & 40 A 2. 9 1. 1 3. 1 7. 4 1. 3 1. 8 3. 6 11 2 3. 3 NF 150 NF 57 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 3. 4 1. 1 3. 9 8. 1 1. 4 1. 7 4. 5 12 2. 1 2. 9 5. 2 18 3. 1 5. 3 Loading/ Applying with Push Type Spreader 11 lb/ A & 5 A 1. 5 0. 29 2. 1 2. 7 0. 45 0. 48 3. 3 5 0. 86 0. 94 NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Bellygrinder 11 lb/ A & 1 A 0. 3 0. 052 0. 32 0. 34 0. 056 0. 057 0. 5 0. 55 0. 091 0. 093 NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Pump Feed Backpack Spreader 11 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 5. 6 AP 16 AP 3 AP 4.6 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 11 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 11 AP 33 AP 6 AP 9.2 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Gravity Feed Backpack Spreader 11 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 29 0. 46 0. 078 0.086 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 11 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 0. 58 0. 91 0. 16 0. 17 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Scoop and Bucket 11 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 13 0. 15 0. 025 0.026 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 11 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 0. 25 0. 3 0.051 0.053 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Potted Ornamentals Loading/ Applying with Pump Feed Backpack Spreader 0.2 lb ai/ day ND ND 3100 AP 9100 AP 1600 AP 2500 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Gravity Feed Backpack Spreader ND ND 160 250 43 47 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Scoop and Bucket ND ND 70 83 14 14 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Chrismas Trees Loading granular formulations for ground application 78 lb/ A & 50 A 0. 33 0. 13 0. 35 0. 84 0. 15 0. 2 0. 4 1. 3 0. 23 0. 37 NF 16 NF 6. 4 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 0. 39 0. 12 0. 44 0. 91 0. 16 0. 2 0. 51 1. 3 0. 23 0. 32 0. 58 2 0. 35 0. 6 24 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF HANDLER RISKS FOR DISULFOTON BY CROP continued Crop Handler Scenario Application Rate / Area Treated a, b Baseline Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves + Double Layers)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) Engineering Controls Total MOE c ( UF= 100)

Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No I Inh No I Inh Loading/ Applying with Push Type Spreader 78 lb/ A & 5 A 0. 21 0. 041 0. 3 0. 38 0. 064 0. 067 0. 46 0. 71 0. 12 0. 13 NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Bellygrinder 78 lb/ A & 1 A 0. 042 0. 0074 0. 045 0. 048 0. 0079 0. 008 0. 07 0. 077 0. 013 0. 013 NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Pump Feed Backpack Spreader 78 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 79 AP 2.3 AP 0.42 AP 0.65 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 78 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 1. 6 AP 4.6 AP 0.84 AP 1.3 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Gravity Feed Backpack Spreader 78 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 041 0. 064 0. 011 0. 012 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 78 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 0. 082 0. 13 0. 022 0. 024 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Scoop and Bucket 78 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 018 0. 021 0. 0036 0. 0037 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 78 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 0. 036 0. 043 0. 0072 0. 0074 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Christmas Trees ( SLN) Loading granular formulations for ground application 4. 5 lb/ A & 50 A 5. 7 2. 2 6 15 2. 6 3. 4 7 22 4 6. 4 NF 280 NF 110 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 6. 7 2. 1 7. 6 16 2. 8 3. 4 8. 9 23 4 5. 6 10 34 6 10 Loading/ Applying with Push Type Spreader 4. 5 lb/ A & 5 A 3. 6 0. 71 5. 1 6. 6 1. 1 1. 2 8 12 2. 1 2. 3 NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Bellygrinder 4. 5 lb/ A & 1 A 0. 73 0. 13 0. 78 0. 82 0. 14 0. 14 1. 2 1. 3 0. 22 0. 23 NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Pump Feed Backpack Spreader 4.5 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 14 AP 40 AP 7.3 AP 11 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 4.5 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 27 AP 80 AP 15 AP 22 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Gravity Feed Backpack Spreader 4.5 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 71 1. 1 0.19 0.21 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 4. 5 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 1. 4 2. 2 0. 38 0. 42 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Scoop and Bucket 4.5 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 31 0. 37 0. 062 0.064 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 4. 5 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 0. 62 0. 74 0. 12 0. 13 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Coffee Trees Loading granular formulations for ground application 8. 3 lb/ A & 80 A 1. 9 0. 76 2 4. 9 0. 87 1. 2 2. 4 7. 3 1. 3 2. 2 NF 96 NF 38 Applying granules with tractor drawn spreader 2. 3 0. 72 2. 6 5. 3 0. 93 1. 1 3 7. 7 1. 4 1. 9 3. 4 12 2 3. 5 Loading/ Applying with Pump Feed Backpack Spreader 8.3 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 7. 4 AP 22 AP 4 AP 6.1 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 8. . 3 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 15 AP 44 AP 7.9 AP 12 AP ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Gravity Feed Backpack Spreader 8. 3 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 39 0. 6 0. 1 0. 11 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF 8.3 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 0. 77 1. 2 0.21 0.23 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Loading/ Applying with Scoop and 8. 3 lb/ A & 10 A ND ND 0. 17 0. 2 0. 034 0. 035 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Bucket 25 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF HANDLER RISKS FOR DISULFOTON BY CROP continued Crop Handler Scenario Application Rate / Area Treated a, b Baseline Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) PPE ( Gloves + Double Layers)

Total MOE c ( UF= 100) Engineering Controls Total MOE c ( UF= 100)

Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T Short T Inter.  T No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No R Resp No I Inh No I Inh 8.3 lb/ A & 5 A ND ND 0. 34 0. 4 0.067 0.07 ND ND ND ND NF NF NF NF Note : Short T indicates short term exposure and risk Inter T indicates intermediate term exposure and risk No R indicates no respirator Resp indicates use of a dust/ mist respirator No I indicates no inhalation protection was provided by the engineering control Inh indicates that inhalation protection was provided by the engineering control AP indicates that an apron was worn on the backs of applicators.

ND indicates no data   an exposure scenario was identified, , but there are no acceptable data to complete assessment.

NF indicates that no engineering controls are feasible for this exposure scenario.

NG indicates no gloves were added for this scenario.

N/ A indicates that the personal protective equipment are not applicable or not appropriate for this scenario.

Footnotes: a Application rates are based on maximum values found on various labels or proposed by registrant. In most scenarios, a range of maximum application rates is used to represent the range of rates for different crops/ sites/ uses. Most application rates upon which the analysis is based are presented as lb ai/ A. In the case of ornamentals in pots, the application rate is presented as lb ai/ day) . Specific application rates and the corresponding EPA Reg. numbers that are intended as examples of each exposure assessment scenario are presented below:

4.0 lb/ A EC formulations: tobacco ( Reg # 3125 307)

3. 0 lb/ A EC formulations: potatoes: foliar OR, WA, ID UT ( Reg # 3125 307) ; potatoes: soil ( Reg # 3125 307) ; poplars grown for pulpwood ( Reg # 3125 307  OR 910027)

2.5 lb/ A EC formulations: peas and lentils ( Reg # 3125 307)

2. 0 lb/ A EC formulations: beans: dry, snap, lima ( Reg # 3125 307) ; cabbage ( Reg # 3125 307) ; lettuce ( Reg # 3125 307) ; peppers ( Reg # 3125 307) ; radish grown for seed ( Reg # 3125 307 WA 920026) ;

1. 0 lb/ A EC formulations: asparagus ( SLN) ( Reg # 3125 307 CA 840192) ; barley ( Reg # 3125 307) ; broccoli ( Reg # 3125 307) ; Brussels sprouts ( Reg # 3125 307) ;

cauliflower ( Reg # 3125 307) ; cotton ( Reg # 3125 307) ; sorghum ( Reg # 3125 307) ; wheat ( Reg # 3125 307) ;

0. 75 lb/ A EC formulations: wheat ( Reg # 3125 307)

0. 5 lb/ A EC formulations: sorghum ( Reg # 3125 307) ; potatoes: foliar ( Reg # 3125 307)

0. 2 lb/ A EC formulations: cotton ( ( Reg # 3125 307 TX 860007)

109 lb/ A Granular formulations: field grown ornamental shrubs ( Reg # 3125 172) based on the assumption that the shrubs are two feet tall and occupy two square feet ( i. e. , roses) ;

78 lb/ A Granular formulations: Christmas trees ( Reg # 3125 172) based on the assumption that the trunk is 2 inches in diameter and are planted 1700 trees per acre;

37 lb/ A Granular formulations: field grown ornamental trees ( Reg # 3125 172) based on the assumption that the trunk is 2 inches in diameters and are planted 800 trees per acre;

29 lb/ A Granular formulations: field grown flowers and groundcover ( Reg # 3125 72)

11 lb/ A Granular formulations: field grown ornamental trees and shrubs: injection ( Reg # 3125 172) and field grown flowers and groundcover ( Reg # 3125 72)

8. 3 lb/ A Granular formulations: coffee trees ( Reg # 3125 172) based on the assumption that the trees are 8 feet tall and are planted 435 trees per acre 4. 5 lb/ A Granular formulations: Christmas trees ( ( Reg # 3125 172 NC 880001)

4.0 lb/ A Granular formulations: tobacco ( Reg # 3125 172) ;

3. 0 lb/ A Granular formulations: potatoes: soil ( Reg # 3125 172) ;

2.5 lb/ A Granular formulations: peas and lentils ( Reg # 3125 172) ;

2. 0 lb/ A Granular formulations: peanuts ( Reg # 3125 172 NC 920011) ; peppers ( Reg # 3125 172) ; radish grown for seed ( ( Reg # 3125 172 WA 920027) ;

1. 5 lb/ A Granular formulations: cabbage ( Reg # 3125 172) ;

1. 0 lb/ A Granular formulations: barley ( Reg # 3125 172) ; beans: dry, snap, lima: ( Reg # 3125 172) ; broccoli ( Reg # 3125 172) ; Brussels sprouts ( Reg # 3125 172) ; cauliflower 26 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF HANDLER RISKS FOR DISULFOTON BY CROP continued ( Reg # 3125 172) ; clover grown for seed ( Reg # 3125 172 WA 980004) ; cotton ( Reg # 3125 172) ; peanuts ( Reg # 3125 172) ; sorghum ( Reg # 3125 172) ; soybeans ( Reg # 3125 172) ; wheat ( Reg # 3125 172) ;

0. 2 lb/ day Granular formulations: potted ornamentals ( Reg # 3125 172) ; based on the assumption that 350 pots that are 12 inches in diameter are treated each day;

b Amount handled per day values are based on HED Exposure SAC Policy # 009   Standard Values for Daily Acres Treated in Agriculture,   revised June 23, 2000, or best professional judgment when data is not available. 27 Summary of Concerns for Occupational Handlers, Data Gaps, and Confidence in Exposure and Risk Estimates EPA established an uncertainty factor of 100 for dermal and inhalation risks. Margins of exposure ( MOEs) less than 100 are of concern to the Agency. Both short and intermediate term risks are assessed for occupational handlers. Since the short term dermal endpoint is based on a 3 day dermal study, EPA believes that intermediate term risks are triggered for most handler scenarios, particularly by commercial ( for hire) applicators.

Occupational Handler Scenarios with Risk Concerns The results of the risk assessment for occupational handlers indicates that total short term risks are of concern at maximum feasible mitigation through personal protective equipment or engineering controls, as applicable, for:

  mixing/ loading liquid formulations for all crops and scenarios;   loading granular formulations for all aerial application scenarios, except applications to clover grown for seed;   loading granular formulations for all ground application scenarios where the application rate is greater than 16.5 pounds active ingredient per acre and application is to 40 acres per day and where the application is greater than 8.3 pounds per acre and application is to 80 acres per day;   applying sprays or granules aerially;   applying sprays with groundboom equipment, except applications where the application rate is 0.5 pounds active ingredient per acre and application is to 80 acres per day;   applying granules with tractor drawn spreaders;   loading/ applying with a push type granular spreader for all crops and scenarios;   loading/ applying with a bellygrinder granular spreader for all crops and scenarios;   loading/ applying with a pump feed backpack granular spreader for all crops and scenarios, except applications to potted ornamentals;   loading/ applying with a gravity feed backpack granular spreader for all crops and scenarios, except applications to potted ornamentals;   loading/ applying granular formulation with a scoop and bucket for all crops and scenarios;   flagging for aerial applications only when flagging to support aerial spray applications for applications at 4 pounds active ingredient per acre and application is to 350 acres per day.

The results of the risk assessment for occupational handlers indicates that total intermediate term risks are of concern at maximum feasible mitigation through personal protective equipment or engineering controls, as applicable, for:

  mixing/ loading liquid formulations for all crops and scenarios;   loading granular formulations for all aerial application scenarios, except where the application rate is 1 pound active ingredient per acre and application is to 350 acres per day;

28   loading granular formulations for all ground application scenarios where the application rate is greater than 4.5 pounds active ingredient per acre and application is to 50 acres per day and where the application is greater than 3 pounds per acre when application is to 80 acres per day;   applying sprays or granular aerially;   applying sprays with groundboom equipment;   applying granules with tractor drawn spreaders;   loading/ applying with a push type granular spreader for all crops and scenarios;   loading/ applying with a bellygrinder granular spreader for all crops and scenarios;   loading/ applying with a pump feed backpack granular spreader for all crops and scenarios; except applications to potted ornamentals;   loading/ applying with a gravity feed backpack granular spreader for all crops and scenarios;   loading/ applying granular formulation with a scoop and bucket for all crops and scenarios;   flagging to support aerial spray applications, except where the application rate is 0.5 pound active ingredient per acre and application is to 350 acres per day;   flagging to support aerial granular applications, where the application rate is greater than 2.5 pounds active ingredient per acre and application is to 350 acres per day and where the application is greater than 0.5 pounds per acre when application is to 1200 acres per day;

Data Quality and Confidence in Assessment Several issues must be considered when interpreting the occupational exposure risk assessment. Confidence in the exposure data is also listed in Appendix 6, as low ( L) , medium ( M) or high ( H) . These include:

C Several handler assessments were completed using   low quality   PHED data due to the lack of a more acceptable data set. C Several generic protection factors were used to calculate handler exposures. These protection factors have not been completely evaluated and accepted by HED. C Factors used to calculate daily exposures to handlers ( e. g. , acres treated per day and potted plants treated per day) are based on the best professional judgement, due to a lack of pertinent use data.

29 Post Application Exposures and Risks Occupational Postapplication Exposure Scenarios, Data, and Assumptions HED has determined that there are potential postapplication occupational exposures to individuals entering treated areas:

  following foliar applications for the purpose of weeding, irrigating, scouting and other non harvesting activities associated with low growing or immature field crops;

  following soil directed applications for the purpose of weeding, irrigating, scouting, transplanting, harvesting, and pruning of various food, feed, fiber, forestry, and ornamental crops.

Data Source Descriptions for Occupational Scenarios Considered Chemical specific postapplication exposure data following foliar applications to potatoes have been submitted in support of the reregistration of disulfoton, however HED has found these studies to be unacceptable. 10 In addition to the other concerns about the disulfoton specific postapplication study, the Agency found no indication that known disulfoton toxic degradates ( i. e. , disulfoton sulfoxide, disulfoton sulfone, D oxygen analog sulfoxide, and D oxygen analog sulfone) had been considered in assessing the residues. In lieu of acceptable disulfoton specific data, a surrogate rangefinder postapplication exposure assessment was conducted to determine potential occupational postapplication risks from disulfoton. Since EPA believes that the applicable postapplication tasks for the crops with foliar directed applications are likely to be of short term duration ( i. e. , 1 to 7 days) , the short term dermal endpoint of 0.5 mg/ kg/ day was used to assess postapplication risks following foliar applications of disulfoton. An intermediate term dermal endpoint of 0.03 mg/ kg/ day ( with a 36 percent dermal absorption value) is also available for disulfoton and would likely be the appropriate endpoint to assess some postapplication risks following soil directed applications of disulfoton to some food, feed, fiber, and ornamental crops. However, post application risks following soil directed applications of disulfoton cannot be evaluated at this time.

Occupational Postapplication Exposure and Risk Estimates Foliar applications: For postapplication exposures following applications of disulfoton to foliage, EPA roughly estimated the exposures and risks to postapplication workers and handlers ( scouts) using an assumption that 20 percent of the initial application remained as a dislodgeable residue on foliar surfaces immediately following application and the residue degraded into nontoxic by products at a rate of 10 percent per day. Transfer coefficients and activities are derived from the Science Advisory Council for Exposure: Policy Memo # 003.1 " Agricultural Transfer Coefficients, " May 7, 1998 and revised August 7, 2000. The equations used for the calculations are presented below.

Dislodgeable foliar residues ( DFRs) were calculated as follows:

30 DFR F g ' AR lb ai xCF F g / cm 2 x F x ( 1 & DR ) t cm 2 A lb ai / A Where: AR = Application rate CF = Conversion factor ( 11.2 ug per cm 2 per lb ai per acre) F = Fraction retained on foliage ( 20 percent) DO = Daily dissipation rate ( 10 percent per day) t = Days after treatment Daily Dermal Doses were calculated as follows:

( DFR ( F g / cm 2 ) xTc ( cm 2 / hr ) xCF 1 mg xED ( hrs / day ) ) Dose ( mg / kg / d ) '

BW ( kg ) 1,000 F g Where: DFR = Dislodgeable foliar residue ( F g/ cm 2 ) Tc = Transfer coefficient for the activity of concern; CF = Conversion factor ( i. e. , 1 mg/ 1,000 F g) ED = Exposure duration; 8 hours worked per day BW = body weight ( 70 kg)

MOEs were calculated as follows:

MOE ' NOEL ( mg / kg / day ) Dose ( mg / kg / day )

Where: NOAEL = 0.5 mg/ kg/ day Dose = calculated daily dermal dose Soil Directed applications: At this time, EPA has no chemical specific or surrogate data on which to base a postapplication exposure and risk assessment following soil directed applications of disulfoton. EPA is aware that disulfoton degrades under some conditions to byproducts ( i. e. , ( i. e. , disulfoton sulfoxide, disulfoton sulfone, D oxygen analog sulfoxide, and D oxygen analog sulfone) that may be equally toxic as the parent disulfoton. However, the percent of the parent that degrades to the toxic byproducts is not known nor does EPA know the rate at which the toxic degradates will breakdown to nontoxic byproducts. EPA is aware that disulfoton residues may persist in soils for relatively long periods following application, but no specific data indicating the degradation curve is available. For these reasons, the Agency is 31 concerned about exposures by workers and handlers ( scouts) to disulfoton residues in the soil, particularly when applications rates for some crops and scenarios range to more than 100 pounds active ingredient per acre. EPA believes that contact with treated soil could result in risks of concern to postapplication workers and handlers ( scouts) . To facilitate the assessment of risks postapplication workers following soil directed applications of disulfoton, additional data would be necessary.

Summary of Postapplication Risks Foliar applications: The uncertainty factor for postapplication risks to disulfoton is 100; . therefore, an MOE of 100 or greater is considered not a concern. Based on the rough estimate of postapplication exposures and risks, assumptions, Table 4 summarizes the occupational postapplication risks following foliar applications of disulfoton. The MOEs are of concern at day one ( i. e. , 24 hours) for all crops, except for foliar applications to cotton at an application rate of 0.2 pounds active ingredient per acre. For the remaining crops, the postapplication day when risks are no longer a concern range from day 13 following application to more than day 30 following application, depending on the application rate, the timing of application, and the applicable activity.

32 Table 4: Summary of Occupational PostApplication Risks Following Foliar Applications of Disulfoton Crop Application Rate Tasks of Concern 1 Timing of Application Transfer Coefficient 1 Day After Treatment Dislodgeable Foliar Residue 2 Dose 3 MOE 4 ( UF= 100)

Asparagus 1.0 Irrigating, scouting, thinning, weeding immature or low foliage plants fern stage ( 3 per year; 120 DTH) 300 1 2. 019 0.0692 6.5 26 0.145 0.0050 101 Barley 1.0 after tillering ( 30 DTH) 100 1 2. 019 0.0231 20 16 0.416 0.0048 105 Cotton ( SLN) 0.2 Before boll opens ( 30 DTH) 100 1 0. 404 0.0046 108 Potatoes ( East of Rockies) 0.5 When pest appears ( 3 per season; 30 DTH) 300 1 1. 010 0.0346 14 20 0.136 0.0047 107 Potatoes ( OR, ID, UT, WA only) 3.0 As needed ( 1 per season; 60 DTH) 300 1 6. 058 0.2077 2.4 30 0.285 0.0098 51 Sorghum 0.5 scouting, irrigation, weeding mature or full foliage plants As needed ( 2 per season; 7 DTH) 1000 1 1. 01 0. 1154 4.3 30 0.048 0.0054 92 Wheat 0.75 Irrigating, scouting, thinning, weeding immature or low foliage plants Post plant ( after tillering; 30 DTH) 100 1 1. 515 0.0173 29 13 0.428 0.0049 102 Wheat ( SLN) 1.0 Two per season ( 30 DTH) 100 1 2. 019 0.0231 20 16 0.416 0.0048 105 Footnotes: 1 Transfer coefficient and activities from Science Advisory Council for Exposure: Policy Memo # 003.1 " Agricultural Transfer Coefficients, " May 7, 1998 and revised August 7, 2000. 2 Dislodgeable foliar residue ( F g/ cm 2 ) is based on the assumption that 20 percent of the application rate is on the foliar surface at day 0 and the active ingredient ( including any toxic degradates) degrades at a rate of 10 percent per day. 3 Absorbed dermal dose ( mg/ kg/ day) is the dislodgeable foliar residue ( F g/ cm 2 ) x transfer coefficient ( cm 2 / hr) x conversion factor ( 1 mg/ 1,000 F g) x exposure time ( 8 hrs) x dermal absorption ( 100% ) / body weight( 70 kg) . 4 Margin of Exposure ( MOE) is short term dermal NOAEL ( 0.5 mg/ kg/ day) / absorbed dermal dose ( mg/ kg/ day) .

33 References 1) Becker, J. ( 2000) Revised Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment and Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document for Disulfoton. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. February 7, 2000.

2) Becker, J. ( 2000) Amendment to the the Disulfoton Occupational and Residential Exposure and Risk Assessment. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. August 24, 2000.

3) U. S. EPA ( 2001) Disulfoton: Revised ( 3 rd ) Report of Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee. April 10, 2001.

4) Disulfoton Labels.

5) U. S. EPA ( 1998) Disulfoton LUIS Table for Exposure Assessors ( PRD report dated 11/ 06/ 96 and report run date 02/ 04/ 98) .

6) U. S. EPA ( 1998) PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide, Version 1.1. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. August 1998.

7) Bangs, G. ( 2001) Summary of HED   s Reviews of Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force ( ORETF) Chemical Handler Exposure Studies; MRID 449722 01. Memorandum from Gary Bangs ( HED) to Demson Fuller ( Special Review and Reregistration Division) , April 30, 2001.

8) Dawson, J. ( 2001) Aldicarb. Review of aldicarb ( Temik 10G) granular backpack mixer/ loader/ applicator study ( MRID 451672 01) in bananas as a source of surrogate data for ethoprop exposure and assessment. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. October 17, 2000.

9) Dawson, J. ( 2001) Ethoprop. Review of fipronil granular mixer/ loader/ applicator study ( MRID 452507 01) in bananas as a source of surrogate data and accompanying ethoprop risk assessment. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. January 5, 2001.

10) Versar, Inc. 1999. Review of the DFR Study  Dissipation of Dislodgeable Foliar Disulfoton Residues from Di Syston ® 8 Treated Potatoes ( MRID No. 446880 01) . January 4, 1999.

11) U. S. EPA ( 2001) Recommended Revisions to the Standard Operating Procedures ( SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments, Science Advisory Council for Exposure Policy No. 12. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. February 22, 2001.

cc: RRB2 Files APPENDIX HANDLER EXPOSURE AND RISK SUMMARY TABLES FOR REVISED OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR THE REREGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY DECISION DOCUMENT FOR DISULFOTON Table 1: Occupational Handler Short and Intermediate Term Exposures and Risks at Baseline Attire Exposure Scenario Crop Type Application Rate a Amount Handled b ( acres unless specified) Baseline Dermal Unit Exposure ( mg/ lb ai) c Baseline Inhalation Unit Exposure ( ug/ lb ai) d Short Term Baseline Dermal Dose e Intermediat e Term Baseline Dermal Dose f Baseline Short Term Dermal MOE g Baseline Intermediate Term Dermal MOE h Baseline Inhalatio n Dose i Baseline Inhalation MOE j Baseline Short Term Dermal +

Inhalation MOE k Baseline Intermediate Term Dermal + Inhalation MOE k MIXER/ LOADER Mixing/ Loading Liquid Formulations for Aerial Application ( 1a) tobacco 4 350 2.9 1. 2 58 21 0. 0086 0.0014 0.024 1. 9 0. 0086 0.0014 asparagus ( SLN) 1 350 15 5. 2 0. 034 0. 0057 0. 006 7. 5 0. 034 0. 0057 barley 1 1200 50 18 0. 01 0. 0017 0. 021 2. 2 0. 01 0. 0017 wheat 0. 75 1200 37 13 0. 013 0. 0022 0. 015 2. 9 0. 013 0. 0022 sorghum 0. 5 1200 25 8. 9 0. 02 0. 0034 0. 01 4. 4 0. 02 0. 0033 potatoes ( foliar) 0. 5 350 7. 3 2. 6 0. 069 0. 011 0. 003 15 0. 069 0. 011 cotton ( SLN) 0. 2 1200 9. 9 3. 6 0. 05 0. 0084 0. 0041 11 0. 05 0. 0084 Mixing/ Loading Liquid Formulations for Chemigation Application ( 1b) potatoes ( foliar)

OR, WA, ID, UT 3 350 44 16 0. 011 0. 0019 0. 018 2. 5 0. 011 0. 0019 poplars grown for pulpwood ( SLN) 3 350 44 16 0. 011 0. 0019 0. 018 2. 5 0. 011 0. 0019 cabbage, lettuce 2 350 29 10 0. 017 0. 0029 0. 012 3. 8 0. 017 0. 0029 broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, cotton 1 350 15 5. 2 0. 034 0. 0057 0. 006 7. 5 0. 034 0. 0057 Mixing/ Loading Liquid Formulations for Groundboom Application ( 1c) tobacco 4 80 13 4. 8 0.038 0. 0063 0.0055 8.2 0. 038 0.0063 poplars grown for pulpwood ( SLN) 3 80 9. 9 3. 6 0. 05 0. 0084 0. 0041 11 0. 05 0. 0084 potatoes ( soil) 3 80 9. 9 3. 6 0. 05 0. 0084 0. 0041 11 0. 05 0. 0084 peas, lentils 2.5 80 8. 3 3 0. 06 0. 01 0. 0034 13 0.06 0.01 beans( dry,

snap, lima) , lettuce,

peppers, radish grown for seed,

cabbage 2 80 6. 6 2. 4 0. 075 0. 013 0. 0027 16 0. 075 0. 013 wheat, barley, cotton, sorghum 1 200 8. 3 3 0. 06 0. 01 0. 0034 13 0. 06 0. 01 asparagus ( SLN) ,

broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower 1 80 3. 3 1. 2 0. 15 0. 025 0. 0014 33 0. 15 0. 025 potatoes ( foliar) 0. 5 80 1. 7 0. 6 0. 3 0. 05 0. 00069 66 0. 3 0. 05 Loading Granular Formulations for Aerial Application ( 2a) tobacco 4 350 0.0084 1.7 0. 17 0. 06 3 0.5 0. 034 1.3 0. 92 0. 36 potatoes ( soil) 3 350 0. 13 0. 045 4 0. 66 0. 026 1. 8 1. 2 0. 48 peas, lentils 2.5 350 0.11 0. 038 4.8 0. 79 0. 021 2.1 1. 5 0.58 peanuts ( SLN) 2 350 0. 084 0. 03 6 0. 99 0. 017 2. 6 1. 8 0. 72 clover grown for seed ( SLN) 1 350 0. 042 0. 015 12 2 0. 0085 5. 3 3. 7 1. 4 1 Table 1: Occupational Handler Short and Intermediate Term Exposures and Risks at Baseline Attire continued Exposure Scenario Crop Type Application Rate a Amount Handled b ( acres unless specified) Baseline Dermal Unit Exposure ( mg/ lb ai) c Baseline Inhalation Unit Exposure ( ug/ lb ai) d Short Term Baseline Dermal Dose e Intermediat e Term Baseline Dermal Dose f Baseline Short Term Dermal MOE g Baseline Intermediate Term Dermal MOE h Baseline Inhalatio n Dose i Baseline Inhalation MOE j Baseline Short Term Dermal +

Inhalation MOE k Baseline Intermediate Term Dermal + Inhalation MOE k barley, sorghum, wheat 1 1200 0. 14 0. 052 3. 5 0. 58 0. 029 1. 5 1. 1 0. 42 Loading Granular Formulations for Ground Application ( 2b) field grown ornamental shrubs 109 40 0. 52 0. 19 0. 96 0. 16 0. 11 0. 42 0. 29 0. 12 field grown ornamental trees 37 40 0. 18 0. 064 2. 8 0. 47 0. 036 1. 3 0. 87 0. 34 field grown flowers & groundcover 29 40 0. 14 0. 05 3. 6 0. 6 0. 028 1. 6 1. 1 0. 44 field grown ornamental trees and shrubs ( inject) and flowers &

groundcover 11 40 0. 053 0. 019 9. 5 1. 6 0. 011 4. 2 2. 9 1. 1 coffee trees 8. 3 80 0. 08 0. 029 6. 3 1 0. 016 2. 8 1. 9 0. 76 Christmas trees 78 50 0. 47 0. 17 1. 1 0. 18 0. 095 0. 48 0. 33 0. 13 Christmas trees ( SLN) 4. 5 50 0. 027 0. 0097 19 3. 1 0. 0055 8. 2 5. 7 2. 2 tobacco 4 80 0. 038 0.014 13 2.2 0. 0078 5.8 4 1.6 potatoes ( soil) 3 80 0. 029 0. 01 17 2. 9 0. 0058 7. 7 5. 3 2. 1 peas, lentils 2.5 80 0. 024 0. 0086 21 3.5 0. 0049 9.3 6. 4 2.5 peppers, peanuts ( SLN) , radish grown for seed ( SLN) 2 80 0. 019 0. 0069 26 4. 3 0. 0039 12 8 3. 2 cabbage 1. 5 80 0. 014 0. 0052 35 5. 8 0. 0029 15 11 4. 2 barley, cotton,

sorghum, soybeans, wheat 1 200 0. 024 0. 0086 21 3. 5 0. 0049 9. 3 6. 4 2. 5 peanuts, beans ( dry,

snap, lima) , brussels sprout, cauliflower, broccoli, clover grown for seed ( SLN) 1 80 0. 0096 0. 0035 52 8. 7 0. 0019 23 16 6. 3 APPLICATOR Applying Sprays with an Airplane ( 3) tobacco 4 350 No Data See Engineering Controls asparagus ( SLN) 1 350 barley 1 1200 wheat 0. 75 1200 sorghum 0. 5 1200 potatoes ( foliar) 0. 5 350 2 Table 1: Occupational Handler Short and Intermediate Term Exposures and Risks at Baseline Attire continued Exposure Scenario Crop Type Application Rate a Amount Handled b ( acres unless specified) Baseline Dermal Unit Exposure ( mg/ lb ai) c Baseline Inhalation Unit Exposure ( ug/ lb ai) d Short Term Baseline Dermal Dose e Intermediat e Term Baseline Dermal Dose f Baseline Short Term Dermal MOE g Baseline Intermediate Term Dermal MOE h Baseline Inhalatio n Dose i Baseline Inhalation MOE j Baseline Short Term Dermal +

Inhalation MOE k Baseline Intermediate Term Dermal + Inhalation MOE k cotton ( SLN) 0. 2 1200 Applying Granulars with an Airplane ( 4) tobacco 4 350 No Data See Engineering Controls potatoes ( soil) 3 350 peas, lentils 2.5 350 peanuts ( SLN) 2 350 barley, sorghum, wheat 1 1200 clover grown for seed ( SLN) 1 350 Applying with a Groundboom ( 5) tobacco 4 80 0. 014 0.74 0.064 0.023 7.8 1. 3 0.0034 13 4.9 1. 2 poplars grown for pulpwood ( SLN) 3 80 0. 048 0. 017 10 1. 7 0. 0025 18 6. 6 1. 6 potatoes ( soil) 3 80 0. 048 0. 017 10 1. 7 0. 0025 18 6. 6 1. 6 peas, lentils 2.5 80 0. 04 0. 014 13 2.1 0. 0021 21 7.9 1. 9 beans( dry, snap,

lima) , lettuce, peppers, radish grown for seed,

cabbage 2 80 0. 032 0. 012 16 2. 6 0. 0017 27 9. 8 2. 4 wheat, barley, cotton, sorghum 1 200 0. 04 0. 014 13 2. 1 0. 0021 21 7. 9 1. 9 asparagus ( SLN) ,

broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower 1 80 0. 016 0. 0058 31 5. 2 0. 00085 53 20 4. 7 potatoes ( foliar) 0. 5 80 0. 008 0. 0029 63 10 0. 00042 110 39 9. 5 Applying Granulars with a Tractor Drawn Spreader ( 6) field grown ornamental shrubs 109 40 0. 0099 1. 2 0. 62 0. 22 0. 81 0. 14 0. 075 0. 6 0. 35 0. 11 field grown ornamental trees 37 40 0. 21 0. 075 2. 4 0. 4 0. 025 1. 8 1 0. 33 field grown flowers & groundcover 29 40 0. 16 0. 059 3 0. 51 0. 02 2. 3 1. 3 0. 41 field grown ornamental trees &

shrubs ( inject) and flowers &

groundcover 11 40 0. 062 0. 022 8 1. 3 0. 0075 6 3. 4 1. 1 coffee trees 8. 3 80 0. 094 0. 034 5. 3 0. 89 0. 011 4 2. 3 0. 72 Christmas trees 78 50 0. 55 0. 2 0. 91 0. 15 0. 067 0. 67 0. 39 0. 12 Christmas trees ( SLN) 4. 5 50 0. 032 0. 011 16 2. 6 0. 0039 12 6. 7 2. 1 tobacco 4 80 0. 045 0.016 11 1.8 0. 0055 8.2 4. 7 1.5 3 Table 1: Occupational Handler Short and Intermediate Term Exposures and Risks at Baseline Attire continued Exposure Scenario Crop Type Application Rate a Amount Handled b ( acres unless specified) Baseline Dermal Unit Exposure ( mg/ lb ai) c Baseline Inhalation Unit Exposure ( ug/ lb ai) d Short Term Baseline Dermal Dose e Intermediat e Term Baseline Dermal Dose f Baseline Short Term Dermal MOE g Baseline Intermediate Term Dermal MOE h Baseline Inhalatio n Dose i Baseline Inhalation MOE j Baseline Short Term Dermal +

Inhalation MOE k Baseline Intermediate Term Dermal + Inhalation MOE k potatoes ( soil) 3 80 0. 034 0. 012 15 2. 5 0. 0041 11 6. 3 2 peas, lentils 2.5 80 0. 028 0.01 18 2.9 0. 0034 13 7.5 2. 4 peppers, peanuts ( SLN) , radish grown for seed ( SLN) 2 80 0. 023 0. 0081 22 3. 7 0. 0027 16 9. 4 3 cabbage 1. 5 80 0. 017 0. 0061 29 4. 9 0. 0021 22 13 4 barley, cotton,

sorghum, soybeans, wheat 1 200 0. 028 0. 01 18 2. 9 0. 0034 13 7. 5 2. 4 peanuts, beans ( dry,

snap, lima) , brussels sprout, cauliflower, broccoli, clover grown for seed SLN 1 80 0. 011 0. 0041 44 7. 4 0. 0014 33 19 6 MIXER/ LOADER/ APPLICATOR Loading/ Applying with a Push Type Spreader l ( ORETF) ( 7) field grown ornamental shrubs 109 5 0. 35 7. 5 2. 7 0. 98 0. 18 0. 031 0. 058 0. 77 0. 15 0. 029 field grown ornamental trees 37 5 0. 93 0. 33 0. 54 0. 09 0. 02 2. 3 0. 44 0. 087 field grown flowers & groundcover 29 5 0. 73 0. 26 0. 69 0. 11 0. 016 2. 9 0. 56 0. 11 field grown ornamental trees &

shrubs ( inject) and flowers &

groundcover 11 5 0. 28 0. 099 1. 8 0. 3 0. 0059 7. 6 1. 5 0. 29 Christmas trees 78 5 2 0. 7 0. 26 0. 043 0. 042 1. 1 0. 21 0. 041 Christmas trees ( SLN) 4. 5 5 0. 11 0. 041 4. 4 0. 74 0. 0024 19 3. 6 0. 71 Loading/ Applying with a Bellygrinder ( PHED) ( 8) field grown ornamental shrubs 109 1 10 62 16 5. 6 0. 032 0. 0054 0. 097 0. 47 0. 03 0. 0053 field grown ornamental trees 37 1 5. 3 1. 9 0. 095 0. 016 0. 033 1. 4 0. 088 0. 016 field grown flowers & groundcover 29 1 4. 1 1. 5 0. 12 0. 02 0. 026 1. 8 0. 11 0. 02 field grown ornamental trees &

shrubs ( inject) and flowers &

groundcover 11 1 1. 6 0. 57 0. 32 0. 053 0. 0097 4. 6 0. 3 0. 052 4 Table 1: Occupational Handler Short and Intermediate Term Exposures and Risks at Baseline Attire continued Exposure Scenario Crop Type Application Rate a Amount Handled b ( acres unless specified) Baseline Dermal Unit Exposure ( mg/ lb ai) c Baseline Inhalation Unit Exposure ( ug/ lb ai) d Short Term Baseline Dermal Dose e Intermediat e Term Baseline Dermal Dose f Baseline Short Term Dermal MOE g Baseline Intermediate Term Dermal MOE h Baseline Inhalatio n Dose i Baseline Inhalation MOE j Baseline Short Term Dermal +

Inhalation MOE k Baseline Intermediate Term Dermal + Inhalation MOE k Christmas trees 78 1 11 4 0. 045 0. 0075 0. 069 0. 65 0. 042 0. 0074 Christmas trees ( SLN) 4. 5 1 0. 64 0. 23 0. 78 0. 13 0. 004 11 0. 73 0. 13 Loading/ Applying Granulars with a Pump

Feed Backpack Spreader m ( Aldicarb)

( 9a) field grown ornamental shrubs 109 10 No Data See PPE 4. 2 No Data See PPE 0. 065 0. 69 No Data See PPE 5 0. 033 1. 4 field grown ornamental trees 37 10 0. 022 2 5 0. 011 4. 1 field grown flowers & groundcover 29 10 0. 017 2. 6 5 0. 0087 5. 2 field grown ornamental trees &

shrubs ( inject) and flowers &

groundcover 11 10 0. 0066 6. 8 5 0. 0033 14 coffee trees 8.3 10 0. 005 9 5 0. 0025 18 Christmas trees 78 10 0. 047 0. 96 5 0. 023 1. 9 Christmas trees ( SLN) 4. 5 10 0. 0027 17 5 0. 0014 33 potted ornamentals 0. 2 lb ai/ day  0. 000012 3800 Loading/ Applying Granular with a Gravity

Feed Backpack Spreader n ( Fipronil) ( 9b) field grown ornamental shrubs 109 10 No Data See PPE 44 No Data See PPE 0. 69 0. 066 No Data See PPE 5 0. 34 0. 13 field grown ornamental trees 37 10 0. 23 0. 19 5 0. 12 0. 39 field grown flowers & groundcover 29 10 0. 18 0. 25 5 0. 091 0. 49 field grown ornamental trees &

shrubs ( inject) and flowers &

groundcover s 11 10 0. 069 0. 65 5 0. 035 1. 3 coffee trees 8.3 10 0. 052 0. 86 5 0. 026 1. 7 Christmas trees 78 10 0. 49 0. 092 5 0. 25 0. 18 Christmas trees ( SLN) 4. 5 10 0. 028 1. 6 5 0. 014 3. 2 potted ornamentals 0. 2 lb ai/ day  0. 00013 360 5 Table 1: Occupational Handler Short and Intermediate Term Exposures and Risks at Baseline Attire continued Exposure Scenario Crop Type Application Rate a Amount Handled b ( acres unless specified) Baseline Dermal Unit Exposure ( mg/ lb ai) c Baseline Inhalation Unit Exposure ( ug/ lb ai) d Short Term Baseline Dermal Dose e Intermediat e Term Baseline Dermal Dose f Baseline Short Term Dermal MOE g Baseline Intermediate Term Dermal MOE h Baseline Inhalatio n Dose i Baseline Inhalation MOE j Baseline Short Term Dermal +

Inhalation MOE k Baseline Intermediate Term Dermal + Inhalation MOE k Scoop and Bucket o ( Fipronil) ( 10) field grown ornamental shrubs 109 10 No Data See PPE 45 No Data See PPE 0. 7 0. 064 No Data See PPE 5 0. 35 0. 13 field grown ornamental trees 37 10 0. 24 0. 19 5 0. 12 0. 38 field grown flowers & groundcover 29 10 0. 19 0. 24 5 0. 093 0. 48 field grown ornamental trees &

shrubs ( inject) and flowers &

groundcover s 11 10 0. 071 0. 64 5 0. 035 1. 3 coffee trees 8.3 10 0. 053 0. 84 5 0. 027 1. 7 Christmas trees 78 10 0. 5 0. 09 5 0. 25 0. 18 Christmas trees ( SLN) 4. 5 10 0. 029 1. 6 5 0. 014 3. 1 potted ornamentals 0. 2 lb ai/ day  0. 00013 350 FLAGGER Flagging Aerial Spray Applications ( 11) tobacco 4 350 0.011 0.35 0.22 0. 079 2.3 0. 38 0. 007 6.4 1. 7 0.36 asparagus ( SLN) ,

barley 1 350 0. 055 0. 02 9. 1 1. 5 0. 0018 26 6. 7 1. 4 barley 1 1200 0. 19 0. 068 2. 7 0. 44 0. 006 7. 5 2 0. 42 wheat 0. 75 1200 0. 14 0. 051 3. 5 0. 59 0. 0045 10 2. 6 0. 56 sorghum 0. 5 1200 0. 094 0. 034 5. 3 0. 88 0. 003 15 3. 9 0. 83 potatoes ( foliar) .

sorghum 0. 5 350 0. 028 0. 0099 18 3 0. 00088 51 13 2. 9 cotton ( SLN) 0. 2 350 0. 011 0. 004 45 7. 6 0. 00035 130 34 7. 2 Flagging Granular Applications ( 12) tobacco 4 350 0.0028 0.15 0.056 0.02 8.9 1. 5 0.003 15 5.6 1. 4 potatoes ( soil) 3 350 0. 042 0. 015 12 2 0. 0023 20 7. 5 1. 8 peas, lentils 2.5 350 0.035 0.013 14 2.4 0. 0019 24 9 2. 2 peanuts ( SLN) 2 350 0. 028 0. 01 18 3 0. 0015 30 11 2. 7 clover grown for seed ( SLN) , barley,

sorghum, wheat 1 350 0. 014 0. 005 36 6 0. 00075 60 22 5. 4 barley, sorghum, wheat 1 1200 0. 048 0. 017 10 1. 7 0. 0026 18 6. 5 1. 6 6 Table 1: Occupational Handler Short and Intermediate Term Exposures and Risks at Baseline Attire continued Footnotes: a Application rates are based on maximum values found on various labels or proposed by registrant. In most scenarios, a range of maximum application rates is used to represent the range of rates for different crops/ sites/ uses. Most application rates upon which the analysis is based are presented as lb ai/ A. In the case of ornamentals in pots, the application rate is presented as lb ai/ day) . Specific application rates and the corresponding EPA Reg. numbers that are intended as examples of each exposure assessment scenario are presented below:

4.0 lb/ A EC formulations: tobacco ( Reg # 3125 307)

3. 0 lb/ A EC formulations: potatoes: foliar OR, WA, ID UT ( Reg # 3125 307) ; potatoes: soil ( Reg # 3125 307) ; poplars grown for pulpwood ( Reg # 3125 307  OR 910027)

2.5 lb/ A EC formulations: peas and lentils ( Reg # 3125 307)

2. 0 lb/ A EC formulations: beans: dry, snap, lima ( Reg # 3125 307) ; cabbage ( Reg # 3125 307) ; lettuce ( Reg # 3125 307) ; peppers ( Reg # 3125 307) ; radish grown for seed ( Reg # 3125 307 WA 920026) ;

1. 0 lb/ A EC formulations: asparagus ( SLN) ( Reg # 3125 307 CA 840192) ; barley ( Reg # 3125 307) ; broccoli ( Reg # 3125 307) ; Brussels sprouts ( Reg # 3125 307) ; cauliflower ( Reg # 3125 307) ; cotton ( Reg # 3125 307) ; sorghum ( Reg # 3125 307) ; wheat ( Reg # 3125 307) ;

0. 75 lb/ A EC formulations: wheat ( Reg # 3125 307)

0. 5 lb/ A EC formulations: sorghum ( Reg # 3125 307) ; potatoes: foliar ( Reg # 3125 307)

0. 2 lb/ A EC formulations: cotton ( ( Reg # 3125 307 TX 860007)

109 lb/ A Granular formulations: field grown ornamental shrubs ( Reg # 3125 172) based on the assumption that the shrubs are two feet tall and occupy two square feet ( i. e. , roses) ;

78 lb/ A Granular formulations: Christmas trees ( Reg # 3125 172) based on the assumption that the trunk is 2 inches in diameter and are planted 1700 trees per acre;

37 lb/ A Granular formulations: field grown ornamental trees ( Reg # 3125 172) based on the assumption that the trunk is 2 inches in diameters and are planted 800 trees per acre;

29 lb/ A Granular formulations: field grown flowers and groundcover ( Reg # 3125 172)

11 lb/ A Granular formulations: field grown ornamental trees and shrubs: injection ( Reg # 3125 172)

8. 3 lb/ A Granular formulations: coffee trees ( Reg # 3125 172) based on the assumption that the trees are 8 feet tall and are planted 435 trees per acre 4. 5 lb/ A Granular formulations: Christmas trees ( ( Reg # 3125 172 NC 880001)

4.0 lb/ A Granular formulations: tobacco ( Reg # 3125 172) ;

3. 0 lb/ A Granular formulations: potatoes: soil ( Reg # 3125 172) ;

2.5 lb/ A Granular formulations: peas and lentils ( Reg # 3125 172) ;

2. 0 lb/ A Granular formulations: peanuts ( Reg # 3125 172 NC 920011) ; peppers ( Reg # 3125 172) ; radish grown for seed ( ( Reg # 3125 172 WA 920027) ;

1. 5 lb/ A Granular formulations: cabbage ( Reg # 3125 172) ;

1. 0 lb/ A Granular formulations: barley ( Reg # 3125 172) ; beans: dry, snap, lima: ( Reg # 3125 172) ; broccoli ( Reg # 3125 172) ; Brussels sprouts ( Reg # 3125 172) ; cauliflower ( Reg # 3125 172) ; clover grown for seed ( Reg # 3125 172 WA 980004) ; cotton ( Reg # 3125 172) ; peanuts ( Reg # 3125 172) ; sorghum ( Reg # 3125 172) ; soybeans ( Reg # 3125 172) ; wheat ( Reg # 3125 172) ;

0. 2 lb/ day Granular formulations: potted ornamentals ( Reg # 3125 172) ; based on the assumption that 350 pots that are 12 inches in diameter are treated each day;

b Amount handled per day values are based on HED Exposure SAC Policy # 009   Standard Values for Daily Acres Treated in Agriculture,   revised June 23, 2000, or best professional judgment when data is not available.

c Unless otherwise footnoted, baseline dermal unit exposure values are from PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide, draft version August, 1998. Baseline dermal exposure assumes long pants, long sleeved shirt, no gloves,

open mixing/ loading, open cab/ tractor. ( See Exposure Scenarios Descriptions Table for further information. )

d Unless otherwise footnoted, inhalation unit exposure values are from PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide, draft version August, 1998. Baseline inhalation exposure assessed as a no respirator scenario .

e Short term baseline dermal dose ( mg/ kg/ d) = [ unit dermal exposure ( mg/ lb ai) * application rate ( lb ai/ acre) * daily acres treated * dermal absorption ( 100% ) ] / body weight ( 70 kg) .

f Intermediate term baseline dermal dose ( mg/ kg/ d) = [ unit dermal exposure ( mg/ lb ai) * application rate ( lb ai/ acre) * daily acres treated * dermal absorption ( 36% ) ] / body weight ( 70 kg) .

g Short term dermal MOE = NOAEL ( 0. 5 mg/ kg/ d) / short term daily dermal dose. Uncertainty Factor = 100.

h Intermediate term dermal MOE = NOAEL ( 0. 03 mg/ kg/ day) / intermediate term daily dermal dose. . Uncertainty Factor = 100.

i Baseline Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ d) = ( unit exposure ( F g/ lb ai) * ( 1mg/ 1000 F g) conversion * appl. rate ( lb ai/ A) * acres treated/ day) / body weight ( 70 kg) [Note: application rate and acres treated/ day are replaced by pounds handled per day for ornamentals in pots scenario.

j Baseline inhalation MOE = NOAEL ( 0. 045 mg/ kg/ day) / short term inhalation dose. Uncertainty Factor = 100.

k Total Baseline Short or Intermediate term MOE = 1 1 1 %

dermal MOE inhalation MOE l Unit exposure values from Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force study: ORETF Study Number OMA001.   Exposure of Professional Lawn Care Workers During the Mixing, Loading and Application of Granular Turf Pesticides Utilizing a Surrogate Compound   . Values from EPA memo dated April 30, 2001 using same standard clothing assumptions as for PHED ( footnotes c and d) . Geometric mean is used for dermal values and median is used for inhalation value.

m Unit exposure values from a loader/ applicator study using passive dosimetry and pump feed backpack equipment to load and apply aldicarb granules to the soil at the base of banana trees. MRID # 451672 01 Worker Exposure Study During Application in Banana Plantation with Temik 10G . Applicators wore baseline attire plus Tyvek gloves and a back apron. Geometric mean is used for dermal and inhalation values.

7 Table 1: Occupational Handler Short and Intermediate Term Exposures and Risks at Baseline Attire continued n Unit exposure values from a loader/ applicator study using passive dosimetry and gravity feed backpack equipment to load and apply fipronil granules to the soil at the base of banana trees. MRID # 452507 02 Worker Exposure Study During Application of Regent 10GR in Banana Plantation. Applicators wore baseline attire plus PVC gloves. Geometric mean is used for dermal and inhalation values.

o Unit exposure values from a loader/ applicator study using passive dosimetry and handheld bucket and scoop equipment to load and apply fipronil granules to the soil at the base of banana trees. MRID # 452507 02 Worker Exposure Study During Application of Regent 10GR in Banana Plantation. Applicators wore baseline attire plus PVC gloves. Geometric mean is used for dermal and inhalation values.

8 Table 2: Occupational Handler Short Term Exposures and Risks with Personal Protective Equipment Exposure Scenario Crop Type Application Rate a Acres Treated b Dermal ( gloves) Unit Exposure c ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal ( gloves, double layers) Unit Exposure c ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal ( gloves) MOE d Dermal ( gloves, double layers) MOE d Inhalation ( respirator) Unit Exposure e ( ug/ lb ai) Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE f Inhalation ( respirator) MOE g Dermal ( gloves) +

Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves) +

Inhalation ( respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves, double layers) +

Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves, double layers) +

Inhalation ( respirator) MOE h MIXER/ LOADER Mixing/ Loading Liquid Formulations for Aerial Application ( 1a) tobacco 4 350 0.023 0.017 1.1 1. 5 0. 24 1.9 9. 4 0.69 0.97 0.82 1.3 asparagus ( SLN) 1 350 4. 3 5. 9 7. 5 38 2. 8 3. 9 3. 3 5. 1 barley 1 1200 1. 3 1. 7 2. 2 11 0. 8 1. 1 0. 96 1. 5 wheat 0. 75 1200 1. 7 2. 3 2. 9 15 1. 1 1. 5 1. 3 2 sorghum 0. 5 1200 2. 5 3. 4 4. 4 22 1. 6 2. 3 1. 9 3 potatoes ( foliar) 0. 5 350 8. 7 12 15 75 5. 5 7. 8 6. 6 10 cotton ( SLN) 0. 2 1200 6. 3 8. 6 11 55 4 5. 7 4. 8 7. 4 Mixing/ Loading Liquid Formulations for Chemigation Application ( 1b) potatoes ( foliar)

OR, WA, ID, UT 3 350 1. 4 2 2. 5 13 0. 92 1. 3 1. 1 1. 7 poplars grown for pulpwood ( SLN) 3 350 1. 4 2 2. 5 13 0. 92 1. 3 1. 1 1. 7 cabbage, lettuce 2 350 2. 2 2. 9 3. 8 19 1. 4 1. 9 1. 6 2. 5 broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, cotton 1 350 4. 3 5. 9 7. 5 38 2. 8 3. 9 3. 3 5. 1 Mixing/ Loading Liquid Formulations for Groundboom Application ( 1c) tobacco 4 80 4. 8 6.4 8. 2 41 3 4. 3 3.6 5. 6 poplars grown for pulpwood ( SLN) 3 80 6. 3 8. 6 11 55 4 5. 7 4. 8 7. 4 potatoes ( soil) 3 80 6. 3 8. 6 11 55 4 5. 7 4. 8 7. 4 peas, lentils 2.5 80 7. 6 10 13 66 4.8 6. 8 5.8 8. 9 beans( dry, snap,

lima) , lettuce, peppers, radish grown for seed,

cabbage 2 80 9. 5 13 16 82 6 8. 5 7. 2 11 wheat, barley, cotton, sorghum 1 200 7. 6 10 13 66 4. 8 6. 8 5. 8 8. 9 asparagus ( SLN) ,

broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower 1 80 19 26 33 160 12 17 14 22 potatoes ( foliar) 0. 5 80 38 51 66 330 24 34 29 44 Loading Granular Formulations for Aerial Application ( 2a) tobacco 4 350 0.0069 0.0034 3.6 7. 4 0.34 1.3 6. 6 0.97 2.3 1. 1 3.5 potatoes ( soil) 3 350 4. 8 9. 8 1. 8 8. 8 1. 3 3. 1 1. 5 4. 6 peas, lentils 2.5 350 5.8 12 2. 1 11 1.6 3. 7 1.8 5. 6 peanuts ( SLN) 2 350 7. 2 15 2. 6 13 1. 9 4. 7 2. 2 7 9 Table 2 Occupational Handler Short Term Exposures and Risks with Personal Protective Equipment continued Exposure Scenario Crop Type Application Rate a Acres Treated b Dermal ( gloves) Unit Exposure c ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal ( gloves, double layers) Unit Exposure c ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal ( gloves) MOE d Dermal ( gloves, double layers) MOE d Inhalation ( respirator) Unit Exposure e ( ug/ lb ai) Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE f Inhalation ( respirator) MOE g Dermal ( gloves) +

Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves) +

Inhalation ( respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves, double layers) +

Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves, double layers) +

Inhalation ( respirator) MOE h clover grown for seed ( SLN) 1 350 14 29 5. 3 26 3. 9 9. 4 4. 5 14 barley, sorghum, wheat 1 1200 4. 2 8. 6 1. 5 7. 7 1. 1 2. 7 1. 3 4. 1 Loading Granular Formulations for Ground Application ( 2b) field grown ornamental shrubs 109 40 1. 2 2. 4 0. 42 2. 1 0. 31 0. 75 0. 36 1. 1 field grown ornamental trees 37 40 3. 4 7 1. 3 6. 3 0. 92 2. 2 1. 1 3. 3 field grown flowers & groundcover 29 40 4. 4 8. 9 1. 6 8 1. 2 2. 8 1. 4 4. 2 field grown ornamental trees and shrubs ( inject)

and flowers &

groundcover 11 40 12 23 4. 2 21 3. 1 7. 4 3. 6 11 coffee trees 8. 3 80 7. 6 16 2. 8 14 2 4. 9 2. 4 7. 3 Christmas trees 78 50 1. 3 2. 6 0. 48 2. 4 0. 35 0. 84 0. 4 1. 3 Christmas trees ( SLN) 4. 5 50 23 46 8. 2 41 6 15 7 22 tobacco 4 80 16 32 5. 8 29 4.2 10 4. 9 15 potatoes ( soil) 3 80 21 43 7. 7 39 5. 7 14 6. 5 20 peas, lentils 2.5 80 25 51 9. 3 46 6.8 16 7. 9 24 peppers, peanuts ( SLN) , radish grown for seed ( SLN) 2 80 32 64 12 58 8. 5 20 9. 8 30 cabbage 1. 5 80 42 86 15 77 11 27 13 41 barley, cotton,

sorghum, soybeans, wheat 1 200 25 51 9. 3 46 6. 8 16 7. 9 24 peanuts, beans ( dry,

snap, lima) ,

brussels sprout, cauliflower, broccoli, clover grown for seed ( SLN) 1 80 63 130 23 120 17 41 20 61 APPLICATOR 10 Table 2 Occupational Handler Short Term Exposures and Risks with Personal Protective Equipment continued Exposure Scenario Crop Type Application Rate a Acres Treated b Dermal ( gloves) Unit Exposure c ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal ( gloves, double layers) Unit Exposure c ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal ( gloves) MOE d Dermal ( gloves, double layers) MOE d Inhalation ( respirator) Unit Exposure e ( ug/ lb ai) Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE f Inhalation ( respirator) MOE g Dermal ( gloves) +

Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves) +

Inhalation ( respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves, double layers) +

Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves, double layers) +

Inhalation ( respirator) MOE h Applying Sprays with an Airplane ( 3) tobacco 4 350 No Data See Engineering Controls asparagus ( SLN) 1 350 barley 1 1200 wheat 0. 75 1200 sorghum 0. 5 1200 potatoes ( foliar) 0. 5 350 cotton ( SLN) 0. 2 1200 Applying Granulars with an Airplane ( 4) tobacco 4 350 No Data See Engineering Controls potatoes ( soil) 3 350 peas, lentils 2.5 350 peanuts ( SLN) 2 350 barley, sorghum, wheat 1 1200 clover grown for seed ( SLN) 1 350 Applying with a Groundboom ( 5) tobacco 4 80 0. 014 0.011 7.8 9. 9 0.15 13 66 4.9 7 5.7 8. 6 poplars grown for pulpwood ( SLN) 3 80 10 13 18 88 6. 6 9. 3 7. 6 12 potatoes ( soil) 3 80 10 13 18 88 6. 6 9. 3 7. 6 12 peas, lentils 2.5 80 13 16 21 110 7.9 11 9. 1 14 beans( dry, snap,

lima) , lettuce, peppers, radish grown for seed,

cabbage 2 80 16 20 27 130 9. 8 14 11 17 wheat, barley, cotton, sorghum 1 200 13 16 21 110 7. 9 11 9. 1 14 asparagus ( SLN) ,

broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower 1 80 31 40 53 260 20 28 23 35 potatoes ( foliar) 0. 5 80 63 80 110 530 39 56 46 69 Applying Granulars with a Tractor Drawn Spreader ( 6) field grown ornamental shrubs 109 40 0. 0072 0. 042 1. 1 1. 9 0. 24 0. 6 3 0. 39 0. 81 0. 46 1. 2 11 Table 2 Occupational Handler Short Term Exposures and Risks with Personal Protective Equipment continued Exposure Scenario Crop Type Application Rate a Acres Treated b Dermal ( gloves) Unit Exposure c ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal ( gloves, double layers) Unit Exposure c ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal ( gloves) MOE d Dermal ( gloves, double layers) MOE d Inhalation ( respirator) Unit Exposure e ( ug/ lb ai) Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE f Inhalation ( respirator) MOE g Dermal ( gloves) +

Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves) +

Inhalation ( respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves, double layers) +

Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves, double layers) +

Inhalation ( respirator) MOE h field grown ornamental trees 37 40 3. 3 5. 6 1. 8 8. 9 1. 2 2. 4 1. 3 3. 4 field grown flowers & groundcover 29 40 4. 2 7. 2 2. 3 11 1. 5 3. 1 1. 7 4. 4 field grown ornamental trees &

shrubs ( inject) and flowers &

groundcover 11 40 11 19 6 30 3. 9 8. 1 4. 5 12 coffee trees 8.3 80 7. 3 13 4 20 2. 6 5.3 3 7.7 Christmas trees 78 50 1. 2 2. 1 0. 67 3. 4 0. 44 0. 91 0. 51 1. 3 Christmas trees ( SLN) 4. 5 50 22 37 12 58 7. 6 16 8. 9 23 tobacco 4 80 15 26 8. 2 41 5.3 11 6. 2 16 potatoes ( soil) 3 80 20 35 11 55 7. 1 15 8. 3 21 peas, lentils 2.5 80 24 42 13 66 8. 5 18 10 25 peppers, peanuts ( SLN) , radish grown for seed ( SLN) 2 80 30 52 16 82 11 22 12 32 cabbage 1. 5 80 41 69 22 110 14 30 17 42 barley, cotton,

sorghum, soybeans, wheat 1 200 24 42 13 66 8. 5 18 10 25 peanuts, beans ( dry,

snap, lima) ,

brussels sprout, cauliflower, broccoli, clover grown for seed SLN 1 80 61 100 33 160 21 44 25 64 MIXER/ LOADER/ APPLICATOR Loading/ Applying with a Push Type Spreader i ( ORETF) ( 7) field grown ornamental shrubs 109 5 0. 22 0. 11 0. 29 0. 58 1. 5 0. 77 3. 9 0. 21 0. 27 0. 33 0. 51 field grown ornamental trees 37 5 0. 86 1. 7 2. 3 11 0. 62 0. 8 0. 98 1. 5 12 Table 2 Occupational Handler Short Term Exposures and Risks with Personal Protective Equipment continued Exposure Scenario Crop Type Application Rate a Acres Treated b Dermal ( gloves) Unit Exposure c ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal ( gloves, double layers) Unit Exposure c ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal ( gloves) MOE d Dermal ( gloves, double layers) MOE d Inhalation ( respirator) Unit Exposure e ( ug/ lb ai) Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE f Inhalation ( respirator) MOE g Dermal ( gloves) +

Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves) +

Inhalation ( respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves, double layers) +

Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves, double layers) +

Inhalation ( respirator) MOE h field grown flowers & groundcover 29 5 1. 1 2. 2 2. 9 14 0. 8 1 1. 2 1. 9 field grown ornamental trees &

shrubs ( inject) and flowers &

groundcover 11 5 2. 9 5. 8 7. 6 38 2. 1 2. 7 3. 3 5 Christmas trees 78 5 0. 41 0. 82 1. 1 5. 4 0. 3 0. 38 0. 46 0. 71 Christmas trees ( SLN) 4. 5 5 7. 1 14 19 93 5. 1 6. 6 8 12 Loading/ Applying with a Bellygrinder ( PHED) ( 8) field grown ornamental shrubs 109 1 9. 3 5. 7 0. 035 0. 056 12 0. 47 2. 4 0. 032 0. 034 0. 05 0. 055 field grown ornamental trees 37 1 0. 1 0. 17 1. 4 7. 1 0. 095 0. 1 0. 15 0. 16 field grown flowers & groundcover 29 1 0. 13 0. 21 1. 8 9. 1 0. 12 0. 13 0. 19 0. 21 field grown ornamental trees &

shrubs ( inject) and flowers &

groundcover 11 1 0. 34 0. 56 4. 6 24 0. 32 0. 34 0. 5 0. 55 Christmas trees 78 1 0. 048 0. 079 0. 65 3. 4 0. 045 0. 048 0. 07 0. 077 Christmas trees ( SLN) 4. 5 1 0. 84 1. 4 11 58 0. 78 0. 82 1. 2 1. 3 Loading/ Applying Granulars with a Pump Feed Backpack Spreader j ( Aldicarb ) ( 9a) field grown ornamental shrubs 109 10 0. 01 with apron on back No Data 3. 2 ( apron) No Data 0. 84 0. 69 3. 4 0. 57 ( apron) 1. 7 ( apron) No Data No Data 5 6. 4 ( apron) 1. 4 6. 9 1. 1 ( apron) 3. 3 ( apron)

field grown ornamental trees 37 10 9. 5 ( apron) 2 10 1. 7 ( apron) 4. 9 ( apron)

5 19 ( apron) 4. 1 20 3. 3 ( apron) 9. 8 ( apron)

field grown flowers & groundcover 29 10 12 ( apron) 2. 6 13 2. 1 ( apron) 6. 2 ( apron)

5 24 ( apron) 5. 2 26 4. 3 ( apron) 12 ( apron)

field grown ornamental trees &

shrubs ( inject) and flowers &

groundcover 11 10 32 ( apron) 6. 8 34 5. 6 ( apron) 16 ( apron)

5 64 ( apron) 14 68 11 ( apron) 33 ( apron)

coffee trees 8. 3 10 42 ( apron) 9 45 7. 4 ( apron) 22 ( apron)

5 84 ( apron) 18 90 15 ( apron) 44 ( apron)

13 Table 2 Occupational Handler Short Term Exposures and Risks with Personal Protective Equipment continued Exposure Scenario Crop Type Application Rate a Acres Treated b Dermal ( gloves) Unit Exposure c ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal ( gloves, double layers) Unit Exposure c ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal ( gloves) MOE d Dermal ( gloves, double layers) MOE d Inhalation ( respirator) Unit Exposure e ( ug/ lb ai) Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE f Inhalation ( respirator) MOE g Dermal ( gloves) +

Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves) +

Inhalation ( respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves, double layers) +

Inhalation ( no respirator) MOE h Dermal ( gloves, double layers) +

Inhalation ( respirator) MOE h Christmas trees 78 10 4. 5 ( apron) 0. 96 4. 8 0. 79 ( apron) 2. 3 ( apron)

5 9 ( apron) 1. 9 9. 6 1. 6 ( apron) 4. 6 ( apron)

Christmas trees ( SLN) 4. 5 10 78 ( apron) 17 83 14 ( apron) 40 ( apron)

5 160 ( apron) 33 170 27 ( apron) 80 ( apron)

Potted ornamentals 0. 2 lb ai/ day  18000 ( apron) 3800 19000 3100 ( apron) 9100 ( apron)

Loading/ Applying Granular with a Gravity Feed Backpack Spreader k ( Fipronil) ( 9b) field grown ornamental shrubs 109 10 0. 6 No Data 0. 054 No Data 8. 8 0. 066 0. 33 0. 029 0. 046 No Data No Data 5 0. 11 0. 13 0. 66 0. 059 0. 092 field grown ornamental trees 37 10 0. 16 0. 19 0. 97 0. 087 0. 14 No Data No Data 5 0. 32 0. 39 1. 9 0. 17 0. 27 field grown flowers & groundcover 29 10 0. 2 0. 25 1. 2 0. 11 0. 17 5 0. 4 0. 49 2. 5 0. 22 0. 35 field grown ornamental trees &

shrubs ( inject) and flowers &

groundcover 11 10 0. 53 0. 65 3. 3 0. 29 0. 46 5 1. 1 1. 3 6. 5 0. 58 0. 91 coffee trees 8.3 10 0. 7 0.86 4.3 0. 39 0. 6 5 1. 4 1. 7 8. 6 0. 77 1. 2 Christmas trees 78 10 0. 075 0. 092 0. 46 0. 041 0. 064 5 0. 15 0. 18 0. 92 0. 082 0. 13 Christmas trees ( SLN) 4. 5 10 1. 3 1. 6 8 0. 71 1. 1 5 2. 6 3. 2 16 1. 4 2. 2 Potted ornamentals 0. 2 lb ai/ day  290 360 1800 160 250 Scoop and Bucket l ( Fipronil)

( 10) field grown ornamental shrubs 109 10 2 No Data 0. 016 No Data 9 0. 064 0. 32 0. 013 0. 015 5 0. 032 0. 13 0. 64 0. 026 0. 031 field grown ornamental trees 37 10 0. 047 0. 19 0. 95 0. 038 0. 045 5 0. 095 0. 38 1. 9 0. 076 0. 09 field grown flowers & groundcover 29 10 0. 06 0. 24 1. 2 0. 048 0. 057 5 0. 12 0. 48 2. 4 0. 097 0. 11 field grown ornamental trees &

shrubs ( inject) and flowers &