C Appendix L/ Table 9: Toddler Dermal Risk Values For Carbaryl on Turf After Ground Mosquito Control Application Presents the risks for short term and intermediate term toddler dermal exposures on turf while engaged in high contact activity after the area has been treated for mosquito control using ground equipment. 130 C Appendix L/ Table 10: Toddler Hand to Mouth Risk Values For Carbaryl on Turf After Aerial Mosquito Control Application Presents the risks for short term and intermediate term toddler hand to mouth exposures in on turf while engaged in high contact activity after the area has been treated for mosquito control using aerial equipment.

C Appendix L/ Table 11: Toddler Hand to Mouth Risk Values For Carbaryl on Turf After Ground Mosquito Control Application Presents the risks for short term and intermediate term toddler hand to mouth exposures in on turf while engaged in high contact activity after the area has been treated for mosquito control using ground equipment.

C Appendix L/ Table 12: Toddler Object to Mouth Risk Values For Carbaryl on Turf After Aerial Mosquito Control Application Presents the risks for short term and intermediate term toddler object to mouth exposures in on turf while engaged in high contact activity after the area has been treated for mosquito control using aerial equipment.

C Appendix L/ Table 13: Toddler Object to Mouth Risk Values For Carbaryl on Turf After Ground Mosquito Control Application Presents the risks for short term and intermediate term toddler object to mouth exposures in on turf while engaged in high contact activity after the area has been treated for mosquito control using ground equipment.

° Appendix L/ Table 14: Toddler Soil Ingestion Risk Values For Carbaryl on Turf After Aerial Mosquito Control Application Presents the risks for short term and intermediateterm toddler soil ingestion exposures in on turf while engaged in high contact activity after the area has been treated for mosquito control using aerial equipment.

° Appendix L/ Table 15: Toddler Soil Ingestion Risk Values For Carbaryl on Turf After Ground Mosquito Control Application Presents the risks for short term and intermediateterm toddler soil ingestion exposures in on turf while engaged in high contact activity after the area has been treated for mosquito control using ground equipment.

° Appendix L/ Table 16: Toddler Aggregate Risk Values For Carbaryl on Turf After Aerial Mosquito Control Application Presents the risks for short term and intermediateterm toddler aggregate exposures in on turf while engaged in high contact activity after the area has been treated for mosquito control using aerial equipment.

° Appendix L/ Table 17: Toddler Aggregate Risk Values For Carbaryl on Turf After Ground Mosquito Control Application Presents the risks for short term and intermediate term toddler aggregate exposures in on turf while engaged in high contact activity after the area has been treated for mosquito control using ground equipment.

° Appendix M/ Table 1: Summary of Carbaryl Data From Ecology's Post Spray Samples (July 31 August 4, 2000) Presents summary water data for monitoring conducted by the Washington State Department of Ecology in Willapa Bay during 2000. 131 ° Appendix M/ Table 2: Summary of Carbaryl Data From Shoalwater Bay Tribe (July 17 & 19, 2000) Presents summary water data for monitoring conducted by the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe in Willapa Bay during 2000. [Note: These data were used as summarized from 2001 Washington State Dept of Ecology Report.]

° Appendix M/ Table 3: Carbaryl and 1 napthol Concentrations In Willapa Bay PostSpray Sediment Presents summary sediment data for monitoring conducted by the Washington State Department of Ecology in Willapa Bay during 1999.

° Appendix M/ Table 4: Carbaryl Concentrations In Day 60 Willapa Bay Pore Water Presents summary water data for monitoring conducted 60 days after spraying by the Washington State Department of Ecology in Willapa Bay during 1999. [Note: Samples were collected in this study at 2 and 30 days after sampling which were not reported due to analytical problems.]

° Appendix M/ Table 5: Carbaryl Oyster Harvest/ Beach Play Risk Assessment For Adults and Toddlers Presents noncancer and cancer risk estimates for adults and toddlers while oyster harvesting or playing on a beach. This assessment is based on dermal contact with contaminated sediment and hand to mouth behavior for toddlers. The highest sediment concentration detected in any data available to the Agency was used to assure screening level nature of assessment.

° Appendix M/ Table 6: Carbaryl Oyster Harvest/ Beach Play Risk Assessment For Adults and Toddlers Presents noncancer and cancer risk estimates for adults if they were to swim in Willapa Bay. All calculations were completed with the Agency's SWIMODEL (V2.0). Results and model inputs are included in this table.

The Agency has addressed residential postapplication exposures to carbaryl using the standard set of scenarios that are prescribed in current guidance. There are many issues associated with the development of these scenarios and, in general, residential exposure methods. Readers should refer to the guidance documents that are presented above for further information concerning the development of scenarios for residential exposure assessment purposes. The uncertainty factors are similar to those applied to the residential handler assessments described above (i. e., 100 for both short term and intermediate term exposures).

Risk Summary:

Adult Short term MOEs only for lawncare (i. e., heavy yardwork) exceed the Agency's level of concern on the day of application (i. e., 43 to 88). For this activity, it takes 1 and 5 days, respectively at the 4 and 8 lb ai/ acre application rates, for residues to dissipate to a point where short term MOEs are $ 100. In all other scenarios considered, short term MOEs are $ 100 on the day of application. These other scenarios include vegetable gardening, golfing, tending fruit trees. More localized exposures that occur after mosquito control or from exposures associated with oyster bed treatments are also included. Intermediate term MOEs were calculated using 30 day average exposures and the dissipation rate for carbaryl. In all cases, intermediate term MOEs are 132 $ 100. Table 26 presents the postapplication MOE values calculated for adults after lawn and home garden applications of carbaryl.

Table 26: Summary of Carbaryl Noncancer Postapplication Residential MOEs For Adults Scenario Descriptor Results Short term MOE on Day 0 Days Short term MOE UF Intermediateterm MOE Residential Turf (Lawncare) Max Rate at 4 lb ai/ A 88 1 842 Max Rate at 8 lb ai/ A 43 5 412 Aerial  Mosquito Adulticide 0.016 to 1.0 lb ai/ A 3700 231268 0 35463 2216454 Ground  Mosquito Adulticide 0.016 to 1.0 lb ai/ A 7031 439409 0 67380 4211262 Golfing Max Rate at 4 lb ai/ A 1274 0 12297 Max Rate at 8 lb ai/ A 624 0 6021 Aerial  Mosquito Adulticide 0.016 to 1.0 lb ai/ A 53654 3353387 0 517764 32360224 Ground  Mosquito Adulticide 0.016 to 1.0 lb ai/ A 101943 6371435 0 983751 61484426 Home Garden (Deciduous Tree) Very Low Exposure (propping) 17373 0 53139 Low Exposure (irrigation, scout, weed) 1737 0 5314 High Exposure (harvest, prune, train, tie, thin) 579 0 1771 Home Garden (Fruiting Vegetable) Low Exposure (irrigation, scout, thin, weed) 1758 0 9468 Medium Exposure (irrigation, scout) 1256 0 6763 High Exposure (harvest, prune, stake, tie) 879 0 4734 Oyster Beds Oyster Harvest 967137 0 2680745 Swimming 293651 0 No Data 133 Youth aged children (10 to 12 years old) were only considered in the home garden scenarios per Agency guidance. Short term MOEs for these children were similar to those calculated for adults in that they were $ 100 for all of the gardening scenarios considered. Intermediate term MOEs were calculated using 30 day average exposures and the dissipation rate for carbaryl. In all cases, intermediate term MOEs are $ 100. Table 27 below summarizes the postapplication MOE values calculated for youth home garden applications of carbaryl.

Table 27: Summary of Carbaryl Noncancer Postapplication Residential MOEs For Youth Aged Children Scenario Descriptor Results Short term MOE on Day 0 Days Short term MOE UF Intermediateterm MOE Home Garden (Deciduous Tree) Very Low Exposure (propping) 19408 0 59364 Low Exposure (irrigation, scout, weed) 1941 0 5936 High Exposure (harvest, prune, train, tie, thin) 647 0 1979 Home Garden (Fruiting Vegetable) Low Exposure (irrigation, scout, thin, weed) 1964 0 10577 Medium Exposure (irrigation, scout) 1403 0 7555 High Exposure (harvest, prune, stake, tie) 982 0 5289 Toddler (3 year old) MOEs were calculated for the lawncare and pet uses of carbaryl. Table 28 presents a summary of the MOE estimates for toddlers. Exposures were also addressed that resulted from residential application of carbaryl as a mosquito adulticide. Toddler MOEs from treated turf were calculated at the lower and upper ends of the maximum application rate range (i. e., different maximum rates of 4 to 8 lb ai/ acre were specified for different pests). A range of application rates were also considered for the mosquito control uses.

Short term MOEs from exposure to treated turf (in products labeled for direct application to turf) were <100 on the day of application for both rates considered (i. e., 4 and 8 lb ai/ acre). In fact, short term MOEs from individual pathways were not $ 100 for any turf scenario considered on the day of application except for the soil ingestion component of the turf assessment which is a very minor contributor to overall exposures. As a reminder, dermal, hand to mouth, and object to mouth exposure pathways were also considered. Total short term MOEs (all pathways) were $ 100 at the lower 4 lb ai/ acre application rate 14 days after application and 18 days at the higher 8 lb ai/ acre application rate. Dermal and hand to mouth exposures were the key contributors while soil ingestion was a minor contributor to the total MOE estimates. See Appendix H for more detailed information on how each exposure pathway contributed to the overall exposures. Intermediate term MOEs were calculated using 30 day average exposures and the dissipation rate for carbaryl. For 134 both rates, intermediate term MOEs were <100. Exposures to toddlers were also considered after application of carbaryl as a mosquito adulticide. Regardless of how applications are made (i. e., by ground or air), both short term MOEs on the day of application and intermediate term MOEs were $ 100. See Appendix L for more detailed information on how each exposure pathway contributed to the overall exposures.

Ingestion of carbaryl granules is also a potential source of exposure because children can eat them if they are found in treated lawns or gardens. This scenario is considered an episodic scenario by the Agency (i. e., acute dietary endpoints are always used). The concentration of carbaryl in granular products ranges generally from 2 to 10 percent. If this information is coupled with the body weight of a toddler (15 kg), the endpoint of 1 mg/ kg/ day for short term assessments (which is also the same value used for the APAD), and the uncertainty factor of 100 the amount of formulation that can be consumed at the uncertainty factor MOE level can be calculated. The Agency generally presents these results based on the number of carbaryl granules that can be ingested. However, the number of homeowner formulations is extensive and impossible to characterize in that much detail so a general weight estimate is presented. If a 2 percent formulation is ingested, 7.5 mg represents exposure at an MOE of 100 (i. e., 1.6 x 10 5 lb). If a 10 percent formulation is ingested, 1.5 mg represents exposure at an MOE of 100 (i. e., 3.3 x 10 6 lb). For illustrative purposes, if one considers a 2 percent formulation and the density of soil (0.67 mL/ gram, many granulars are clay based), only 0.005 mL of formulation would need to be ingested to have a risk concern (i. e., 7.5 mg * 1g/ 1000mg * 0.67 mL/ gram). Note that this volume is orders of magnitude less than a teaspoon of granular formulation (i. e., 0.1% of a teaspoon where a tsp. = 5 mL).

The assessments for pet uses considered dermal and nondietary ingestion exposures and also calculated total MOEs. Short term MOEs for pet uses were <100 even 30 days after application regardless of whether the formulation used was a dust, liquid or collar. This trend was observed for each separate exposure pathway as well as the total MOE estimates. Hand to mouth and dermal exposures are approximately equal contributors to the overall estimates for each product type. The results are similar for the intermediate term MOEs for each scenario. There is one pet use which is also considered to be a chronic exposure by the Agency. Pet collars are assumed to be worn all of the time so chronic exposure can potentially occur. The chronic MOE for pet collars mirrors the short and intermediate term results. See Appendix J for more detailed information on how each exposure pathway contributed to the overall exposures.

The assessments for beach play for toddlers after oyster bed treatement considered dermal and nondietary ingestion exposures and also calculated total MOEs. Short term MOEs were >100 even if the highest monitored sediment concentration value from any study available to the Agency was used as the basis for the calculations. The intermediate term results were similar. See Appendix M for more information on how each pathway contributed to the overall exposures. 135 Table 28: Summary of Carbaryl Noncancer Postapplication Residential Aggregate MOEs For Toddlers Scenario Descriptor Results Short term MOE on Day 0 Days For Short term MOE UF Intermediateterm MOE Chronic MOE Pet Treatments Liquids 2.0 +30 4 NA Dusts 0. 02 +30 0.04 NA Collars 18 +30 18 43 Residential Turf (High Activity) Max Rate at 4 lb ai/ A 11 14 91 NA Max Rate at 8 lb ai/ A 5 18 45 NA Aerial  Mosquito Adulticide 0.016 to 1.0 lb ai/ A 448 27983 0 3826 239095 NA Ground  Mosquito Adulticide 0.016 to 1.0 lb ai/ A 851 53167 0 7269 454280 NA Oyster Beds Beach Play 29532 0 81859 NA 3.2.4 Residential Postapplication Exposure and Risk Estimates for Cancer The residential postapplication exposure and cancer risk calculations are presented in this section. Cancer risks were calculated using a linear low dose extrapolation approach in which a Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD) is first calculated and then compared with a Q1* that has been calculated for carbaryl based on dose response data in the appropriate toxicology study (Q1* = 8.75 x 10 4 (mg/ kg/ day) 1 ). Absorbed average daily dose (ADD) levels were used as the basis for calculating the LADD values. Section 2.1.3 above describes how the ADD values were first calculated for the noncancer MOE calculations. These values also serve as the basis for the cancer risk estimates. Dermal and inhalation ADD values were first added together to obtain combined ADD values. LADD values were then calculated and compared the Q1* to obtain cancer risk estimates.

LADD and Cancer Risk Calculations: The use of dissipation data and the manner in which daily postapplication dermal exposure values were calculated were inherently different than with handler exposures. Once daily exposure values were determined, the calculation of LADD (Lifetime Average Daily Dose) and the resulting cancer risks use the same algorithms that were described above for the handler exposures (See Section 2.1.4).

As mentioned previously, the Agency has defined a range of acceptable cancer risks based on a policy issued in 1996. This memo refers to a predetermined quantified "level of concern" for residential carcinogenic risk. In summary, residential carcinogenic risks that are 1 x 10 6 or lower require no risk management action. In addition to the cancer risk estimates for an annual frequency of 1 time per year, the number of days of exposure per year required to get a 1x10 6 cancer risk have 136 been calculated. In this calculation, the 1x10 6 cancer risk limit was divided by the calculated cancer risk for each scenario for a single day of exposure. This calculation would only be completed for situations where the cancer risks were less than 1x10 6 on the day of application.

Cancer Risk Summary All of the cancer risk calculations for the various residential carbaryl assessments are included in Appendices H, I, L and M for the turf, home garden, mosquito adulticide, and oyster treatment scenarios, respectively. The specifics of each of table included in these Appendices are described below. A summary of the results for each scenario considered for each timeframe is also provided below.

C Appendix H/ Table 4: Adult Cancer Risk Values For Carbaryl Residential Risk Assessment on Turf Presents the risks for activities on turf including lawncare and golfing at the two application rates considered in the assessment.

C Appendix I/ Tables 3: Carbaryl Residential Postapplication Adult Cancer Risk Assessment For Deciduous Tree Crop Group Risk values are presented for different activities in home tree crops.

C Appendix I/ Tables 6: Carbaryl Residential Postapplication Adult Cancer Risk Assessment For Fruiting Vegetable Crop Group Risk values are presented for different activities in home vegetable gardens.

° Appendix M/ Table 5: Carbaryl Oyster Harvest/ Beach Play Risk Assessment For Adults and Toddlers Presents noncancer and cancer risk estimates for adults and toddlers while oyster harvesting or playing on a beach. This assessment is based on dermal contact with contaminated sediment and hand to mouth behavior for toddlers. The highest sediment concentration detected in any data available to the Agency was used to assure screening level nature of assessment.

° Appendix M/ Table 6: Carbaryl Oyster Harvest/ Beach Play Risk Assessment For Adults and Toddlers Presents noncancer and cancer risk estimates for adults if they were to swim in Willapa Bay. All calculations were completed with the Agency's SWIMODEL (V2.0). Results and model inputs are included in this table.

For all scenarios on turf, cancer risks are in the 10 8 range or less on the day of application when a single reentry event per year during lawncare activities is evaluated. For home gardening, golfing or from mosquito control, risks are slightly lower in the 10 9 to 10 12 range when a single reentry event per year is evaluated on the day of application. Table 29 below summarizes the postapplication risk values calculated for adults after applications of carbaryl. Risk managers should consider these values represent a single reentry day into a treated area over each year of a 50 year lifetime on the day of application and that the Agency lacks data to link the annual frequency of reentry activity to residential applications. As with the residential handler risks above, the Agency calculated the number of exposure days needed to reach a risk level of 1x10 6 for each scenario on the day of application, values range from 20 to over 365 days per year while most exceed 365 days per year. 137 Table 29: Summary of Carbaryl Postapplication Residential Cancer Risks For Adults Scenario Descriptor Results Risk on Day 0 Allowed Days/ Year Residential Turf (Lawncare) Max Rate at 4 lb ai/ A 2.5 x 10 8 40 Max Rate at 8 lb ai/ A 5.1 x 10 8 20 Aerial  Mosquito Adulticide 0.016 to 1.0 lb ai/ A 9.5 x 10 12 to 5.9 x 10 10 >365 Ground  Mosquito Adulticide 0.016 to 1.0 lb ai/ A 5.0 x 10 12 to 3.1 x 10 10 >365 Golfing Max Rate at 4 lb ai/ A 1.7 x 10 9 >365 Max Rate at 8 lb ai/ A 3.5 x 10 9 287 Aerial  Mosquito Adulticide 0.016 to 1.0 lb ai/ A 6.5 x 10 13 to 4.1 x 10 11 >365 Ground  Mosquito Adulticide 0.016 to 1.0 lb ai/ A 3.4 x 10 13 to 2.1 x 10 11 >365 Home Garden (Deciduous Tree) Very Low Exposure (propping) 2.5 x 10 10 >365 Low Exposure (irrigation, scout, weed) 2.5 x 10 9 >365 High Exposure (harvest, prune, train, tie, thin) 7.5 x 10 9 133 Home Garden (Fruiting Vegetable) Low Exposure (irrigation, scout, thin, weed) 2.5 x 10 9 >365 Medium Exposure (irrigation, scout) 3.5 x 10 9 289 High Exposure (harvest, prune, stake, tie) 4.9 x 10 9 202 Oyster Beds Oyster Harvest 4. 5 x 10 12 >365 Swimming 6.1 x 10 12 >365 3.2.5 Summary of Residential Postapplication Risk Concerns and Data Gaps The Agency considered a number of exposure scenarios for products that can be used in the residential environment representing different segments of the population including toddlers, youthaged children and adults. Short term and intermediate term noncancer MOEs were calculated for all scenarios. Additionally, cancer risks were calculated for the exposure scenarios involving adults where methods are currently available. Cancer risks were not calculated for children per Agency policy. In residential settings, the Agency does not use REIs or other mitigation approaches to limit exposures because they are viewed as impractical and not enforceable. As such, risk estimates on the day of application are the key concern. 138 The Agency has short term risk concerns for exposures to adults doing heavy yardwork, for toddlers playing on treated lawns, and for toddlers that have contact with treated pets. Activities associated with home gardening (e. g., harvesting) and golfing for adults, home gardening for youthaged children or any age or activity considered in the adulticide mosquito control or oyster assessment do not have risk concerns even on the day of application (i. e., MOEs $ 100 on the day of application). For adults, the MOEs for heavy yardwork do not meet or exceed risk targets (i. e., MOE = 100) up to 5 days after application. For toddlers, the Agency has concerns for pet treatments and also for lawn uses. In fact, pet uses never reach acceptable levels even 30 days after application and not until 18 days at the maximum application rate considered on turf. Toddler MOEs from pet and turf uses represent total exposures from many pathways. For the pet uses, dermal and hand to mouth exposures essentially both equally contribute to the overall estimate. For the turf uses, dermal and hand to mouth exposures are also the key contributors to the overall estimates.

The Agency does not have intermediate term risk concerns for adults and youth aged children for any of the uses considered including lawncare, home gardens, golfing, and any aspect of adulticide mosquito control or oyster bed uses. In contrast, the Agency does have intermediateterm risk concerns for all toddler exposure scenarios considered (i. e., pet treatments and lawncare uses). As with the short term MOEs, pet and turf uses represent total exposures where the significant contributions to overall exposures are again made equally from the dermal and hand tomouth exposure pathways.

Cancer risks were calculated only for adults and were found to be in the 10 8 to 10 12 range, regardless of the scenarios considered, on the day of application (e. g., lawncare, golfing and gardening). Risks did not exceed 1x10 6 on the day of application for any scenario considered. All postapplication cancer risks were calculated based on an annual frequency of 1 exposure per year. It is likely that additional events could occur but data linking postapplication activities and carbaryl use patterns are not available. To address this issue, the Agency calculated the number of exposures that can occur under a cancer risk ceiling of 1x10 6 and determined that from 20 days per year to exposures every day of the year could occur depending upon the scenario. Results indicate most activities can occur from every day of the year even at residue levels present on the day of application..

Unlike many residential risk assessments, the postapplication residential assessment for carbaryl is based on a number of chemical specific studies that have been used to calculate risks from turf uses (e. g., TTR study) and in gardens (i. e., DFR data). There are no transferable residue data available for pet uses which is a key data gap. Additional data could potentially be used to refine risk estimates for the other settings such as additional DFR data on different crops and TTR data which are more appropriate for hand to mouth and object to mouth exposures.

The Agency combines risks resulting from total exposures to individual chemicals when it is likely they can occur simultaneously based on the use pattern and the behavior associated with the exposed population. For carbaryl, the Agency has combined risk values (i. e., MOEs) for different kinds of exposures associated with the turf (dermal, hand to mouth, object to mouth, and soil 139 ingestion) and pet scenarios (dermal and hand to mouth). These represent the standard set of exposures that are typically added together when chemicals are used on turf or on pets because it is logical they can co occur. Typically, the Agency only adds exposures from different exposure scenarios together (e. g., spraying and gardening) when risks from both are not already a concern. For carbaryl, there are risk concerns for many residential handler scenarios already so the Agency did not add risk values from any postapplication exposure together with applicator risks.

3.2.6 Recommendations For Refining Residential Postapplication Risk Assessment In order to refine this residential assessment, data on actual use patterns including rates, timing, and the kinds of tasks that are required to better characterize carbaryl risks. Exposure studies for many cultural practices that lack data or that are not well represented in the current Agency guidance should also be considered based on the data gaps identified above (e. g., pet uses). Risk managers should consider that the risks associated with current label generally do not meet Agency targets, especially for the turf, pet and high exposure garden scenarios.

3.3 Residential Risk Characterization 3.3.1 Handler Characterization The residential handler assessment for carbaryl is complex in that calculations were completed for 54 different equipment and application rate scenarios. Unlike the occupational assessments, only short term exposures were considered for handlers because homeowner use patterns are not believed by the Agency to lead to intermediate term exposures because of their sporadic nature. Cancer risks were also calculated using a linear, low dose extrapolation model (i. e., Q1*) for typical residential users (1 event/ year). Cancer risks were also considered by calculating the number of days exposure that would be required per year to achieve a cancer risk of 1x10 6 to illustrate risk levels from another perspective. All totaled, when each type of calculation is considered, 108 different crop/ application method calculations were completed for residential handlers.

The data that were used in the in the carbaryl residential handler assessment represent the best data and approaches that are currently available. For most of the major use patterns, carbarylspecific data or data generated by the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force were used. These data generally are considered to be high quality by the Agency and the best source of information available for the scenarios where they were used. Carbaryl specific data were used to address the garden and tree/ ornamental scenarios with several types of equipment and formulations including liquid trigger sprayers, dusts, and liquid sprays using low pressure handwand and hose end sprayers. Carbaryl specific data were also available for dusting dogs. The ORETF data for hoseend sprayer applications to turf and granular applications to turf were also used to address those scenarios. In the remaining scenarios, the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) was used to develop the unit exposure values. The quality of the data included in PHED vary widely from scenarios that meet guideline requirements for studies to others where a limited number of poor quality datapoints are available. All data that have been used may not be of optimal quality but 140 represent the best available data.

The inputs for application rate and other use/ usage information (e. g., area treated and frequency of use) used by the Agency were supported by the available carbaryl labels and information supplied by the Aventis Corporation at the September 24, 1998 SMART Meeting. It is also very clear that because carbaryl is such as widely used chemical that it is likely every potential exposure scenario has not been captured because of difference in use pattern. As more refined information becomes available on carbaryl use, the Agency will refine its assessment accordingly.

There are also many uncertainties in the assessment that are common with the occupational assessment as well. These factors and their impacts on the results should be considered as well in the interpretation of the results for residential handlers. Section 2.3.1 provides a summary of these issues.

In summary, with respect to residential handler risks, the Agency believes that the values presented in this assessment represent the highest quality results that could be produced given the exposure, use, and toxicology data that are available. However, there are certain elements where additional data are required. For example, it is difficult to ascertain where on a distribution certain input values may fall because the distributional data for exposure, application rates, acres treated and many other parameters are unrefined.

3.3.2 Postapplication Characterization Like the residential handler assessment discussed above, the postapplication residential assessment for carbaryl is also complex in that noncancer MOE calculations were required based on the recently selected endpoints along with cancer risk calculations using a linear, low dose extrapolation model. Carbaryl residues persist in the environment as indicated in the available DFR and TTR data for periods where intermediate term as well as short term noncancer risk estimates are required. Cancer risks were calculated only for adults per current Agency policy.

The general population can be exposed through many different pathways that result from uses on lawns and turf, in gardens, on ornamental plants, and from treated pets. People can also be exposed from mosquito adulticide applications and uses in oyster beds. Carbaryl labels do not currently allow for indoor residential uses (e. g., crack and crevice). Settings where such exposures could occur would include around personal residences and in other areas frequented by the general public including parks, ball fields, and playgrounds. To represent the wide array of possible exposures, the Agency relies on the scenarios that have been defined in the SOPs For Residential Exposure Assessment and accompanying documents such as the overview presented to the FIFRA Science Advisory Panel. For turf uses, the Agency considered adults and toddlers (3 year olds) in the assessments. Adult activities included lawncare/ maintenance and also golfing. Toddler MOEs were calculated for playing on turf (using exposure data from the Jazzercize model) and also addressed nondietary ingestion (hand/ object to mouth and soil ingestion). Exposures from tree and garden uses were evaluated by considering adults and youth aged children (10 to 12 years old) doing gardening activities such as weeding and harvesting for different crop groups. Transfer coefficients from the fruiting vegetable crop group and the deciduous tree crop group were used, as 141 described in the SOPs For Residential Exposure Assessment to represent exposures for these scenarios. MOEs from treated pets were evaluated for toddlers again for whom exposures may occur from dermal contact and hand to mouth behavior. Adulticide mosquito applications were considered by first defining how much residues are deposited on the ground after a mosquito control application then using the same methods approaches from the lawncare assessment to address adults doing heavy yardwork or golfing and also children playing on treated turf.

The data that were used in the carbaryl residential postapplication assessment represent the best data and approaches that are currently available. To the extent possible, the Agency has attempted to use carbaryl specific data such as with the dislodgeable foliar residue (DFR) data used for the garden scenarios and the turf transferable residue (TTR) data used for the dermal component of the turf scenarios. When chemical specific data were unavailable, the Agency used the current approaches for residential assessment, many of which include recent upgrades to the SOPs. For example, for the toddler hand to mouth calculations, the TTR data were not used but a 5 percent transferability factor was applied to calculate residue levels appropriate for this exposure pathway. Another key approach to consider is the use of the dermal hug approach for pet products which was proposed at the September 1999 meeting of the FIFRA Science Advisory Panel. Oyster bed uses were evaluated based on guidance from Superfund and the Agency's SWIMODEL. There are also many embedded uncertainties that should be considered in the interpretation of this assessment such as those associated with the use of Jazzercize and with the nondietary ingestion calculations. Readers should consider these in the interpretation of the overall risk estimates. Readers should also consider the screening nature of the SOPs For Residential Exposure Assessment and how additional data could refine the results.

Finally, the Agency believes that the values presented in this assessment represent the highest quality results that could be produced based on the currently available postapplication exposure data. Readers of this document should consider the quality of individual inputs when interpreting the results and make decisions accordingly. It is difficult to ascertain where, on a distribution, the calculated values fall because the distributional data for exposure, residue dissipation and many other parameters are unrefined. The Agency does believe, however, that the risks represent conservative estimates of exposure because maximum application rates are used to define residue levels upon which the calculations are based. Additionally, estimates are thought to be conservative even when measures of central tendency (e. g., most transfer coefficients are thought to be central tendency) are used because values that would be considered to be in the lower percentile aspect of any input parameter have not been used in the calculations. Appendix A: Use Information For Carbaryl Quantitative Usage Analysis for Carbaryl Case Number: 0080 PC Code: 56801 Date: July 21, 1998 Analyst: Frank Hernandez Based on available pesticide survey usage information for the years of 1987 through 1996, an annual estimate of carbaryl total domestic usage averaged approximately two and one half million pounds active ingredient (a. i.) for over one and one half million acres treated. Carbaryl is an insecticide with its largest markets in terms of total pounds active ingredient allocated to pecans (12%), apples (9%), grapes( 6%), oranges (5%), alfalfa (5%), and corn (4%). Most of the usage is in AR, CA, GA, IL, IN, MI, MS, OH, OK, and TX.

Crops with a high percentage of the total U. S. planted acres treated include avocados (67%), Chinese cabbage (57%), asparagus (43%), cranberries (39%), and Brussels sprouts (33%).

Crops with less than 1 percent of the crop treated include alfalfa, dry beans, canola, corn, cotton, flax, oats, pasture, green peas, safflower, sod,

sorghum, soybeans, sugar cane, sunflowers, sweet corn, walnuts, wheat, and woodland.

Site Acres Grown (000) Acres Treated (000) % of Crop Treated LB AI Applied (000) Average Application Rate States of Most Usage Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max lb ai/ acre/ y r #appl / yr lb ai/

A/ appl (% of total lb ai used on this site)

Alfalfa 23,949 120 263 0.50 1.10 130 365 1.1 1.0 1.1 NE SD OK MT ND IL 77%

Almonds 429 7 16 1.72 3.61 16 49 2.1 1.0 2.1 CA 100%

Apples 572 131 175 22.92 30.59 230 282 1.8 1.4 1.2 WA MI NY CA CT IN 77%

Asparagus 88 38 77 43.35 86.69 46 117 1.2 1.3 0.9 MI WA 97%

Avocados 82 55 70 66.93 85.18 1 2 0.0 1.5 0.0 Beans, Dry 1,802 12 51 0.65 2.86 6 28 0.5 1.0 0.5 CA ND CO 88% Site Acres Grown (000) Acres Treated (000) % of Crop Treated LB AI Applied (000) Average Application Rate States of Most Usage Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max lb ai/ acre/ y r #appl / yr lb ai/

A/ appl (% of total lb ai used on this site)

Beans, Lima, Fresh 6 1 2 12.49 29.88 1 2 1.1 1.2 0.9 GA 100%

Beans, Snap, Fresh 81 11 17 14.12 21.03 16 23 1.4 1.6 0.9 NC FL 84%

Beans, Snap, Proc. 228 24 36 10.39 15.83 28 43 1.2 1.6 0.7 IL St OR 83%

Beets 12 2 3 16.87 27.45 1 2 0.5 1.0 0.5 WI TX OR 94%

Blackberries 5 1 2 28.39 44.05 2 4 1.7 1.0 1.7 OR 100%

Blueberries 59 13 26 22.43 44.85 26 53 2.0 1.2 1.7 ME MI 83%

Broccoli 114 5 10 4.43 8.86 4 8 0.8 1.0 0.8 CA OR TX 88%

Brussels Sprouts 3 1 2 33.33 66.67 1 2 1.0 1.1 0.9 Cabbage, Chinese 9 5 7 57.47 80.46 1 2 0.2 1.1 0.2 CA 90%

Cabbage, Fresh 84 1 4 1.78 4.40 2 6 1.6 1.6 1.0 NC NY 84%

Canola 39 0 2 0.31 4.64 0 1 0.5 1.0 0.5 MT 100%

Cantaloupes 113 8 11 7.27 9.39 8 13 0.9 1.1 0.8 CA IL GA TX 83%

Carrots 107 4 6 3.67 5.75 9 23 2.3 2.5 0.9 WI MI MN 88%

Cauliflower 58 1 2 1.55 3.60 1 2 1.1 1.0 1.1 OR CA WA 83%

Celery 37 1 2 2.97 6.13 2 4 1.8 1.8 1.0 MI WI 89%

Cherries, Sweet 47 12 17 25.29 36.45 32 46 2.7 1.4 1.9 WA MI CA 84%

Cherries, Tart 49 6 11 11.79 23.59 13 27 2.3 1.3 1.9 MI NY 88% Site Acres Grown (000) Acres Treated (000) % of Crop Treated LB AI Applied (000) Average Application Rate States of Most Usage Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max lb ai/ acre/ y r #appl / yr lb ai/

A/ appl (% of total lb ai used on this site)

Citrus, Other 51 2 3 2.98 5.65 5 12 3.2 1.8 1.8 FL 86%

Collards 11 0 1 3.72 10.13 0 1 0.9 1.0 0.9 NJ 88%

Corn 72,284 82 164 0.11 0.23 110 228 1.3 1.3 1.0 MO NE MS IN GA IL 51%

Cotton 12,689 26 77 0.20 0.61 32 94 1.2 1.1 1.1 TN MS TX CA 83%

Cranberries 29 11 24 38.97 83.65 23 48 2.0 1.0 2.0 WI MA 95%

Cucumbers 146 20 46 14.03 31.83 23 51 1.1 1.0 1.1 NC OH SC NY VA DE 73%

Cucumbers, Proc. 117 5 11 4.69 9.37 7 15 1.3 2.2 0.6 NC MI 85%

Eggplant 119 11 25 8.87 20.59 22 54 2.0 2.1 1.0 FL NJ TX IL OR CA 64%

Flax 188 1 2 0.46 0.91 1 2 1.1 1.0 1.1 ND 100%

Grapefruit 194 8 11 4.05 5.59 18 20 2.3 1.6 1.4 FL TX 95%

Grapes 825 64 97 7.77 11.81 150 217 2.3 1.7 1.4 NY CA OR PA MI AR 77%

Hay, Other 33,427 91 267 0.27 0.80 87 273 1.0 1.2 0.8 TX SD FL NC CA LA 81%

Hazelnuts (Filberts) 27 1 3 3.90 12.18 3 8 2.5 1.0 2.5 Lemons 63 2 4 2.77 6.55 6 14 3.4 1.3 2.7 CA 91%

Lettuce, Head 212 7 17 3.08 8.10 8 22 1.3 1.2 1.1 CA 82%

Lots/ Farmsteads/ etc 24,815 58 152 0.23 0.61 60 174 1.0 2.5 0.4 MA AZ FL PA TX KY 62%

Melons, Honeydew 27 5 12 19.09 43.69 4 10 0.9 1.2 0.7 CA 100% Site Acres Grown (000) Acres Treated (000) % of Crop Treated LB AI Applied (000) Average Application Rate States of Most Usage Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max lb ai/ acre/ y r #appl / yr lb ai/

A/ appl (% of total lb ai used on this site)

Nectarines 29 4 7 12.11 24.22 15 30 4.2 1.1 3.8 Oats/ Rye 6,133 8 18 0.13 0.29 6 13 0.7 1.0 0.7 MN MS ND TX MT MI 77%

Okra 3 1 3 32.36 94.03 2 6 1.9 1.0 1.9 TX 84%

Olives 32 3 5 9.61 15.42 16 26 5.3 1.0 5.3 CA 100%

Onions, Dry 157 6 18 3.71 11.36 23 72 4.0 7.0 0.6 MI 100%

Oranges 867 28 42 3.27 4.89 130 194 4.6 1.3 3.4 CA FL 99%

Other Crops 2,515 35 43 1.39 1.70 63 156 1.8 1.3 1.4 CA MA TX NJ WA MI 75%

Pasture 86,960 27 69 0.03 0.08 25 77 0.9 1.0 0.9 NC TX SC NE LA 80%

Peaches 212 32 38 15.10 18.05 96 203 3.0 2.9 1.0 GA CA TX OK SC MI 68%

Peanuts 1,610 48 96 2.99 5.99 53 107 1.1 1.4 0.8 GA TX NC AL VA 84%

Pears 78 2 5 2.92 6.43 3 8 1.5 1.5 1.0 WA OR CA PA NY OH 73%

Peas, Dry 249 6 22 2.52 8.97 6 22 1.0 1.0 1.0 WA ID TX 93%

Peas, Green 386 6 28 1.59 7.13 9 40 1.5 1.0 1.5 MN OR 83%

Peas, Green, Proc. 329 2 17 0.62 5.23 3 25 1.5 1.0 1.5 OR 100%

Pecans 488 95 115 19.53 23.51 290 610 3.0 2.2 1.4 GA TX OK MS AR 84%

Peppers, Bell 55 6 11 10.15 20.30 9 22 1.5 1.7 0.9 FL CA MI 90%

Peppers, Sweet 77 10 23 12.95 29.95 14 31 1.3 1.0 1.3 CA FL KY LA IL 80% Site Acres Grown (000) Acres Treated (000) % of Crop Treated LB AI Applied (000) Average Application Rate States of Most Usage Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max lb ai/ acre/ y r #appl / yr lb ai/

A/ appl (% of total lb ai used on this site)

Pistachios 52 9 20 16.84 38.06 32 72 3.6 1.0 3.6 Plums 64 3 6 4.68 9.36 12 23 3.8 1.0 3.8 CA 81%

Potatoes 1,421 24 38 1.70 2.68 34 50 1.4 1.7 0.8 ND WA MI ID FL NY 59%

Pumpkins 36 11 20 31.21 56.11 37 66 3.2 1.6 2.0 IL PA IN OH 83%

Raspberries 11 0 1 3.57 9.84 1 3 2.8 1.0 2.8 OR MI 92%

Rice 2,921 33 40 1.15 1.37 41 58 1.2 1.1 1.1 TX CA 80%

Safflower 113 1 7 0.98 5.96 0 3 0.4 1.0 0.4 CA 100%

Sod 152 0 7 0.14 4.28 0 15 2.2 1.0 2.2 TX NH 100%

Sorghum 11,280 23 47 0.21 0.41 31 62 1.3 1.2 1.1 MO KS TX LA NE MS 75%

Soybeans 62,879 101 210 0.16 0.33 86 174 0.9 1.0 0.9 MN NE SD MS NC IL 60%

Squash 53 6 14 11.25 26.77 8 19 1.4 1.0 1.4 NJ FL MI CA NY TX 90%

Strawberries 51 8 12 16.02 23.62 24 55 2.9 2.1 1.4 CA FL NC PA 81%

Sugar Beets 1,415 23 54 1.60 3.80 34 126 1.5 1.1 1.3 CA TX WA MN OR 84%

Sugarcane 852 0 1 0.04 0.07 0 0 0.2 1.1 0.1 FL 100%

Sunflower 2,745 11 40 0.40 1.47 8 31 0.7 1.1 0.7 SD ND 92%

Sweet Corn, Fresh 233 9 17 3.84 7.12 28 52 3.1 2.5 1.3 CA MI IL 82%

Sweet Corn, Proc. 544 3 21 0.49 3.81 8 63 3.0 2.9 1.1 IL 100% Site Acres Grown (000) Acres Treated (000) % of Crop Treated LB AI Applied (000) Average Application Rate States of Most Usage Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max lb ai/ acre/ y r #appl / yr lb ai/

A/ appl (% of total lb ai used on this site)

Sweet Potatoes 85 16 35 18.47 40.90 25 55 1.6 1.0 1.6 LA MS NC 82%

Tobacco 695 10 20 1.50 2.85 18 44 1.7 1.5 1.1 NC KY SC TN IN 84%

Tomatoes, Fresh 136 7 15 5.40 10.80 14 35 1.9 2.6 0.7 CA FL TX 87%

Tomatoes, Proc. 329 48 88 14.47 26.86 72 135 1.5 1.3 1.2 CA 97%

Walnuts 205 1 4 0.54 1.82 2 8 2.1 1.1 1.9 CA 100%

Watermelons 258 33 38 12.71 14.79 16 33 0.5 1.0 0.5 FL IN MS TX GA 76%

Wheat, Spring 20,799 24 48 0.11 0.23 16 32 0.7 1.0 0.6 ND MN MT 88%

Wheat, Winter 45,854 50 106 0.11 0.23 44 78 0.9 1.0 0.8 KY NC TX WY OR MD 67%

Woodland 62,825 31 72 0.05 0.11 26 54 0.8 1.2 0.7 PA MI FL ND OH IA 79%

Total 1659.6 2464 2517.2 3926 COLUMN HEADINGS Wtd Avg = Weighted average the most recent years and more reliable data are weighted more heavily.

Est Max = Estimated maximum, which is estimated from available data.

Average application rates are calculated from the weighted averages.

NOTES ON TABLE DATA Usage data primarily covers 1987  1996. Calculations of the above numbers may not appear to agree because they are displayed as rounded to the nearest 1000 for acres treated or lb. a. i. (Therefore 0 = < 500)

to two decimal percentage points for % of crop treated.

Other/ Crop Groups Citrus, Other includes kumquats, limes, tangelos, and tangerines.

Other Crops include ornamentals, popcorn, rapeseed/ canola, and safflower.

SOURCES: EPA data, USDA, and National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. R. E. D. Use Profile Report A. Chemical Overview Chemical Name: Carbaryl Case No: 0080 Chemical Code: 056801 B. Use Profile Type of Pesticide: Acaricide/ Insecticide and Plant regulator Mode of Action: Acetylcholine esterase inhibitor Use Sites: Terrestrial Food Crop Cucurbits  Cumber, Melons, Chinese okra, pumpkin, and squash Flavoring and Spice Crops  Dill Fruiting Vegetables  Eggplant and Pepper Grain Crops  Prosso millet Leafy and Stem Vegetables  Beets, Broccoli, Brussels sprouts, Cabbage, Chinese cabbage, Cauliflower, Celerey, Swiss chard,

Collards, Dandelion, Endive (Escarole), Hanover Salad, Kale, Kohlrabi, Lettuce (Head, Crisphead types, Leaf types), Mustard,

Parsley, Rhubarb, and Spinach Miscellaneous Fruits  Avocado, Olive, Pricklypear Miscellaneous Vegetables  Asparagus Nut Crops  Almond, Chestnut, Filbert (Hazelnut), Pecan, Pistachio, and Walnut (English/ black)

Pome Fruits  Crabapple, pear, and quince Root Crop Vegetables  Beets, Carrot (including tops), Horseradish, Radish, Rutabaga, Salsify, and Sweet Potato Small Fruits  Blackberry, Blueberry, Boysenberry, Caneberries, Cranberry, Dewberry, Loganberry, Raspberry (Black, Red), and Strawberry Specialized Field Crops  Okra Stone Fruits  Apricot, Cherry, Nectarine, Peach, Plum, and Prune Terrestrial Food+ Feed Crop Citrus Fruits  Citrus fruits Crops Grown for Oil  Field corn, Flax, and Sunflower Fiber Crops  Flax Fruiting Vegetables  Tomato Grain Crops  Field corn, Rice, Sorghum and Wheat Groups of Agricultural Crops Which Cross Established Crop Groupings  Cotton, Peanuts, Peas, Sorghum, Soybeans, and Vegetables Leafy and Stem Vegetables  Mustard and Turnip Nut Crops  Almond, and Tree nuts Pome Fruits  Apple and Pome Fruits Root Crop Vegetables  Parsnip, White/ Irish potato, Salsify, and Turnip Seed and Pod Vegetables  Beans (Dried type), Succulent beans (Lima and Snap), Cowpea/ Blackeyed pea, Cowpea/ Sitao, Lentils,

Peanuts, Peas (Dried type), Field peas, Southern peas, Succulent peas, and Soybeans (edible)

Small Fruits  Grapes and Small fruits Specialized Field Crops  Pop corn, Sweet corn, and Sunflower Sugar Crops  Sugar beet Terrestrial Feed Crop Forage Grasses  Corn, Grass forage/ fodder/ hay, Millet (Proso), Pastures, Rangeland, Rice, Sorghum, and Wheat Forage Legumes and Other Nongrass Forage Crops  Alfalfa, Clover, Cotton, and Trefoil Grain Crops  Proso millet Groups of Agricultural Crops Which Cross Established Crop Groupings  Grasses grown for seed Terrestrial non food crop Agricultural Uncultivated Areas  Agricultural fallow/ idleland and Agricultural rights of way/ fencerows/ hedgerows Commercial/ Industrial/ Institutional Premises and Equipment Fiber Crops Forest Trees  Christmas tree plantations Groups of Agricultural Crops Which CrossEstablished Crop Groupings  Fruits (unspecified)

Miscellaneous Fruits  Longan and Mango Nonagricultural Uncultivated Areas  Outdoor buildings/ structures, rights of way/ fencerows/ hedgerows, uncultivated areas/ soils, and recreational areas Ornamental Lawns and Turf  Commercial/ Industrial lawns, Golf course turf, Ornamental sod farm (turf), and recreational area lawns Specialized Field Crops  Tobacco Wide Area/ General Outdoor Treatments  Fencerows/ Hedgerows, Urban areas, and Wide area/ General outdoor treatment (Public health use)

Terrestrial non food+ outdoor residential Nonagricultural Uncultivated Areas  Rights of way/ Fencerows/ Hedgerows Ornamental Herbaceous Plants Ornamental Lawns and Turf Ornamental Nonflowering Plants Ornamental Woody Shrubs and Vines Ornamental and/ or Shade Trees Wide Area/ General Outdoor Treatments  Fencerows/ Hedgerows Terrestrial+ Greenhouse non food crop Ornamental Herbaceous Plants Ornamental Woody Shrubs and Vines Ornamental and/ or Shade Trees Aquatic food crop Aquatic Sites  Commercial fishery water systems Grain Crops  Rice Small Fruits  Cranberry Aquatic non food industrial Aquatic Sites  Drainage systems Forestry Forest Trees  Forest plantings (Reforestation programs, tree farms, tree plantations, etc), forest trees (all or unspecified), maple (forest), and Shelterbelt plantings Outodoor residential Households/ Domestic Dwellings  Outdoor premises Ornamental Herbaceous Plants Ornamental Lawns and Turf  Residential lawns Pets  Pet living/ sleeping quarters Indoor food Poultry  Egg/ Meat Indoor non food Pets Target Pests for Single Active Ingredient:

Invertebrates (insects and related organisms);

Adelgid (Cooley spruce gall)

Ataenius (Black turfgrass Ants (Carpenter, Fire, Imported fire)

Aphids (Apple, Balsam twig, Black cherry, Blackmargined, Cooley spruce gall, Eastern spruce gall, Elm leaf, European raspberry,

Filbert, Gall, Mealy plum, Rose, Rosy apple, Wooly?, Wooly apple)

Appleworm (Lesser)

Armyworm (Fall, True, Western yellowstriped, Yellowstriped)

Bagworm Bees Beetle (Aparagus, Bean leaf, Beet leaf, Blister, Cereal leaf, Chafer, Colorado potato, Corn rootworm, Cucumber, Darkling, Darkling ground?, Elm bark, Elm leaf, Engraver, European alfalfa, Flea, Fuller rose, Green june, Ips engraver, Japanese, June, Litter,

May, Mexican bean, Mountain pine, Rose, Roundheaded pine, Sap, Spruce bark?, Spruce?, Striped blister, Sunflower, Tobacco flea, Tortoise, Western pine, Whitefringed, Willow leaf)

Billbugs (Bluegrass)

Borer (European corn, Lesser peachtree, Limabean pod, Locust, Olive ash, Peach twig, Southwestern corn, West Indian sugarcane root)

Budworm (Jack pine, Spruce, Tobacco, Western spruce)

Bug (Bed, Black Grass, Boxelder, Chinch, Harlequin, Lace, Lygus, Plant, Squash, Stink, Tarnished plant)

Cabbageworm (Imported) Cankerworm (Fall, Spring)

Casebearer (Pecan nut)

Caterpillar (Alfalfa, Eastern tent, Forest tent, Oleander, Painted lady, Puss, Range, Redhumped, Saltmarsh, Spiny elm, Spring elm,

Tent, Thistle butterfly, Velvetbean, Walnut, Woolybear)

Centipedes Chafer (European, Rose)

Chiggers (Redbugs)

Cicada (Apache, Periodical)

Clipper (Strawberry) Cloverworm (Green)

Cockroach (American, Australian, Brown, Smoky brown)

Colaspis (Grape) Crickets (Mole, Morman, Snowy tree)

Curculio (Cowpea, Plum)

Cutworm (Army, Citrus, Cotton, Western bean)

Earwigs (European) Earworm (Corn)

Firebrats Fireworm (Cranberry, Yellowheaded)

Fleahopper (Cotton)

Fleas Fly (Cherry fruit, European crane, Rangeland crane)

Forester (Eightspotted) Fruitworm (Cherry, Cranberry, Green, Raspberry, Sparganothis, Strawberry, Tomato)

Girdler (Cranberry, Twig)

Grasshoppers Grubs (White) Hornworms (Poinsettia, Sweet potato, Tobacco, Tomato)

Leafcutter (Maple)

Leaffolder (Grape)

Leafhopper (Aster, Avocado, Cotton, Potato, Prune, Redbanded, Three cornered alfalfa, White apple)

Leafminer (Alfalfa blotch, Azalea, Birch, Boxwood, Holly, Oak, Tentiform)

Leafroller (Avocado, Filbert, Fruittree, Grape, Oak, Omnivorous, Redbanded, Strawberry, Variegated)

Leaftier (Omnivorous) Leafworm (Cotton)

Lecanium (European fruit)

Lice Looper (Alfalfa, Pine, Striped grass, Western hemlock)

Maggot (Apple, Blueberry)

Maker (Hackberry nipplegall)

Mapleworm (Greenstriped) Mealworm (Lesser)

Mealybug (Apple, Cherry)

Melonworm Midges (Gall)

Millipedes Mites (Apple rust, Chicken, Citrus rust, Eriophyid, Fuschia gall, Fuschia?, Northern fowl, Pear rust, Pearleaf blister)

Moth (Browntail, Codling, Cyprus tip, Diamondback, Douglas fir tussock, European pine shoot, Eyespotted bud, Grape berry, Gypsy,

Holly bud, Lawn, Lucerne, Maple shoot, Nantucket pine tip, Oak, Oriental fruit, Pitch pine tip, Subtropical pine tip, Sunflower,

Tussock, Western tussock)

Mosquito Needleminers (Jeffrey pine, Spruce)

Notcher (Little leaf)

Oakworm (Orangestriped, Redhumped)

Orangedog (California) Orangeworm (Navel)

Pandemis (Apple)

Peanutworm (Rednecked)

Pearslug (California) Phylloxera (Pecan leaf?, Pecan?)

Pickleworm Pillbug/ Sowbugs Pinworm (Tomato) Prominent (Saddled)

Psylla (Pear) Roseslug Sawfly (European apple, Pear, Pine, Raspberry) Scale (Black, Brown soft, Calico, California red, Citricola, Citrus Snow, Forbes, Frosted, Lecanium, Olive, Oystershell, Red, San Jose,

Yellow) Scorpions Shrimp (Ghost, Mud, Tadpole)

Shuckworm (Hickory)

Silverfish Skeletonizer (Oak, Western Grapeleaf)

Skipper (Essex, Fiery)

Spanworm (Elm)

Spiders Spinx (Catalpa) Spittlebug (Meadow, Pecan, Pine)

Springtails Sucker (Apple) Suckfly Thornbug Thrips Ticks (Amblyomma spp., Bear, Blacklegged, Brown dog, Deer, Fowl, Ixodes spp., Lone star)

Tortrix (Orange) Treehoppers Wasps (Gall) Webworm (Fall, Lesser, Mimosa, Sod)

Weevil (Alfalfa, Bluegrass, Chestnut nut, Citrus root, Clover head, Cotton boll, Egyptian alfalfa, Hyperodes, Pea Leaf?, Pea?, Pecan,

Strawberry bud?, Strawberry?, Sugarcane rootstalk borer, Sunflower stem, Sweet potato, Yellow poplar)

Whiteflies Worm (Filbert)

Weeds Aster Blessed thistle Boxelder Plant regulator  abscission agen, flower inhibitor, fruit thinning, inhibit fruiting White ash Yellow poplar Formulation Types Registered (% AI):

Technical Grade Material Form not identified/ solid 99.0000%

Manufacturing product dust 80.0000%

Emulsifiable concentrate 97.5000%

End Use Product Bait/ solid 10.0400%

Emulsifiable concentrate 22.5000 to 48.0000%

Flowable concentrate 43.0000 to 43.4000%

Granular 5.0000 to 7.0000%

Liquid ready to use 39.7000%

Pelleted/ tableted 5.0000%

Wettable powder 50.0000 to 85.0000%

Methods and Rates of Application:

Types of Treatment: Animal bedding/ litter treatment; Animal treatment (spray); Bait application; Band treatment; Bark treatment; Basal spray treatment;

Broadcast; Chemigation; Dip treatment; Directed spray; Drench; Ground spray; High volume spray (dilute); Indoor general surface treatment; Low volume spray (concentrate); Mound drench; Mound treatment; Perimeter treatment; Premise treatment;

Soil drench treatment; Soil incorporated treatment by irrigation; Soil treatment; Soil/ media treatment; Spray; Surface treatment;

Trunk drench; Ultra low volume Equipment: Airblast; Aircraft; Band sprayer; Chest mounted equipment; Compressed air sprayer; Dip tank; Drencher; Electric fogger; Fogger;

Granule applicator; Ground; Hand held duster; Hand held sprayer; High pressure sprayer; High volume ground sprayer;

Hose end sprayer; Hydraulic sprayer; Knapsack sprayer; Low pressure; Low pressure ground sprayer; Low volume ground sprayer; Mechanical sprayer; Mist blower; Mist sprayer; Not on label; Pail; Power sprayer; Pressure sprayer; Sprayer;

Spreader; Sprinklercan; Sprinkler irrigation; Tank Timing: Bloom; Boot; Containerized; Cool weather (65  80 F); Delayed dormant; Dormant; Foliar; Fruit thinning; Heading; Nonbearing;

Nurserystock; Petal fall; Pink; Plant bed; Popcorn; Post bloom; Postharvest; Prebloom; Preharvest; Preplant; Seed bed; Silk;

Tassel; Transplant; When needed Use Practice Limitations: (that apply to all uses on all products) Appendix B: Carbaryl Occupational Handler Exposure Data Appendix B/ Table 1: Field Recovery Results For MRID 44658401 (Commercial Pet Groomers During Application of Adams Carbaryl Shampoo Matrix Level (concentration) Recovery Range (%) Recovery Mean (%) Recovery S. D.

(%) Coefficient of Variation (%)

Facial swabs Low (0. 10 µg/ ml) 97  110 106 5.2 4. 9 Medium (0. 50 µg/ ml) 96  99 97 1.5 1. 5 High (1. 0 µg/ ml) 93  98 95 1.7 1. 8 Hand Washes Low (0. 10 µg/ ml) 100  113 106 5.6 5. 3 Medium (0. 50 µg/ ml) 92  100 97 3.1 3. 2 High (1. 0 µg/ ml) 91  104 98 5 5. 1 Whole body dosimeters Low (1. 0 µg/ ml) 85  100 91 5.8 6. 4 Medium (5. 0 µg/ ml) 82  95 87 6.1 7 High (10 µg/ ml) 81  89 83 5 6 Glass fiber filter/ support pad Low (1. 0 µg/ ml) 83  100 92 7.4 8 Medium (5. 0 µg/ ml) 68  89 80 8.4 11 High (10 µg/ ml) 85  95 91 3.8 4. 2 Appendix B/ Table 2: Dermal Exposures from Whole Body Dosimeter Parts (Adjusted for Field Recovery Results) a For MRID 44658401 (Commercial Pet Groomers During Application of Adams Carbaryl Shampoo)

Replicate Lower Arm (µg) Upper Arm (µg) Lower Leg (µg) Front Torso (µg) Rear Torso (µg) Total (mg)

1 7543 185 0.57 1941 1 9. 7 2 6341 157 4 389 3 6. 9 3 1382 232 0.57 43 0.57 1.4 4 2986 3.9 0. 57 65 0. 57 3. 1 5 5441 61 31 6.6 5. 9 5.5 6 1680 589 3 420 0.57 2.7 7 2457 99 1.03 38 0.57 2.6 8 2497 277 8 445 8.2 3. 2 9 1224 7.01 0.57 1.6 0. 57 1. 2 10 14947 30 1330 10 1.8 16.3 11 839 0.34 0.57 0.92 0.57 0.84 12 1730 2518 35 10 1281.6 5. 6 13 4611 12 5.4 1. 4 0.57 4.6 14 4757 29 3.4 166 2.2 5 15 1180 162 15 30 10 1.4 16 763 0.23 0.57 3.9 0. 57 0. 77 Average 3774 260 90 223 82 4.4 Geometric Mean 2647 35 3.7 30 2 3.1 Median 2477 46 3.2 34 0. 8 3.1 a Field recovery for 100% cotton union suits averaged 87%. The values in this table represent the values found in study divided by 0.87.

Example: Replicate 1 Lower arm; 6562µg (actual) ÷ 0.87 = 7543µg.

b Total (mg) =( Lower Arm + Upper Arm + Lower Leg + Front Torso + Back Torso) * 1mg/ 1000µg. Appendix B/ Table 3: Unit Exposures For MRID 44658401 (Commercial Pet Groomers During Application of Adams Carbaryl Shampoo )

Replicate No. ai used (mg) Whole Body Dosimeter (mg) Hand Rinses (mg) Head Exposure (mg) Total Dermal Exposure (mg) Inhalation Exposure (µg) mg ai/ lb ai handled mg ai/ hr application mg ai/ lb dog dermal inhalation dermal inhalation dermal inhalation 1 2290 9.76 0.294 0.00897 10.1 1. 96 1994 0.389 3.493 0.00068 0.207 4.04 x 10 5 2 684 6.918 0.175 0.00533 7.1 0. 05 4714 0.006 2.752 0 0. 623 7.63 x 10 7 3 916 1.462 0.134 0.0007 1.6 0. 86 793 0.426 0.521 0.00028 0.0382 2.05 x 10 5 4 2004 3.056 0.248 0.00631 3.31 0.57 750 0.129 1.335 0.00023 0.184 3.17 x 10 5 5 1640 6.367 0.124 0.00338 6.49 0.65 1795 0.18 2.107 0.00021 0.18 1.81 x 10 5 6 1204 2.711 0.164 0.00325 2.88 0.54 1086 0.204 0.906 0.00017 0.0847 1.59 x 10 5 7 659 2.603 0.082 0.0007 2.69 0.59 1852 0.406 0.918 0.0002 0.113 2.47 x 10 5 8 373 3.28 0.105 0.00208 3.39 0.41 4123 0.499 1.246 0.00015 0.105 1.27 x 10 5 9 600 1.233 0.062 0.0003 1.3 0. 05 984 0.007 0.323 0 0. 0556 3.72 x 10 7 10 1747 16.544 0.466 0.012 17 1.4 4423 0.364 4.387 0.00036 0.379 3.12 x 10 5 11 945 0.841 0.292 0.00163 1.14 0.22 548 0.106 0.36 0.0001 0.0268 5.16 x 10 6 12 3715 15.329 0.145 0.00806 15.5 0. 97 1889 0.118 3.822 0.00024 0.325 2.04 x 10 5 13 1132 4.762 0.119 0.01177 4.89 1.18 1962 0.473 0.994 0.00024 0.173 4.17 x 10 5 14 1148 4.961 0.141 0.00429 5.11 0.05 2020 0.003 1.481 0 0. 312 5.31 x 10 7 15 706 1.459 0.239 0.00254 1.7 0. 76 1093 0.489 0.561 0.00025 0.096 4.29 x 10 5 16 1929 0.768 0.107 0.00111 0.88 0.48 207 0.113 0.293 0.00016 0.0362 1.98 x 10 5 Average 1356 5.1 0. 18 4. 5 5.3 0. 67 1900 0.24 1.6 0. 0002 0.18 2.0 x 10 5 Geometric Mean 1148 3.4 0. 16 2. 9 3.6 0. 43 1800 0.12 1.1 0. 00096 0.13 1.1 x 10 5 Median 1140 3.2 0. 14 3. 3 3.4 0. 58 1800 0.19 1.1 0. 00021 0.14 2.0 x 10 5 Appendix C: Carbaryl Occupational Handler Risk Assessment Appendix C/ Table 1: Sources of Exposure Data Used In The Occupational Carbaryl Handler Exposure And Risk Calculations Exposure Scenario (Number) Data Source Standard Assumptions (8 hr work day) Comments Mixer/ Loader Descriptors Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowable Formulations (1a through 1f) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 350 and 1200 acres for aerial applications (7500 for wide area uses), 40 acres for airblast, 80 and 200 acres for groundboom in agriculture and 40 acres on turf, 5 acres for handguns on turf, and 1000 gallons for handgun applications Baseline: Hand, inhalation, and dermal data = acceptable grades. Hands = 7 replicates; Dermal = 16 to 26 replicates; and Inhalation = 23 replicates. Low confidence in hand/ dermal data because of number of hand replicates. Inhalation data are high confidence. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposure value.

PPE: As appropriate, the same dermal and inhalation data were used as for the baseline coupled with a 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device). Hands = acceptable grades. Hands = 21 replicates. High confidence in all dermal data.

Engineering Controls: A protection factor of 98% was used to calculate exposures using the baseline exposure data. Water soluble packet data (Scenario 4) could also be used to address this scenario. A protection factor has been used but the WSP rate/ acre inputs are the same as for DF formulations ( refer to Scenario 4).

Loading Granular Formulations (2a/ 2b) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 350 and 1200 acres for aerial applications, 80 acres for agriculture and 40 acres on turf Baseline: Hands = all grades; dermal = ABC grade; inhalation = acceptable grade. Hands = 10 replicates; Dermal = 33 to 78 replicates; and inhalation = 58 replicates. Low confidence in hand/ dermal data because of number of hand replicates and quality. Inhalation data are high confidence. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposure value.

PPE: Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g.,

organic vapor removing half face device). Hands = acceptable grades. Hands = 45 replicates. High confidence in hand data. Dermal w/ coveralls = ABC grade. Dermal w/ coveralls = 12 to 59 replicates. Low confidence in dermal data because of low number of replicates and grades.

Engineering Controls: A 98 percent protection factor was applied to the baseline data to account for the use of an engineering control (e. g.,

closed loading system).

Mixing/ Loading Liquid Formulations (3a through 3f) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 350 and 1200 acres for aerial applications (7500 for wide area uses), 40 acres for airblast, 80 and 200 acres for groundboom in agriculture and 40 acres on turf, 5 acres for handguns on turf, and 1000 gallons for handgun applications Baseline: Hands, dermal, and inhalation = acceptable grades. Hands = 53 replicates; Dermal = 72 to 122 replicates; and Inhalation = 85 replicates. High confidence in hand, dermal, and inhalation data. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposures.

PPE: The same dermal data are used as for baseline coupled with a 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing. Hands =

acceptable grades. Hands = 59 replicates. High confidence in hand data. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: Hands, dermal, and inhalation = acceptable grades. Hands = 31 replicates; Dermal = 16 to 22 replicates; and Inhalation =

27 replicates. High confidence in hand, dermal, and inhalation data. Gloves were used coupled with engineering controls since empirical data without gloves were not available and back calculation of gloves to a no glove scenario is believed to give erroneously high estimates.

Gloves are also required by WPS based on acute toxicity concerns. Appendix C/ Table 1: Sources of Exposure Data Used In The Occupational Carbaryl Handler Exposure And Risk Calculations Exposure Scenario (Number) Data Source Standard Assumptions (8 hr work day) Comments Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powder Formulations (4a through 4f) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 350 and 1200 acres for aerial applications (7500 for wide area uses), 40 acres for airblast, 80 and 200 acres for groundboom in agriculture and 40 acres on turf, 5 acres for handguns on turf, and 1000 gallons for handgun applications Baseline: Hands, dermal, and inhalation = ABC grades. Hands = 7 replicates; Dermal = 22 to 45 replicates, and Inhalation = 44 replicates. Low confidence in the dermal/ hands data due to the low number of hand replicates. Medium confidence in inhalation data. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposure value.

PPE: The same dermal data are used as for baseline coupled with a 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing. Hands =

ABC grades. Hands = 24 replicates. Medium confidence in hand data. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: Dermal = AB grade. Hand and inhalation = all grade. Hands = 9 replicates; dermal = 6 to 15 replicates; and inhalation =

15 replicates. Low confidence in the hand, dermal, and inhalation data. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposure value.

Engineering controls are water soluble packets. Gloves were used coupled with engineering controls since empirical data were available and risk estimates for some scenarios need gloves to attain risk targets. Gloves are also required by WPS based on acute toxicity concerns Applicator Descriptors Applying Sprays with a Fixed wing Aircraft (5a) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 350 acres and 1,200 acres for agriculture and 7500 acres for wide area uses Engineering Controls: Hands = acceptable grade, dermal and inhalation = ABC grade. Hands= 34 replicates, dermal = 24 to 48 replicates, and inhalation = 23 replicates. Medium confidence in dermal and inhalation data. High confidence in hand data. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposure value.

Engineering controls are the only plausible exposure scenario for this application method as open cab aircraft are not available and not considered a viable application tool. Protective gloves not used.

Applying Sprays with a Fixed wing Aircraft (5b) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 350 acres and 1,200 acres for agriculture Engineering Controls: Hands and inhalation = all grade, dermal = C grade. Hands= 4 replicates, dermal = 0 to 13 replicates, and inhalation =

13 replicates. Low confidence in all data. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposure value.

Engineering controls are the only plausible exposure scenario for this application method as open cab aircraft are not available and not considered a viable application tool. Protective gloves not used.

Applying Sprays with an Airblast Sprayer (6) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 40 acres Baseline: Dermal, hand, and inhalation = acceptable grades. Hands = 22 replicates, dermal = 32 to 49 replicates, and inhalation = 47 replicates.

High confidence in all data. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposure value.

PPE: The same dermal data are used as for baseline coupled with a 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing. Hands =

acceptable grades. Hands = 18 replicates. High confidence in hand data. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: Hands and dermal = acceptable grade, and inhalation = ABC grade. Hands= 20 replicates; dermal = 20 to 30 replicates;

and inhalation = 9 replicates. High confidence in hand and dermal data. Low confidence for inhalation data. Gloves were used coupled with engineering controls since empirical data without gloves were not available and back calculation of gloves to a no glove scenario is believed to give erroneously high (130 : g/ lb ai) estimates for a closed cab scenarios. Appendix C/ Table 1: Sources of Exposure Data Used In The Occupational Carbaryl Handler Exposure And Risk Calculations Exposure Scenario (Number) Data Source Standard Assumptions (8 hr work day) Comments Applying Sprays with a Groundboom Sprayer (7) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 80 and 200 acres for groundboom in agriculture and 40 acres on turf Baseline: Hand, dermal, and inhalation = acceptable grades. Hands =29 replicates, dermal = 23 to 42 replicates, and inhalation = 22 replicates.

High confidence in hand, dermal, and inhalation data. No protection factors were needed to define the unit exposure values.

PPE: The same dermal data are used as for baseline coupled with a 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing. Hands =

ABC grades. Hands = 21 replicates. Medium confidence in hand data. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: Hand and dermal = ABC grade. Inhalation = acceptable grades. Hands = 16 replicates; dermal = 20 to 31 replicates; and inhalation = 16 replicates. Medium confidence in the hand and dermal data. High confidence in inhalation data. No protection factor needed to define the unit exposure value. Protective gloves not used.

Applying Granulars with a Tractor Drawn Spreader (8) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 80 and 200 acres for groundboom in agriculture and 40 acres on turf Baseline: Hand, dermal, and inhalation = acceptable grades. Hands =5 replicates, dermal = 1 to 5 replicates, and inhalation = 5 replicates. Low confidence in hand, dermal, and inhalation data. No protection factors were required to define the unit exposure values.

PPE: As appropriate, the same dermal, hand, and inhalation data are used as for the baseline coupled with a 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing, a 90% protection factor to account for the use of chemical resistant gloves. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: Hand, inhalation, and dermal = acceptable grades. Hands = 17 replicates; dermal = 27 to 30 replicates; and inhalation =

37 replicates. High confidence in all data. No protection factor needed to define the unit exposure value. Protective gloves not used.

Applying with Aerosol Cans (9) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 2 cans Baseline: Hand, dermal, and inhalation = acceptable grades. Hands = 15 replicates; dermal = 15 replicates; and inhalation = 15 replicates. High confidence in all data. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposure values.

PPE: The same dermal data are used as for baseline coupled with a 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing. Hands =

acceptable grades. Hands = 15 replicates. High confidence in hand data. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: Not considered feasible for this exposure scenario. Appendix C/ Table 1: Sources of Exposure Data Used In The Occupational Carbaryl Handler Exposure And Risk Calculations Exposure Scenario (Number) Data Source Standard Assumptions (8 hr work day) Comments Applying with Trigger Pump Sprayer (10) MRID 410547 01 1 bottle Single Layer Clothing & Glove Scenario Monitored In Study: Hand, dermal, and inhalation = acceptable grades. Hands = 15 replicates;

dermal = 15 replicates; and inhalation = 15 replicates. High confidence in all data. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposure values.

Engineering Controls: Not considered feasible for this exposure scenario.

There are no data compensation issues associated with this study as there is a signed PHED data waiver.

Applying with a Right of Way Sprayer (11) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 1,000 gallons Baseline: Hand and inhalation = acceptable grades. Dermal = ABC grades. Hands = 16 replicates; dermal = 4 to 20 replicates; and inhalation =

16 replicates. Low confidence in hand and dermal data due to low number of replicates. High confidence in inhalation data. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposure values.

PPE: The same dermal data are used as for baseline coupled with a 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing. Hands =

acceptable grades. Hands = 4 replicates. Low confidence in hand data. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: Not considered feasible for this exposure scenario.

Applying with a High Pressure Handwand (12) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 1,000 gallons Baseline: Hand, dermal, and inhalation = all grades. Hands = 2 replicates; dermal = 9 to 11 replicates; and inhalation = 11 replicates. Low confidence in hand, dermal, and inhalation data. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposure values.

PPE: The same dermal data are used as for baseline coupled with a 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing. Hands =

all grades. Hands = 9 replicates. Low confidence in hand data. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: Not considered feasible for this exposure scenario.

Dog Grooming With Shampoo (13) MRID 446584 01 ½ of 6 oz bottle Clothing (short sleeved tee shirt, smock & long pants) & No Gloves Scenario Monitored In Study: Hand, dermal, and inhalation =

acceptable grades. Hands = 16 replicates; dermal = 16 replicates; and inhalation = 16 replicates. High confidence in all data. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposure values.

Engineering Controls: Not considered feasible for this exposure scenario.

There are no data compensation issues associated with this study as it was sponsored by Aventis using Carbaryl. Appendix C/ Table 1: Sources of Exposure Data Used In The Occupational Carbaryl Handler Exposure And Risk Calculations Exposure Scenario (Number) Data Source Standard Assumptions (8 hr work day) Comments Dusting an Animal (14) SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessments (7/ 97) ½ of 4 lb bottle per SOPs The SOPs For Residential Exposure Assessment served as the basis for this assessment (i. e., the assumptions that were used to predict exposures from pet use products in which a percentage of the application rate is the predictor of potential dermal dose). The scenario is based on the use of a baseline clothing scenario. Calculations in which additional PPE are applied are not appropriate given the basis for the assessment.

Additionally, the use of engineering controls are not considered feasible for this exposure scenario.

Dispersing Granulars & Baits By Hand (15) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 1 acre Baseline: Values not included because barehanded data were not available and hand exposures are key to this scenario.

PPE: Dermal, hand, and inhalation = ABC grades. Hands = 15 replicates, dermal = 16 replicates, and inhalation = 16 replicates. Medium confidence in all data. The same dermal data are used as for baseline coupled with a 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g.,

organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: Not considered feasible for this exposure scenario.

Dispersing Granulars & Baits With a Spoon (16) MRID 452507 01 1 acre Baseline: Values not included because barehanded data were not available and hand exposures are key to this scenario.

PPE: Dermal, hand, and inhalation = acceptable grades. Hands = 10 replicates, dermal = 10 replicates, and inhalation = 10 replicates. Low confidence in all data because dernal dosimeters were unprotected and the number of replicates. Protective gloves were worn. A 50% protection factor to account for a layer of clothing was used. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: Not considered feasible for this exposure scenario.

There are no data compensation issues associated with this study as it was sponsored by Aventis. Appendix C/ Table 1: Sources of Exposure Data Used In The Occupational Carbaryl Handler Exposure And Risk Calculations Exposure Scenario (Number) Data Source Standard Assumptions (8 hr work day) Comments Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Descriptors Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Sprays w/ Low Pressure, High Volume Turfgun (17) MRID 449722 01 5 acres Baseline: Values back calculated using 90% protection factor for gloves. Non hand dermal data for single layer monitored (see PPE).

PPE: See EPA review for data quality (Bangs, 2001), data are considered high quality. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device). A 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing. Study monitored single layer clothing with gloves.

Engineering Controls: Not considered feasible for this exposure scenario.

There are no data compensation issues associated with this study as it was sponsored by ORETF (Aventis is a member). Turfgun, no glove data were not back calculated using a 90 percent protection factor as it is deemed unreliable. WP formulation in WSP packaging used for turfgun assessment as the unit exposures for this scenario were slightly higher than for the other scenarios and deemed representative of current products/ packaging.

Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Wettable Powders with a Low Pressure Sprayer (18a) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 40 gallons for ornamentals and 20,000ft2 for poultry houses Baseline: The only empirical data that are available are based on the use of chemical resistant gloves. It is not appropriate to back calculate a non glove hand exposure level for this scenario as it is considered an overestimate of exposure because the hands are a key contributor to exposure.

PPE: Dermal and inhalation= ABC grades; and hands = acceptable grades. Dermal = 16 replicates; hands = 15 replicates; and inhalation = 16 replicates. Medium confidence in inhalation, dermal, and hand data. A 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing.

Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: Not considered feasible for this exposure scenario.

Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquids with a Low Pressure Sprayer (18b) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 40 gallons for ornamentals and 20,000ft2 for poultry houses Baseline: Hands = all grades; dermal and inhalation = ABC grades. Dermal = 9 to 80 replicates; hands = 70 replicates; and inhalation = 80 replicates. Medium confidence in inhalation data. Low confidence in dermal and hand data. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposure values.

PPE: The same dermal data are used as for baseline coupled with a 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing. Hand =

10 replicates. Hands= ABC grades Low confidence in hand data. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: Not considered feasible for this exposure scenario. Appendix C/ Table 1: Sources of Exposure Data Used In The Occupational Carbaryl Handler Exposure And Risk Calculations Exposure Scenario (Number) Data Source Standard Assumptions (8 hr work day) Comments Mixing/ Loading/ Applying with a Backpack Sprayer (19) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 40 gallons for ornamentals and 20,000ft2 for poultry houses Baseline: Dermal and inhalation = acceptable grades. Dermal = 9 to 11 replicates and inhalation = 11 replicates. Low confidence in dermal and inhalation data. The only empirical data that are available are based on the use of chemical resistant gloves. It is generally not appropriate to back calculate a non glove hand exposure levels, an extrapolation has been completed for this scenario, however, because the empirical data indicate that hands are a minor contributor to overall exposure levels.

PPE: Hands = C grades. Hands = 11 replicates. Low confidence in hand data. The same dermal data are used as for baseline coupled with a 50%

protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: Not considered feasible for this exposure scenario.

Loading/ Applying Granulars with a Belly Grinder (20) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 1 acre Baseline: Inhalation = acceptable grades; dermal and hands = ABC grades. Dermal = 29 to 45 replicates; hands = 23 replicates; and inhalation =

40 replicates. High confidence in inhalation data. Medium confidence in dermal and hand data. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposure values.

PPE: The same dermal data are used as for baseline coupled with a 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing. Hands =

all grades. Hands = 20 replicates. Low confidence in hand data. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: Not considered feasible for this exposure scenario.

Loading/ Applying granulars with a push spreader (21) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 5 acres Baseline: Values back calculated using 90% protection factor for gloves. Non hand dermal data for single layer monitored (see PPE).

PPE: See EPA review for data quality (Bangs, 2001), data are considered high quality. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device). A 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing. Study monitored single layer clothing with gloves.

Engineering Controls: Not considered feasible for this exposure scenario.

There are no data compensation issues associated with this study as it was sponsored by ORETF (Aventis is a member).

Mixing/ Loading/ Applying with a Handheld Fogger (22) No Data No Data No Data Appendix C/ Table 1: Sources of Exposure Data Used In The Occupational Carbaryl Handler Exposure And Risk Calculations Exposure Scenario (Number) Data Source Standard Assumptions (8 hr work day) Comments Mixing/ Loading/ Applying with a Handheld Fogger (23) No Data No Data No Data Mixing/ Loading/ Applying with a Granular Backpack Applicator (24) MRID 451672 01 1 acre Clothing (coverall and apron worn on back) & Gloves Scenario Monitored In Study: High confidence in all data. No protection factor was needed to define the unit exposure values.

Engineering Controls: Not considered feasible for this exposure scenario.

There are no data compensation issues associated with this study as it was sponsored by Aventis using Carbaryl.

Mixing/ Loading/ Applying with a Tree Injector (25) No Data No Data No Data Drench/ Dipping Forestry &

Ornamentals (26) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 100 gallons of solution prepared Addresses only solution preparation aspects of process. This has been addressed using open mixing liquid data presented above in Scenario 3.

Engineering controls are not appropriate for this scenario.

Mixing/ Loading/ Applying with a Sprinkler Can (27) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 10 gallons Scenario assessed using hose end sprayer data which are believed to result in similar exposures. However, the extrapolation should be considered rangefinder in nature.

Baseline: Inhalation = ABC grades; dermal = C grade; and hands = E grade. Dermal = 8 replicates; hands = 8 replicates; and inhalation = 8 replicates. Low confidence in all data. Study monitored total deposition. A 50% protection factor to account for single layer of clothing was used to define the unit exposure values.

PPE: The same dermal data are used as for baseline coupled with a 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing. A 90 %

protection factor was used to account for the use of protective gloves. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: Not considered feasible for this exposure scenario. Appendix C/ Table 1: Sources of Exposure Data Used In The Occupational Carbaryl Handler Exposure And Risk Calculations Exposure Scenario (Number) Data Source Standard Assumptions (8 hr work day) Comments Flagger Descriptors Flagging Aerial Spray Applications (28a) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 350 acres and 1,200 acres Baseline: Hands, dermal, and inhalation = acceptable grades. Dermal = 18 to 28 replicates; hands = 30 replicates; and inhalation = 28 replicates.

High confidence in dermal, hand, and inhalation data. No protection factor was required to calculate unit exposures.

PPE: The same dermal data are used as for baseline coupled with a 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing. Hand =

acceptable grades. Hands= 6 replicates. Low confidence in hand data. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: The same data are used as for baseline coupled with a 98% protection factor to account for the use of an engineering control (e. g., sitting in a vehicle).

Flagging Aerial Spray Applications (28b) PHED V1. 1 (May 1997 Surrogate Table) 350 acres and 1,200 acres Baseline: Hands and inhalation = All grades. Dermal = ABC grades. Dermal = 16 to 20 replicates; hands = 4 replicates; and inhalation = 4 replicates. Low confidence in all data. Study monitored total deposition. A 50% protection factor to account for single layer of clothing was used to define the unit exposure values.

PPE: The same dermal data are used as for baseline coupled with a 50% protection factor to account for an additional layer of clothing and a 90%

protection factor to account for the use of gloves. Respirator protection factors of either 5 or 10 applied to account for the use of either dust/ mist masks or cannister type devices (e. g., organic vapor removing half face device).

Engineering Controls: The same data are used as for baseline coupled with a 98% protection factor to account for the use of an engineering control (e. g., sitting in a vehicle).

C All Standard Assumptions are based on an 8 hour work day as estimated by the Agency.

C All handler exposure assessments in this document are based on the "Best Available" data as defined by the PHED SOP for meeting Subdivision U Guidelines (i. e., completing exposure assessments). Best available grades are assigned to data as follows: matrices with A and B grade data (i. e., Acceptable Grade Data) and a minimum of 15 replicates; if not available, then grades A, B and C data and a minimum of 15 replicates; if not available,

then all data regardless of the quality (i. e., All Grade Data) and number of replicates. High quality data with a protection factor take precedence over low quality data with no protection factor. Generic data confidence categories are assigned as follows:

High = grades A and B and 15 or more replicates per body part Medium = grades A, B, and C and 15 or more replicates per body part Low = grades A, B, C, D and E or any combination of grades with less than 15 replicates.

C PHED grading criteria do not reflect overall quality of the reliability of the assessment. Sources of the exposure factors should also be considered in the risk management decision. Appendix D: Carbaryl Residue Dissipation (DFR & TTR)

Data Appendix E: Carbaryl Occupational Postapplication Risk Assessment Appendix F: Carbaryl Residential Handler Exposure Data Appendix F/ Table 1: Exposure Data From MRID 444399 01 (Carbaryl Applicator Exposure Study During Application of Sevin ® 5 Dust to Dogs By the Non Professional)

Replicate lb ai used Inner (µg) Outer (µg) Hand (µg) Face/ Neck (µg) Total Dermal Exposure a (mg) Inhalation Exposure (µg)

Upper Arm Front Torso Back Torso Upper Leg Lower Arm Lower Leg 1 0. 0034 40.7 217 122 70.7 8810 13100 5770 98.1 28 383 2 0. 016 173 445 230 130 28300 37000 12500 215 79 232 3 0. 0079 21.8 77.7 60.9 56.4 4240 1630 3890 43.5 10 252 4 0. 0042 23.3 43.9 50.9 40.8 4110 13800 5380 26.8 23 244 5 0. 0083 37.6 216 108 64.3 26200 24200 8140 180 59 149 6 0. 0025 16.4 25 38.3 9. 06 2470 541 4940 23.3 8. 1 37.4 7 0. 003 11.7 97.3 99.3 31.4 3150 2570 4490 61.6 11 66.3 8 0. 0068 41.9 111 89.5 21.8 6450 380 10500 43.4 18 170 9 0. 0068 27.2 79.4 215 31.7 3400 345 11600 65.4 16 158 10 0.012 145 648 224 278 67900 11500 11900 263 93 525 11 0.0047 20 79.4 78.1 53.2 12800 581 7300 280 21 244 12 0.022 97.4 454 435 232 44100 8310 24600 73.5 78 486 13 0.0093 50.5 85.6 64.5 42.3 7680 577 4350 31 13 173 14 0.0014 5.03 17.2 16.7 4. 92 1710 133 3870 11.9 5. 8 82.5 15 0.0085 14.8 159 129 18.6 6320 1350 5980 74 14 216 16 0.014 61.7 138 138 40.3 22000 1960 5140 41 30 509 17 0.0069 15.5 110 53 20 15600 1060 4570 33.1 21 209 18 0.0064 16.3 102 91.8 61.7 13500 651 6830 104 21 67.4 19 0.006 5.12 33.2 39.7 13.8 3830 271 9080 20.3 13 37.1 20 0.004 47.3 66.1 121 127 2720 1990 7650 41.8 13 170 Appendix F/ Table 2: Exposure Data For Hose End Sprayers From MRID 444598 01 (Mixer Loader Applicator Exposure to RP 2 Liquid (21%). Carbaryl Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Exposure Study during Application of RP 2 Liquid (21%) Sevin ® Ready to Use Insect Spray or Sevin ® 10 Dust to Home Garden Vegetables)

Rep Carbaryl Applied (lb) Inner Dosimeter (µg) Outer Dosimeter

Lower Arm (µg) Outer Dosimeter

Lower leg (µg) Hand (µg) Face/ Neck Wipe (µg) Total Dermal Exposure a (µg) Inhalation Exposrue (µg)

1 0. 11 19.1 71.3 571 2770 0.5 3. 43 0. 24 2 0. 076 3.0 7. 26 2548 1030 0.5 3. 59 0. 07 3 0. 045 8.8 34.1 624 291 0.5 0. 96 0. 07 4 0. 025 10.3 10.9 337 1560 0.5 1. 92 0. 07 5 0. 05 3. 0 1.97 1776 1100 17 2.90 0.07 6 0. 083 15.3 32.9 4080 2170 0.5 6. 30 0. 25 7 0. 047 3.0 3. 01 710 462 0.5 1. 18 0. 15 8 0. 052 9.8 62.5 937 618 0.5 1. 63 0. 23 9 0. 041 4.4 26 320 437 0.5 0. 79 0. 07 10 0.053 6.6 32.2 194 691 0.5 0. 92 0. 07 11 0.07 3.0 0. 5 2008 331 0.5 2. 34 0. 07 12 0.051 183.3 61.9 673 3380 0.5 4. 30 0. 21 13 0.031 3.0 7 28.6 693 0.5 0. 73 0. 07 14 0.075 3.0 44 465 3700 0.5 4. 21 0. 07 15 0.026 6.4 3. 4 130 62.6 0. 5 0.20 0.07 16 0.036 30.7 48.8 2587 4440 58 7.16 0.16 17 0.051 85.1 3037 1969 3240 0.5 8. 33 0. 07 18 0.095 3.0 23.3 422 612 0.5 1. 06 0. 07 19 0.052 10.1 158 537 385 0.5 1. 09 0. 23 20 0.025 3.0 0. 5 22.8 149 0.5 0. 18 0. 07 Appendix F/ Table 3: Exposure Data For Low Pressure Handwand Sprayers From MRID 444598 01 (Mixer Loader Applicator Exposure to RP 2 Liquid (21%). Carbaryl Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Exposure Study during Application of RP 2 Liquid (21%) Sevin ® Ready to Use Insect Spray or Sevin ® 10 Dust to Home Garden Vegetables)

Rep Carbaryl Applied (lb) Inner Dosimeter (µg) Outer Dosimeter

Lower Arm (µg) Outer Dosimeter Lowel leg (µg) Hand (µg) Face/ Neck Wipe (µg) Total Dermal Exposure a (mg)

1 0. 02 3. 0 20.6 921.0 215.0 0. 5 1.16 2 0. 02 3. 0 15.8 476.0 381.0 0. 5 0.88 3 0. 02 3. 0 14.3 76.7 208.0 0. 5 0.30 4 0. 02 30.0 214.0 485.0 2100.0 9. 8 2.84 5 0. 01 3. 0 2.5 36.8 168.0 0. 5 0.21 6 0. 02 7. 9 84.4 3449.0 165.0 0. 5 3.71 7 0. 02 5. 2 7.7 85.3 235.0 0. 5 0.33 8 0. 02 18.6 41.4 876.0 205.0 0. 5 1.14 9 0. 02 3. 0 9.7 99.4 203.0 0. 5 0.32 10 0.02 10.0 5. 9 259.0 378.0 0. 5 0.65 11 0.02 3.0 2. 1 157.0 50.6 0. 5 0.21 12 0.01 3.0 69.4 64.6 451.0 0. 5 0.59 13 0.02 3.0 9. 9 247.0 1550.0 0. 5 1.81 14 0.02 3.0 5. 4 242.0 219.0 0. 5 0.47 15 0.02 7.9 3. 5 2278.0 100.0 0. 5 2.39 16 0.02 5.6 28.3 245.0 415.0 0. 5 0.69 17 0.02 4.5 0. 5 245.0 203.0 0. 5 0.45 18 0.02 3.0 2. 6 299.0 188.0 0. 5 0.49 19 0.02 16.4 5. 5 47.5 86.3 0. 5 0.16 20 0.02 17.5 328.0 255.0 118.0 0. 5 0.72 Appendix F/ Table 4: Exposure Data For Ready to use Sprayers From MRID 444598 01 (Mixer Loader Applicator Exposure to RP 2 Liquid (21%). Carbaryl Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Exposure Study during Application of RP 2 Liquid (21%) Sevin ® Ready to Use Insect Spray or Sevin ® 10 Dust to Home Garden Vegetables)

Rep Carbaryl Applied (lb) Inner Dosimeter (µg) Outer Dosimeter

Lower Arm (µg) Outer Dosimeter

Lowel leg (µg) Hand (µg) Face/ Neck Wipe (µg) Total Dermal Exposure a (mg) Inhalation Exposure (µg)

1 0. 0024 3.0 7. 43 21.6 270 0.5 0. 31 0. 66 2 0. 0022 5.5 10.5 33.7 81.9 0. 5 0.13 0.56 3 0. 0028 7.2 10.2 26.1 654 0.5 0. 70 0. 29 4 0. 0025 6.4 13.3 82.9 225 0.5 0. 33 0. 42 5 0. 002 3.0 8. 43 80.8 197 0.5 0. 29 0. 36 6 0. 0022 3.0 7. 92 41.1 150 0.5 0. 20 0. 07 7 0. 002 4.9 5. 5 22 301 0.5 0. 33 0. 36 8 0. 0022 4.3 6. 65 40.4 115 0.5 0. 17 0. 44 9 0. 0021 3.0 0. 5 1.72 44.5 0. 5 0.05 0.07 10 0.0022 3.0 0. 5 2.46 98.1 0. 5 0.11 0.07 11 0.0021 3.0 0. 5 2.3 45.1 0. 5 0.05 0.07 12 0.0022 10.0 2. 29 7. 22 198 0.5 0. 22 0. 19 13 0.0022 3.0 5. 41 3. 51 44.8 0. 5 0.05 0.07 14 0.0021 7.2 2. 46 18.4 16.5 0. 5 0.05 0.23 15 0.002 3.0 3. 84 4. 48 28.2 0. 5 0.04 0.07 16 0.0022 61.8 5. 12 6. 33 392 11.9 0. 48 0. 07 17 0.0022 5.2 2. 23 12.2 3. 67 0. 5 0.02 0.07 18 0.0022 3.0 0. 5 2.54 34.8 0. 5 0.04 0.07 19 0.0022 3.0 4. 39 17.2 67.2 0. 5 0.09 0.07 20 0.0022 3.0 2. 79 18 23.7 0. 5 0.05 0.07 Appendix F/ Table 5: Exposure Data For Dust Applications From MRID 444598 01 (Mixer Loader Applicator Exposure to RP 2 Liquid (21%). Carbaryl Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Exposure Study during Application of RP 2 Liquid (21%) Sevin ® Ready to Use Insect Spray or Sevin ® 10 Dust to Home Garden Vegetables)

Rep Carbaryl Applied (lb) Inner Dosimeter (µg) Outer Dosimeter

Lower Arm (µg) Outer Dosimeter

Lowel leg (µg) Hand (µg) Face/ Neck Wipe (µg) Total Dermal Exposure a (mg) Inhalation Exposure (µg)

1 0. 0033 126.9 296 902 884 3.23 2.22 7.5 2 0. 025 98.9 346 932 13300 23.5 14.70 15.1 3 0. 0072 57.1 112 1281 526 12.5 1. 99 9. 93 4 0. 012 96.5 453 243 719 34.4 1. 55 26.8 5 0. 012 150.0 139 282 1530 5.85 2.11 3.57 6 0. 013 38.4 309 381 488 3.62 1.22 7.94 7 0. 0045 50.4 359 83 568 3.97 1.06 21.9 8 0. 0093 26.0 1815 59.8 228 5.53 2.13 0.07 9 0. 013 86.5 230 95.4 667 15.9 1. 10 27.4 10 0.015 25.0 452 127 413 13.3 1. 03 5. 73 11 0.019 53.1 167 306 1020 7.25 1.55 40.7 12 0.012 21.6 90.9 66.9 2920 1.96 3.10 7.89 13 0.029 77.7 381 587 423 8.95 1.48 57.7 14 0.0026 44.1 227 305 3030 2.35 3.61 37.1 15 0.02 71.4 153 219 351 1.21 0.80 2.51 16 0.0086 165.7 174 624 1440 1.88 2.41 9.34 17 0.03 93.4 275 413 494 6.89 1.28 42.1 18 0.044 82.2 282 949 259 12.7 1. 59 24.9 19 0.013 171.1 1022 133 1500 23.7 2. 85 29.7 20 0.026 36.0 221 65.5 1210 2.52 1.54 6.74 Appendix F/ Table 6: Exposure Data For Hose End Sprayers From MRID 445185 01 (Carbaryl Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Exposure Study during Application of RP 2 Liquid (21%) to Fruit Trees and Ornamental Plants)

Rep Carbaryl Applied (lb) Inner Dosimeter (µg) Outer Dosimeter

Lower Arm (µg) Outer Dosimeter

Lowel leg (µg) Hand (µg) Face/ Neck Wipe (µg) Total Dermal Exposure a (mg) Inhalation Exposure (µg)

1 0. 026 4.5 15 37 128 0.5 0. 19 0. 07 2 0. 02 3. 8 133 1890 227 0.5 2. 45 0. 07 3 0. 066 17.0 995 2218 5480 3.6 8. 71 0. 07 4 0. 053 26.5 193 1230 13200 2.2 14.65 0.15 5 0. 026 3.7 337 348 952 0.5 1. 64 0. 29 6 0. 026 18.5 49 161 82 0.5 0. 31 0. 07 7 0. 02 3. 0 99 220 1060 0.5 1. 38 0. 07 8 0. 022 3.6 78 213 694 0.5 0. 99 0. 07 9 0. 021 4.6 28 87 779 0.5 0. 90 0. 07 10 0.02 4.3 298 226 460 1.9 0. 99 0. 07 11 0.035 10.4 47 119 248 0.5 0. 43 0. 08 12 0.046 5.1 23 72 130 0.5 0. 23 0. 07 13 0.042 3.0 270 181 2060 0.5 2. 52 0. 07 14 0.09 9.1 567 1824 1400 0.5 3. 80 0. 23 15 0.029 3.0 123 193 428 0.5 0. 75 0. 07 16 0.026 11.3 36 181 2850 0.5 3. 08 0. 07 17 0.062 3.0 75 878 643 0.5 1. 60 0. 07 18 0.024 21.5 251 97 1830 0.5 2. 20 0. 07 19 0.073 3.0 180 301 736 0.5 1. 22 0. 07 20 0.024 3.9 9. 4 124 521 0.5 0. 66 0. 07 Appendix F/ Table 7: Exposure Data For Low Pressure Handwand Sprayers From MRID 445185 01 (Carbaryl Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Exposure Study during Application of RP 2 Liquid (21%) to Fruit Trees and Ornamental Plants)

Rep Carbaryl Applied (lb) Inner Dosimeter (µg) Outer Dosimeter

Lower Arm (µg) Outer Dosimeter

Lowel leg (µg) Hand (µg) Face/ Neck Wipe (µg) Total Dermal Exposure a (mg) Inhalation Exposure (µg)

1 0. 018 3.0 5. 6 11 432 0.5 0. 45 0. 07 2 0. 015 6.7 55 467 259 0.5 0. 78 0. 07 3 0. 02 34.0 571 491 1450 20 2.57 0.07 4 0. 019 4.9 34 88 381 0.5 0. 51 0. 07 5 0. 013 5.5 133 1297 3080 0.5 4. 52 0. 07 6 0. 014 8.4 56 147 567 0.5 0. 78 0. 07 7 0. 018 7.5 906 378 825 0.5 2. 12 0. 07 8 0. 02 12.1 95 440 2970 1.2 3. 52 0. 32 9 0. 017 15.2 27 182 524 0.5 0. 75 0. 16 10 0.015 5.0 42 146 414 1.3 0. 61 0. 24 11 0.019 25.2 59 303 493 0.5 0. 88 0. 07 12 0.018 3.0 15 108 139 0.5 0. 27 0. 07 13 0.018 9.0 79 281 271 0.5 0. 64 0. 07 14 0.02 9.5 209 522 917 0.5 1. 66 0. 07 15 0.015 11.4 131 780 247 1.8 1. 17 0. 37 16 0.017 9.2 25 437 864 0.5 1. 33 0. 2 17 0.02 3.0 78 639 198 0.5 0. 92 0. 07 18 0.017 3.0 51 285 267 0.5 0. 61 0. 38 19 0.02 6.9 41 81 373 0.5 0. 50 0. 07 20 0.018 8.9 81 605 436 1.4 1. 13 0. 33 Appendix G: Carbaryl Residential Handler Risk Assessment Appendix G/ Table 1: Residential Handler Scenario Descriptions for the Use of Carbaryl Exposure Scenario (Number) Data Source Standard Assumptions (8 hr work day) Comments a Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Descriptors Garden: Ready to use trigger sprayer (1) MRID 444598 01 1/ 4 to 1 bottle (1 bottle is SOP requirement, others shown for characterization) A total of 40 replicates were monitored in this study. Half of the people wore gloves and the other half did not. The clothing scenario represents short sleeved shirt, short pants, and no gloves. The data are considered high quality by the Agency.

There are no data compensation issues associated with this study as it was sponsored by Aventis Garden: Ornamental Duster (2) MRID 444598 01 1/ 4 to 1 bottle (1 bottle is SOP requirement, others shown for characterization) A total of 20 replicates were monitored in this study. No individuals wore gloves. The clothing scenario represents short

sleeved shirt, short pants, and no gloves. The data are considered high quality by the Agency.

There are no data compensation issues associated with this study as it was sponsored by Aventis Garden: Hose end Sprayer (3) MRID 444598 01 1000 ft 2 or 100 gallons output (1000ft 2 is SOP requirement, others shown for characterization) A total of 40 replicates were monitored in this study. Half of the people wore gloves and the other half did not. The clothing scenario represents short sleeved shirt, short pants, and no gloves. The data are considered high quality by the Agency.

There are no data compensation issues associated with this study as it was sponsored by Aventis Garden: Low Pressure Handwand Sprayer (4) MRID 444598 01 5 gallons or 1000 ft 2 (5 gallons is SOP requirement, others shown for characterization) A total of 40 replicates were monitored in this study. Half of the people wore gloves and the other half did not. The clothing scenario represents short sleeved shirt, short pants, and no gloves. The data are considered high quality by the Agency.

There are no data compensation issues associated with this study as it was sponsored by Aventis Trees and Ornamentals:

Low Pressure Handwand Sprayer (5) MRID 445185 01 5 gallons or 1000 ft 2 (5 gallons is SOP requirement, others shown for characterization) A total of 20 replicates were monitored in this study. No individuals wore gloves. The clothing scenario represents short

sleeved shirt, short pants, and no gloves. The data are considered high quality by the Agency.

There are no data compensation issues associated with this study as it was sponsored by Aventis Trees and Ornamentals:

Hose end Sprayer (6) MRID 445185 01 100 gallons or 1000 ft 2 (1000 ft 2 is SOP requirement, others shown for characterization) A total of 20 replicates were monitored in this study. No individuals wore gloves. The clothing scenario represents short

sleeved shirt, short pants, and no gloves. The data are considered high quality by the Agency.

There are no data compensation issues associated with this study as it was sponsored by Aventis Mixing/ Loading/ Applying with a Backpack Sprayer (7) PHED V1. 1 (7/ 97 Residential SOP Surrogate Table) 5 gallons or 1000 ft 2 (5 gallons is SOP requirement, others shown for characterization) Inhalation and dermal = acceptable grades. Hand data = C grade. Dermal = 9 to 11 replicates, hand = 11 replicates, and inhalation = 11 replicates. Low confidence in data. Hand exposure values were back calculated using empirical data that were generated using chemical resistant gloves and a 90 percent protection factor. An additional 10x safety factor was applied to the hand exposure value because the calculated hand exposure value did not correspond to the level expected given the other dermal exposure values for the scenario (the 10x factor addition was completed based on instructions contained in the Residential SOPs). Appendix G/ Table 1: Residential Handler Scenario Descriptions for the Use of Carbaryl Exposure Scenario (Number) Data Source Standard Assumptions (8 hr work day) Comments a Lawncare: Hose end Sprayer (8) MRID 44972201 1000 ft 2 for spot treatments and 20,000ft 2 for broadcast applications A total of 60 replicates were monitored in this study. Half of the subjects used ready to use packaging while the others used open pour. The values used for assessment were open pour. The clothing scenario represents short sleeved shirt, short pants,

and no gloves. The data are considered high quality by the Agency.

There are no data compensation issues associated with this study as it was sponsored by Aventis Dusting a Dog (9) MRID 444399 01 ½ bottle of product A total of 40 replicates were monitored in this study. Half of the people wore gloves and the other half did not. The clothing scenario represents short sleeved shirt, short pants, and no gloves. The data are considered high quality by the Agency.

There are no data compensation issues associated with this study as it was sponsored by Aventis Dipping a Dog (10) SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessments (7/ 97) ½ bottle of product The SOPs For Residential Exposure Assessment served as the basis for this assessment (i. e., the assumptions that were used to predict exposures from pet use products in which a percentage of the application rate is the predictor of potential dermal dose).

The scenario is based on the use of a residential clothing scenario (i. e., short pants, short sleeved shirt, no gloves, no respirator). Note that the same value is used as for the occupational handler scenarios. The refinement of the SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessment is such that furhter delineation based on clothing scenario is not appropriate (i. e., to alter value based on use of short vs. long pants and long sleeved vs. short sleeved shirts).

Lawncare: Granular and Baits By Bellygrinder (11) SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessments (7/ 97) 1000 ft 2 for spot treatment Inhalation = acceptable grades. Hand and dermal data = ABC grade. Dermal = 20 to 45 replicates, hand = 23 replicates, and inhalation = 40 replicates. Medium confidence in dermal and hand data. High confidence in inhalation data.

Lawncare: Granular and Baits By Push type Spreader (12) MRID 44972201 20,000ft 2 for broadcast applications A total of 30 replicates were monitored in this study. The clothing scenario represents short sleeved shirt, short pants, and no gloves. The data are considered high quality by the Agency.

There are no data compensation issues associated with this study as it was sponsored by Aventis Lawncare: Granular and Baits By Hand (13) SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessments (7/ 97) 1000 ft 2 for spot treatment Dermal, hand and inhalation data = ABC grade. Dermal = 16 replicates, hand = 16 replicates, and inhalation = 16 replicates.

Medium confidence in all data.

Aerosol Can (14) SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessments (7/ 97) 1 can Hand data = acceptable grades. Dermal and inhalation data = ABC grade. Dermal = 30 replicates, hand = 15 replicates, and inhalation = 30 replicates. Medium confidence in all data. Appendix G/ Table 1: Residential Handler Scenario Descriptions for the Use of Carbaryl Exposure Scenario (Number) Data Source Standard Assumptions (8 hr work day) Comments a Flea Collar (15) SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessments (7/ 97) 1 collar The SOPs For Residential Exposure Assessment served as the basis for this assessment (i. e., the assumptions that were used to predict exposures from pet use products in which a percentage of the application rate is the predictor of potential dermal dose).

The scenario is based on the use of a residential clothing scenario (i. e., short pants, short sleeved shirt, no gloves, no respirator). Note that the same value is used as for the occupational handler scenarios. The refinement of the SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessment is such that furhter delineation based on clothing scenario is not appropriate (i. e., to alter value based on use of short vs. long pants and long sleeved vs. short sleeved shirts).

Sprinkler Can (16) MRID 445185 01 5 gallons Data from hose end sprayer applications to trees and ornamentals was used to assess this scenario. The results should be considered as rangefinder in nature to account for the extrapolation completed for this assessment.

Ornamental Paint On (17) SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessments (7/ 97) 1 gallon Hand data = acceptable grade. Dermal and inhalation data = C grade. Dermal = 14 to 15 replicates, hand = 15 replicates, and inhalation = 15 replicates. Low to medium confidence in all data.

a All Standard Assumptions are based on an 8 hour work day as estimated by HED. BEAD data were not available.

bAll handler exposure assessments in this document are based on the "Best Available" data as defined by the PHED SOP for meeting Subdivision U Guidelines (i. e., completing exposure assessments). Best available grades are assigned to data as follows: matrices with A and B grade data (i. e., Acceptable Grade Data) and a minimum of 15 replicates; if not available, then grades A, B and C data and a minimum of 15 replicates; if not available, then all data regardless of the quality (i. e., All Grade Data) and number of replicates. High quality data with a protection factor take precedence over low quality data with no protection factor. Generic data confidence categories are assigned as follows:

High = grades A and B and 15 or more replicates per body part Medium = grades A, B, and C and 15 or more replicates per body part Low = grades A, B, C, D and E or any combination of grades with less than 15 replicates.

c PHED grading criteria do not reflect overall quality of the reliability of the assessment. Sources of the exposure factors should also be considered in the risk management decision. Appendix H: Carbaryl Residential Postapplication Risk Assessment For Turf Uses Appendix I: Carbaryl Residential Postapplication Risk Assessment For Garden/ Ornamental Uses Appendix J: Carbaryl Residential Postapplication Risk Assessment For Pet Uses Appendix K: Determination of Deposition Factors For Carbaryl Mosquito Control Uses Background Information: Carbaryl has been historically used for the control of insect pests such as mosquitoes and black flies in a manner that has employed the use of Ultra low Volume (ULV) application methods over wide areas. As the reregistration process has progressed, the labels for these types of applications have been reviewed and the Aventis Corporation has submitted a draft label for the Sevin XLR (4 lb ai/ gallon) product which has been used to develop the risk assessment for these uses. Aventis is interested in maintaining this use pattern even though the marketshare for carbaryl in this area has declined in recent years due to the use of the synthetic pyrethroids and other chemistries.

According to the Sevin XLR label, applications can be made using ground, aerial or handheld equipment suitable for fogging urban environments (e. g., backpack or handheld foggers). ULV type applications or thermal fogging applications are allowable based on the label. The label indicates that the optimal droplet size is 8 to 30 µm by mass median diameter (MMD) or volume median diameter (VMD) calculations for ground fogger applications. For aerial applications, the droplet spectra that is specified has a calculated VMD of less than 50 µm and no more than 5 percent of the droplets should be larger than 80 µm.

The label presents a range of application rates from 0.016 to 1.0 lb ai/ acre (i. e., 0.016, 0.15, and 1.0 lb ai/ acre). These use rates have not been linked to specific pests or pest pressures on the label. Applications can be made using undiluted material or with a 1: 1 or 1: 2 dilution rate.

Agricultural Engineering Considerations: With few notable exceptions such as public health scenarios (e. g., mosquito control), the general intent during most pesticide applications is to confine the deposition of applied chemicals to specific target areas such as agricultural fields. Economic concerns, health concerns, environmental concerns, and efficacy are the generally recognized rationale for limiting off target deposition. Pesticide applicators can control deposition patterns through the use of specific types of equipment and by controlling application parameters. Several application parameters can potentially impact deposition patterns of liquid form pesticides in the environment during application (e. g., nozzle size, application pressure, vehicle configuration and speed, meteorological conditions including environmental stability, and physical chemical characteristics of the formulation).

As indicated above, ULV mosquito control applications serve as the basis for this assessment. The general intent of these types of applications is antithetical to most pesticide applications in that spray drift is generally not inhibited but promoted in order to broaden the effective treatment area and ensure that the resulting droplets stay aloft for as long as possible. In fact, the efficacy of mosquito adulticide compounds is based on droplets contacting in flight mosquitos. As a result, there are significant agricultural engineering differences that were considered by The Agency in this assessment. These include:

C Release heights for mosquito control aerial ULV applications are typically 100 to 500 feet (or even higher) as opposed to most typical agricultural aerial applications where the release height is generally as low as the pilot can go (i. e., often 10 feet or less). Release height can significantly impact spray drift (i. e., the higher the release, the longer to time of impact with target area, and the more potential for drift). A release height of 300 feet was used in this assessment (i. e., the upper limit application height allowed in the AgDRIFT model).

C Nozzle configurations are such that extremely small droplets are released as opposed to typical aerial applications (i. e., Sevin XLR label specifies VM of 50 µm while the values for most agricultural applications are 100 µm or more). C Larger aircraft are generally used to make malaria control applications. For example, Lee County Florida, one of the largest Florida mosquito abatement districts, has a fleet of Douglas DC3s and Huey Helicopters. The DC3 is a much larger aircraft than the common agricultural application fixed wing aircraft (e. g., Air Tractor AT401). These differences are significant when predicting deposition and were addressed in the Agency calculation of deposition after an aerial ULV application. The DC3 was used as the basis for all AgDRIFT calculations completed by The Agency.

Predictive Tools and Data: The Agency has used state of the art tools in order to calculate deposition rates resulting from ground based and aerial ULV applications as well as to calculate the postapplication dermal exposures that result from entry into areas previously treated with carbaryl using these techniques. The Agency used AgDrift V2.01 to predict the amount of residues that would deposit in residential areas after aerial ULV application, published data were used to predict deposition after ground ULV applications, and the latest residential exposure assessment methods were used to calculate the risks associated with these residues.

The first aspect of this exposure/ risk assessment required the calculation of realistic deposition rates from the aerial and ground based ULV applications of carbaryl (i. e., addressed in this appendix  residential exposure methods are discussed in detail in Section 3 of the document). The Agency could have taken a very simplistic approach of assigning the application rate as the deposition after an application. However, The Agency did not utilize this approach given the current state of knowledge pertaining to spray drift and recent industry and agency efforts in this area (i. e., this approach would generally be considered as unrealistic given the intent of mosquito control applications). There are a number of predictive tools and open literature articles that pertain to this technical area. Given that ground based and aerial ULV applications are allowable, models and data were identified to support a human health exposure/ risk assessment for each scenario. [Note: The Agency recognizes that there are potential issues with the selection and use of these models in this assessment. As such, the use of each model for completing this exposure/ risk assessment is appropriately characterized (see below).]

Aerial ULV: In order to calculate deposition from aerial ULV applications, The Agency used AgDRIFT (V 2.01) which is the model that was developed as a result of the efforts of the Spray Drift Task Force (SDTF). The SDTF is a coalition of pesticide registrants whose primary objectives were to develop a comprehensive database of off target drift information in support of pesticide registrations and an appropriate model system. This model was selected based on the consensus of several experts in the spray drift area because it represents the current state of the art. The Agency discussed the issue of model selection with several experts in the spray drift community prior to selecting AgDRIFT (e. g., Sandra L. Bird, U. S. EPA; Steven G. Perry, U. S. EPA; Milton E. Teske, Continuum Dynamics; Pat Skyler, U. S. Forest Service; Arnet Jones, U. S. EPA; and Harold Thistle, U. S. Forest Service). The Agency considered using the USDA Forest Service Cramer BarryGrim Model (commonly referred to as FSCBG). FSCBG was developed through support from the U. S. Forest Service, in cooperation with the U. S. Army, and has been in existence for over 20 years in various iterations. Actual support and development of FSCBG was completed by Continuum Dynamics, Inc. located in Princeton, New Jersey under the technical direction of Milton E. Teske. However, it was decided that AgDRIFT should be used because it is based on essentially the same algorithms as FSCBG (personal communication with Milton E. Teske of Contiuum Dynamics), it has undergone extensive validation by the SDTF, and it is very user friendly compared to FSCBG.

AgDRIFT is a Microsoft Windows based personal computer program that is provided to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs as a product of the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) between EPA's Office of Research and Development and the SDTF. AgDRIFT predicts the motion of spray material released from aircraft, including the mean position of the material and the position variance about the mean as a result of turbulent fluctuations. AgDRIFT enhancements include a significant solution speed increase, an in memory computation of deposition and flux as the solution proceeds, and extensive validation based on 180 separate aerial treatments performed during field trials in 1992 and 1993 by the SDTF.

Ground ULV: In contrast to the aerial ULV scenario, the data available to predict deposition patterns and resulting exposures from ground based ULV malaria applications are limited. In fact, The Agency utilized two published journal articles and a preliminary model developed for the Environmental Fate and Effects Division of OPP by EPA's Office of Research and Development as the basis of this effort. These documents include:

Mass Recovery of Malathion in Simulated Open Field Mosquito Adulticide Tests: N. S. Tietze, P. G. Hester, and K. R. Shaffer; Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology; 26: 473 477 (1994). [Note: This document was used as the primary source of deposition rates resulting from ground based ULV mosquito applications.]

Downwind Drift and Deposition of Malathion on Human Targets From Ground Ultra Low Volume Mosquito Sprays: J. C. Moore, J. C. Dukes, J. R. Clark, J. Malone, C. F. Hallmon, and P. G. Hester; Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association; Vol. 9, No. 2 (June, 1993).[ Note: This document was used as the primary source of deposition rates resulting from ground based ULV mosquito applications and as a confirmatory source of exposure data.]

Modeling of Deposition From Mosquito Adulticide Applications: S. G. Perry and W. B. Petersen of EPA/ ORD for Arnet Jones of EPA/ OPP (February 7, 1995). [Note: This is an internal document that has not been peer reviewed. It was used only for confirmatory purposes in this exposure/ risk assessment.]

Determination of Deposition Rates: Deposition rates were determined for both aerial and ground based ULV application methods as a percentage of the nominal application rate (i. e., how much of the target application rate actually deposited on outdoor surfaces such as turf). The application rates used to complete the assessment are the range specified above. As indicated above, AgDRIFT V 2.01 was used to calculate the deposition rate from aerial ULV applications. The following inputs were used as the basis of the AgDRIFT calculations:

C AgDRIFT Model Tier: 3.

C Droplet Size Distribution: Dv0.1 = 25.59 µm; Dv0.5 = 51.0 µm; Dv0.9 = 74.27 µm; and <141 µm = 100 percent (developed to reflect droplet spectrum requirements of Sevin XLR label). [Note: The droplet distribution was developed based on the Sevin label. No proprietary SDTF data were used in the completion of this assessment.] C Spray Material: User defined option (oil option). Inputs include: nonvolatile rate 0.5 lb per acre, specific gravity 1.2 (calculated based on approximately 10 pounds per gallon), spray rate 0.25 gallons/ acre, active ingredient application rate (0.5 lb ai/ acre), and evaporation rate (1 µm 2 /deg C/ sec). [Note: Several of these parameters do not exactly coincide with the Sevin XLR label but were used because the Sevin XLR label inputs exceeded the allowable input parameters. These differences are not expected to significantly effect the AgDRIFT results because a nonvolatile oil was selected, hence the critical input is the active ingredient application rate. Additionally, no proprietary SDTF physical property data were used in the completion of this assessment. ]

C Aircraft: User defined option (fixed wing option). Inputs include: Douglas DC3, wingspan: 94.6 ft (semispan 47.28 ft), typical application airspeed: 228 mph, weight: 21397 pounds, planform area: 999 ft 2 , propeller RPM: 2550, propeller radius: 5.81 feet, engine vertical distance: 4.003 feet, and engine forward distance: 20.01 feet. [Note: DC3 specific inputs were obtained from the FSCBG (V4) aircraft library.]

C Nozzles: User defined option. Inputs include number of nozzles: 60, vertical distance of nozzles from wing: 2.66 feet, horizontal distance from wing: 0.82 feet, and horizontal distance limit: 75 percent.

C Meteorology: Inputs were not changed from Tier 3 recommendations of wind speed: 2 mph, wind direction: 90 degrees (perpendicular to flight path), temperature: 86° F, and relative humidity: 50 percent.

C Control: Inputs were altered from the Tier 3 recommendations. The parameters that were used included a spray release height of 300 feet, 20 spray lines (aircraft passes) in each application event, a swath width of 500 feet, and a swath displacement based on the aircraft centerline.

C Advanced Settings: Inputs were not changed from Tier 3 recommendations of wind speed height (2 meters), maximum compute time (600 seconds), maximum downwind distance (795 meters), vortex decay rate (0.56 m/ s), aircraft drag coefficient (0.1), propeller efficiency (0.8), and ambient pressure (1013 mb).

AgDRIFT is capable of producing a variety of useful outputs. The key for The Agency in this assessment was to determine from the model what percentage of the application volume remained aloft and what percentage of the resulting droplets deposited on the surfaces in the treatment area as well as downwind from the treatment area. AgDRIFT is generally intended to calculate deposition rates in areas that are downwind from the treatment area (i. e., presented from the border of the treatment area to areas of interest downwind). The Agency has used the values at the border of the treatment area to represent the deposition rate within the treated area. It is clear from the results that from the edge of the treatment area to 2000 feet downwind, approximately 9.5 percent of the theoretical application is deposited. This value is intuitively consistent with what one might suspect would occur considering the agricultural engineering parameters associated with mosquito applications (see graph below). As indicated above, two published journal articles served as the basis for predicting deposition rates, as a percentage of the application rate, after ground based ULV application for mosquito control (i. e., Tietze, et al, 1994 and Moore, et al, 1993). Both of these studies were completed using ULV formulations of malathion (91 and 95 percent). The Agency anticipates that the "behavior" of these formulations in the referenced studies would not be significantly different from the Sevin XLR formulation because the physical chemical properties of the malathion formulations and the nature of the application would be expected to be similar (i. e., the Agency believes the malathion formulations to be acceptable surrogates for Baytex in this analysis).

In the study conducted by Moore, et al both human exposure and deposition was quantified over 5 separate application events. A 91 percent formulation of malathion was applied in April and May of 1989 in the early evening (a time of day for relative atmospheric stability). A Leco HD ULV cold aerosol generator (Lowndes Engineering Company, Valdosta Georgia) was used to make each application. The application parameters included a fluid flow rate of 4.3 fluid ounces per minute, a vehicle groundspeed of 10 mph, and a nominal application rate of 0.05 lb ai/ acre (i. e., equates to a deposition rate of 0.51 µg/ cm 2 ). Deposition was monitored at three locations downwind from the treatment area (i. e., 15.2m, 30.4m, and 91.2m). For the events considered in the deposition calculations, "average amounts of malathion deposited on ground level at 15.2, 30.4, and 91.2 m were not significantly different." The percentage of the application rate reported to have deposited ranged from 1 to 14 percent. The mean deposition value for all measurements was 4.3 percent (n= 35, CV= 98).

In the study conducted by Tietze, et al only deposition was quantified over 6 separate application events (i. e., one event was not included in deposition calculations "due to negative air stability"). The application parameters were similar to that used by Moore et al. A 95 percent formulation of malathion was applied from May to August of 1993. A Leco 1600 ULV cold aerosol generator (Lowndes Engineering Company, Valdosta Georgia) was also used to make each application. The application parameters included a fluid flow rate of 4.3 fluid ounces per minute, a vehicle groundspeed of 10 mph, and a nominal application rate of 0.057 lb ai/ acre (i. e., equates to a deposition rate of 0.58 µg/ cm 2 ). Deposition was monitored at four locations downwind from the treatment area (i. e., 5 m, 25 m, 100 m and 500 m). For the events considered in the deposition calculations, "malathion mass deposited differed significantly between the 500 m site and the three closer sites (df = 3; F value = 3.42; P< 0.05)." The percentage of the application rate reported to have deposited (not including 500 m samples which were much less) ranged up to 5.8 percent. The mean deposition value for all measurements was 3.8 percent.

Considering the data that are available in the Tietze et al and Moore et al papers, an off target deposition rate of 5 percent was used by The Agency to evaluate ground based ULV applications. A value slightly higher than the mean values for both studies was selected because of the variability in the data and the limited number of datapoints. It should be noted that this value is also consistent with the draft modeling assessment for ground ULV approaches completed by S. T. Perry and W. B. Petersen of EPA's Office of Research and Development (i. e., within a factor of 5). Perry and Petersen used "the INPUFF Lagrangian puff model" as the basis for their assessment (Petersen and Lavdas, 1986: INPUFF 2.0  A Multiple Source Gaussian Puff Dispersion Algorithm, User's Guide, EPA/ 600/ 8 86/ 024). Depending on the scenario selected from this document, deposition rates ranged from approximately 2.5 percent deposition 450 m downwind to 15 to 20 percent deposition immediately adjacent to the treatment zone.

The following deposition rates presented as a percentage of the application rate served as the basis of the postapplication exposure calculations completed by The Agency:

C Ground based ULV = 5 percent of application rate, and C Aerial ULV = 9.5 percent of application rate. Appendix L: Carbaryl Residential Postapplication Risk Assessment For Mosquito Control Appendix M: Carbaryl Residential Postapplication Risk Assessment For Oyster Bed Uses