Within each agronomic group, a variety of cultural practices are required to maintain the included crops. These practices are varied and typically involve light to heavy contact with immature plants as well as with more mature plants. HED selected transfer coefficient values in its revision of Policy 003 to represent this range of exposures within each agronomic group. In the policy, transfer coefficients were placed in 1 of 5 generic categories based on the exposures relative to that group. These 5 categories include: very low exposure, low exposure, medium exposure, high exposure, and very high exposure. Numerical values were not necessarily assigned to each category for each crop group. Selections depended upon the actual agronomic practices that were identified for each group ( i. e., some groups had 2 assigned transfer coefficients while others had 5). The transfer coefficient values which have been used are excerpted directly from Agency Policy 003.1 In addition to transfer coefficients, occupational postapplication exposures to workers are estimated, in general, using transferable turf residue, dislodgeable foliar residue or soil transferable residue values. Transferable turf residues ( TTRs) are the amounts of pesticide available on the turf surface that can potentially be transferred to the skin of workers who contact treated turf. TTRs are measured using techniques that specifically determine the amount of residues on the surface treated leaves or other plant surfaces. In order to define the amount of transferable residues to which individuals can be exposed, whenever possible HED relies on chemical and crop specific studies as described in HED guidelines for exposure data collection ( Series 875, Occupational and Residential Exposure Test Guidelines: Group B  Postapplication Exposure Monitoring Test Guidelines). However, when no chemical and crop specific studies are available, HED uses a standard modeling approach to predict transferable residues over time ( best described in HED's SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessment).

The registrant has submitted one turf transferable residue study in support of the reregistration of MSMA, titled Determination of Transferable Residues from Turf Treated with Page 68 of 177 Monosodium Methanearsonate ( MRID No. 449589 01). The average TTR values for the New York site, the North Carolina site and the California site on the day of application were 0.0752, 0.0360, 0.368 µ g/ cm2 respectively. The highest residue value of 0.368 µ g/ cm2 from the CA site was previously used as a screening level assessment.

HED analyzed the raw data in a study review ( USEPA: Sandvig, 9/ 5/ 00) using all individual data replicates ( not averages) after the second application as follows: ( 1) for NY: DAT 0 through DAT 7, ( 2) for NC: DAT 0 through DAT 28; ( 3) for CA: DAT 6 hrs through DAT 25 collected after application # 2. Since the majority of the field recoveries were above 90% for the fortification level, 2 ug/ sample, closest to the amount of residue found on the grass, data was not corrected for field fortified recovery In accordance with EPA guidance, first order dissipation kinetics were assumed. A linear regression was performed and obtained the following dissipation half life values: 1) New York: 0.74 days ( R2= 0.78); 2) North Carolina: 9.4 days ( R2= 0.21); and 3) California: 5.48 days ( R2= 0.36). Since the regression from the natural log transformed data produced low values ( showing that the data may not be linear), actual turf transferable residue ( TTR) data from the MSMA turfgrass study is being used in this ORE chapter.

In a memo dated February 9, 2000 ( USEPA: Sandvig) HED denied a request by Luxenbourg Pamol, Inc. to use the MSMA turf transferable residue data as surrogate data for DMA. The assumption that DMA has the same transferability as MSMA cannot be made based on similar chemical, physical, and toxicological properties. Further, the dissipation rates of MSMA and DMA have not been shown to be the same. HED still agrees with this decision. As a result, HED has used the MSMA TTR study to assess occupational postapplication exposures to MSMA, DSMA, and CAMA. DMA occupational postapplication exposures were evaluated using HED's default assumptions that 20 percent of the initial application is available for transfer on day 0 ( i. e., 12 hours after application) and that the residue dissipates at a rate of 10 percent per day.

2.2.2 Data/ Assumptions for Postapplication Exposure Scenarios A series of assumptions and exposure factors served as the basis for completing the occupational postapplication worker risk assessments. Each assumption and factor is detailed below on an individual basis. In addition to these values, transfer coefficient values were used to calculate risk estimates. The transfer coefficients were taken from HED's revised policy entitled Policy 003.1 Science Advisory Council for Exposure Policy Regarding Agricultural Transfer Coefficients ( August 7, 2000). The assumptions and factors used in the risk calculations are presented below:

  There are many factors that are common to handler and postapplication risk assessments such as body weights, duration, and application rates. See Section <IP_ADDRESS> for these values. In the postapplication risk assessment, maximum application rates were considered. Page 69 of 177   Levels of Concern: HED has established levels of concern ( LOC) for occupational postapplication risks   margins of exposure of less than 100 for occupational non cancer dermal and inhalation risks are a concern.

  Exposures were calculated to reflect actual TTR values over time coupled with surrogate transfer coefficients as outlined in HED's revised policy.

2.2.3 Occupational Postapplication Exposure and Noncancer Risk Estimates Occupational non cancer risks were calculated using a Margin of Exposure ( MOE), which is a ratio of the daily dose to the toxicological endpoint of concern.

Daily Exposure: Daily dermal exposures were calculated on each postapplication day after application using the following equation ( see equation D2 20 from Series 875 Occupational and Residential Test Guidelines: Group B Postapplication Exposure Monitoring Test Guidelines and Residential SOP 3.2: Postapplication Dermal Potential Doses from Pesticide Residues on Gardens):

DE( t) ( mg/ day) = ( TR( t) ( µ g/ cm2) x TC ( cm2/ hr) x Hr/ Day)/ 1000 ( µ g/ mg)

Where:

DE( t) = Daily exposure or amount deposited on the surface of the skin at time ( t) attributable for activity in a previously treated area, also referred to as potential dose ( mg ai/ day); TR( t) = Transferable residues that can either be dislodgeable foliar or turf transferable residue at time " t" ( µ g/ cm2); TC = Transfer Coefficient ( cm2/ hour); and Hr/ day = Exposure duration meant to represent a typical workday ( hours).

Note that the ( TR( t)) input may represent levels on the day of application in the case of short term risk calculations.

Daily Dose and Margins of Exposure: The manner in which daily postapplication dermal exposures were calculated is inherently different than with handler exposures. However, once daily exposures are calculated, the calculation of daily absorbed dose and the resulting Margin of Exposures use the same algorithms that are described above for the handler exposures ( See Section 2.1.3). These calculations are completed for each day or appropriate block of time after application.

2.2.4 Noncancer Risk Summary For non cancer risks, the calculated MOE exceeds the target MOE on day 0 ( i. e., 12 hours following application) for all crops/ use sites for DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA, except for the application of DMA to turf. For lawn applications using DMA, the calculated Page 70 of 177 MOEs range from 22 to 47 on day 0 ( 12 hours following application) depending on the application rate and postapplication task being performed.

Tables 25   28 present a summary of occupational postapplication risks associated with use of DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA, respectively.

Table 25: DMA Summary of Occupational Postapplication Risks Crop Grouping Application rate ( lb ai/ acre) Transfer Coefficient Day after Application when MOE   100 MOE at Day 0 1500 ( irrigating, scouting, hand weeding) 12 hours 980 0.8 2500 ( hand harvesting) 12 hours 2,600 1500 ( irrigating, scouting, hand weeding) 12 hours 590 Cotton 1 0.3 2500 ( hand harvesting) 12 hours 1,600 3400 ( mowing) 8 45 7.7 6800 ( hand weeding, transplanting, hand or mechanical harvesting) 14 22 3400 ( mowing) 7 47 Turf 1 7.3 6800 ( hand weeding, transplanting, hand or mechanical harvesting) 13 24 1 Using standard HED assumptions.

Table 26: CAMA Summary of Occupational Postapplication Risks Crop Grouping Application rate ( lb ai/ acre) Transfer Coefficient Day after Application when MOE   100 MOE at Day 0 3400 ( mowing) 0 ( 6 hours) 3,600 5 6800 ( hand weeding, transplanting, hand or mechanical harvesting) 0 ( 6 hours) 4,300 3400 ( mowing) 0 ( 6 hours) 7,200 4.182 6800 ( hand weeding, transplanting, hand or mechanical harvesting) 0 ( 6 hours) 1,800 3400 ( mowing) 0 ( 6 hours) 2,100 Turf 1 2.5 6800 ( hand weeding, transplanting, hand or mechanical harvesting) 0 ( 6 hours) 3,600 1 Using actual California TTR study data from MRID 449589 01. Page 71 of 177 Table 27: DSMA Summary of Occupational Postapplication Risks Crop Grouping Application rate ( lb ai/ acre) Transfer Coefficient Day after Application when MOE   100 MOE at Day 0 1500 ( irrigating, scouting, hand weeding) 0 ( 12 hours) 1,500 Cotton1 2.268 2500 ( hand harvesting) 0 ( 12 hours) 900 3400 ( mowing) 0 ( 12 hours) 6,300 Turf 2 3.293 6800 ( hand weeding, transplanting, hand or mechanical harvesting) 0 ( 12 hours) 3,100 1 Using standard HED assumptions. 2 Using actual California TTR study data from MRID 449589 01.

Table 28: MSMA Summary of Occupational Postapplication Risks Crop Grouping Application rate ( lb ai/ acre) Transfer Coefficient REI MOE at Day 0 1500 ( irrigating, scouting, hand weeding) 0 ( 12 hours) 17,000 2 2500 ( hand harvesting) 0 ( 12 hours) 10,000 1500 ( irrigating, scouting, hand weeding) 0 ( 12 hours) 18,000 1.875 2500 ( hand harvesting) 0 ( 12 hours) 11,000 1500 ( irrigating, scouting, hand weeding) 0 ( 12 hours) 36,000 Cotton 1 0.9375 2500 ( hand harvesting) 0 ( 12 hours) 22,000 3400 ( mowing) 0 ( 12 hours) 4,600 3.9204 6800 ( hand weeding, transplanting, hand or mechanical harvesting) 0 ( 12 hours) 2,300 3400 ( mowing) 0 ( 12 hours) 7,000 2.6136 6800 ( hand weeding, transplanting, hand or mechanical harvesting) 0 ( 12 hours) 3,500 3400 ( mowing) 0 ( 12 hours) 8,400 Turf 2 2.178 6800 ( hand weeding, transplanting, hand or mechanical harvesting) 12 hours 4,200 1 Using standard HED assumptions. 2 Using actual California TTR study data from MRID 449589 01.

2.2.5 Occupational Postapplication Exposure and Risk Estimates for Cancer Since no toxicological endpoint of concern was identified for cancer, cancer risks from occupational postapplication exposures were not assessed. Page 72 of 177 2.2.6 Summary of Occupational Postapplication Risk Concerns and Data Gaps There are several occupational postapplication scenario for DMA that has risks associated with it that are above HED's level of concern for non cancer risk assessments. There are no occupational postapplication scenarios for MMA or DMA that have data gaps.

2.2.7 Recommendations for Refining Occupational Postapplication Risk Assessment To refine this occupational risk assessment, data on actual use patterns including rates, timing, and the kinds of tasks that are required to produce agricultural commodities and other products would better characterize MMA and DMA risks. Exposure studies for many cultural practices that lack data or that are not well represented in the revised transfer coefficient policy should also be considered based on the data gaps identified above.

3.0 RESIDENTIAL HANDLER EXPOSURES AND NON CANCER RISK ESTIMATES It has been determined there is a potential for exposure in residential settings during the application process for homeowners who use products containing DMA, CAMA, DSMA, or MSMA. There is also a potential for exposure from entering DMA, CAMA, DSMA, or MSMAtreated areas, such as lawns and golf courses. Risk assessments have been completed for both residential handler and postapplication scenarios.

In addition to homeowner uses in residential settings, DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA products are labeled for weed control at residential settings, which is applied by occupational applicators, but may result in postapplication exposures in residential settings. These potential postapplication exposures to homeowners also have been considered in this assessment.

3.1 Residential Handler Exposures and Risks HED uses the term " handlers" to describe those individuals who are involved in the pesticide application process. HED believes that there are distinct tasks related to applications and that exposures can vary depending on the specifics of each task as was described above for occupational handlers 3.1.1 Handler Exposure Scenarios Scenarios are used to define risks based on the U. S. EPA Guidelines for Exposure Assessment ( U. S. EPA; Federal Register Volume 57, Number 104; May 29, 1992). Assessing exposures and risks resulting from residential uses is very similar to assessing occupational exposures and risks, with the following exceptions: Page 73 of 177   Residential handler exposure scenarios are considered to be short term only, due to the infrequent use patterns associated with homeowner products.

  A tiered approach for personal protection using increasing levels of PPE is not used in residential handler risk assessments. Homeowner handler assessments are based on the assumption that individuals are wearing shorts, short sleeved shirts, socks, and shoes.

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

  Label use rates and use information specific to residential products serve as the basis for the risk calculations.

  Area/ volumes of spray or chemical used in the risk assessment are based on HED's guidance specific to residential use patterns.

HED has determined that there is potential exposure to residential mixer, loader, and applicators during the usual use patterns associated with DMA, CAMA, DSMA and MSMA.

DMA: Based on the use patterns, five major residential exposures were identified for DMA:

Mixers/ Loaders/ Applicators ( 1) Mixing/ loading/ applying sprays with a low pressure handwand sprayer ( ORETF); ( 2) Mixing/ loading/ applying sprays with a hose end sprayer ( ORETF); ( 3) Mixing/ loading/ applying sprays ready to use formulations with a hose end sprayer ( ORETF); ( 4) Mixing/ loading/ applying sprays with a watering can ( ORETF hose end data); and ( 5) Mixing/ loading/ applying ready to use formulations with a trigger pump sprayer ( ORETF).

The duration of exposure for residential populations is assumed to be short term only, since lawn renovation occurs only once a year, every five years or more and weed control occurs about once a month during the weed growing season of 3 months.

CAMA The anticipated use patterns and current labeling indicate three residential handler exposure scenarios based on the types of equipment and techniques that can potentially be used to make CAMA applications. The quantitative exposure/ risk assessment developed for residential handlers is based on these scenarios. Page 74 of 177 Mixer/ Loader/ Applicators: ( 1) Mixing/ loading/ applying sprays with a low pressure handwand sprayer ( ORETF); ( 2) Mixing/ loading/ applying sprays with a hose end sprayer ( ORETF); and ( 3) Mixing/ loading/ applying ready to use formulations with a trigger pump sprayer ( ORETF).

DSMA Based on the use patterns, the following three residential exposure scenarios were identified for DSMA:

Mixer/ Loader/ Applicators: ( 1) Mixing/ loading/ applying sprays with a low pressure handwand sprayer ( ORETF); ( 2) Mixing/ loading/ applying sprays with a hose end sprayer ( ORETF); and ( 3) Mixing/ loading/ applying sprays ready to use formulations with a hose end sprayer ( ORETF).

MSMA Based on the use patterns, the following three residential exposure scenarios were identified for MSMA:

Mixer/ Loader/ Applicators: ( 1) Mixing/ loading/ applying sprays with a low pressure handwand sprayer ( ORETF); ( 2) Mixing/ loading/ applying sprays with a hose end sprayer ( ORETF); and ( 3) Mixing/ loading/ applying sprays ready to use formulations with a hose end sprayer ( ORETF).

3.1.2 Data and Assumptions for Handler Exposure Scenarios A series of assumptions and exposure factors served as the basis for completing the residential handler risk assessments. Each assumption and factor is detailed below. In addition to these factors, unit exposure values were used to calculate risk estimates. These unit exposure values were taken from the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force ( ORETF) studies. Both PHED and ORETF studies are presented below.

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

  Exposure factors used to calculate daily exposures to handlers were based on applicable data, if available. When appropriate data is unavailable, values from a scenario deemed similar might be used.

  HED always considers the maximum application rates allowed by labels in its risk assessments. If additional information such as average or typical rates is available, these values also may be used to allow risk managers to make a more informed risk Page 75 of 177 management decision. Average/ typical application rates were not available for residential scenarios.

  Residential risk assessments are based on estimates of what homeowners would typically treat, such as the size of a lawn or the size of a garden. The factors used for the DMA assessment were from the Health Effects Division Science Advisory Committee Policy 12: Recommended Revisions to the Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Exposure Assessment which was completed on February 22, 2001, and on professional judgment. The daily volumes handled and area treated used in each residential scenario are provided in Table 2 of that policy recommendation.

Residential Handler Exposure Studies: The unit exposure values that were used in this assessment were based on the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force studies, the Pesticide Handler Exposure Database ( PHED, Version 1.1 August 1998), and two proprietary studies. [ Note: PHED and some ORETF studies are described above in Section 2.1.1.]

ORETF Handler Studies  OMA001 OMA004 ( MRID 449722 01) A report was submitted by the ORETF ( Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force) that presented data in which the application of various products used on turf by homeowners and lawncare operators ( LCOs) was monitored. All of the data submitted in this report were completed in a series of studies.

OMA004: Homeowner Liquid Applications with a Ready to use Hose end Sprayer and a Dial Type Hose end Sprayer ( MRID 449722 01): A mixer/ loader/ applicator study was performed by the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force ( ORETF) using diazinon ( 25% EC) as a surrogate compound to determine " generic" exposures to individuals applying a pesticide to turf with a garden hose end sprayer. Surrogate chemicals were chosen by the Task Force for their representativeness based on physical chemical properties and other factors. The study was designed to simulate a typical application event for a homeowner applying pesticides to home lawns via a hose end sprayer. Each replicate monitored the test subject treating 5,000 square feet of turf at a nominal application rate of 4 pounds active ingredient per acre and handling a total of 0.5 pounds active ingredient per replicate. The average time per replicate was 75 minutes. A total of 60 replicates were monitored using 30 test subjects ( two replicates each). Thirty applicator replicates were monitored using a ready to use ( RTU) product ( Bug B Gon) packaged in a 32 fl. oz. screw on container. These containers were attached to garden hose ends. An additional 30 mixer/ loader/ applicator replicates were monitored using Diazinon Plus also packaged in 32 fl. oz. plastic bottles. This product required the test subjects to pour the product into dial type sprayers ( DTS) that were attached to garden hose ends.

Dermal and inhalation exposures were monitored using passive dosimetry ( inner and outer whole body dosimeters, hand washes, face/ neck wipes, and personal inhalation monitors with OVS tubes). The inner samples represent a single layer of clothing. Inhalation exposure was calculated using an assumed respiratory rate of 17 liters per minute for light work ( NAFTA, 1999), the actual sampling time for each individual, and the pump flow rate. No gloves were worn in any replicate. All results were normalized for the amount of active ingredient Page 76 of 177 handled. The QA/ QC data are within an acceptable range and the study results are corrected for field recoveries. The unit exposure values are presented below. [ Note: All values are geometric means as the data were lognormally distributed.] The unit exposure values used in the residential assessment are presented in Table 29.

Table 29: Unit Exposure Values for Homeowner Spray Applications with a Ready touse Hose end Sprayer and a Dial Type Hose end Sprayer ( MRID 449722 01)

Total Dermal Unit Exposure1 ( mg/ lb ai)

Scenario Monitored Short Pants, Short Sleeves Long Pants, Short Sleeves Long Pants, Long Sleeves Inhalation Unit Exposure1,2 ( Fg/ lb ai)

Homeowner Spray Applications with a Ready to use Hose end Sprayer 2.6 0.45 0.26 11 Homeowner Spray Applications with a Dial Type Hose end Sprayer ( Mix yourown 11 6.2 5.6 17 1 Unit exposure values reported are geometric means. 2 Air concentration ( mg/ m3/ lb ai) calculated using NAFTA >

99 standard breathing rate of 17 lpm ( 1 m3/ hr).

OMA006: Homeowner Liquid Application to Garden with a Dial type Sprayer, a Low Pressure Handwand and a Ready to use Bottle ( MRID 444598 01) Report OMA006 presented data in which the application of various products used on vegetable gardens by homeowners was monitored. The unit exposure values used in the residential assessment are presented in Table 30.

Table 30. Unit Exposure Values for Homeowner Spray Application to Garden with a Dial type Sprayer, a Low Pressure Handwand and a Hose End Sprayer Obtained From ORETF Study ( MRID 444598 01) Total Dermal Unit Exposure1 ( mg/ lb ai) Short Pants, Short Sleeves Long Pants, Short Sleeves Long Pants, Long Sleeves Scenario Monitored Gloves No Gloves Gloves No Gloves Gloves No Gloves Inhalation Unit Exposure1 ( Fg/ lb ai)

Homeowner Spray Applications with a Low Pressure Handwand Sprayer 10.5 38 0.78 17 0.33 15 2.7 Homeowner Spray Applications with a Readyto Use Sprayer 11 54 2.8 45 1.8 42 19 Homeowner Spray Applications with a Hoseend Sprayer 15 34 0.5 18 0.10 17 0.82 All unit exposures are geometric means Page 77 of 177 3.1.3 Residential Handler Exposure and Non Cancer Risk Estimates Noncancer risks were calculated using the Margin of Exposure ( MOE) as described in Section 2.1.3. Assessing exposures and risks resulting from residential uses is very similar to assessing occupational exposures and risks, except as described in Section 3.1.1. The other major difference with residential risk assessments is that the uncertainty factor which defines the level of risk concern has the additional FQPA safety factor applied. In the case of DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA, it was decided by HED that the factor should be 1X. Therefore, the overall uncertainty factor applied to DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA for residential handler risk assessments is 100, which is based on the FQPA safety factor of 1X along with the 10X for inter species extrapolation and 10X for intra species sensitivity.

The residential exposure and risk estimates associated with the use of DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA are presented in Tables 31   34.

Table 31: DMA Residential Handler Short and Intermediate term Dermal and Inhalation Exposure and Risks Baseline Unit Exposures Baseline MOEs Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Daily ( acres) Dermal ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalation ( ug/ lb ai) Dermal Inhalation Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Lawn edging 7.72 0.5 38 2.7 140 29000 Mixing/ Loading/ Apply ing Liquid Concentrates with Low Pressure Handwand ( ORETF) ( 1) Lawn renovation 7.3 0.5 38 2.7 150 31000 Lawn edging 7.72 0.5 11 17 490 4700 Lawn renovation 7.3 0.5 11 17 520 4900 Mixing/ Loading/ Apply ing Liquid Concentrates with Hose End Sprayer ( Residential ORETF data) ( 2) Non crop 7.3 0.5 11 17 520 4900 Lawn edging 7.72 0.5 2.6 11 2100 7200 Lawn renovation 7.3 0.5 2.6 11 2200 7600 Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with RTU Hose End Sprayer ( Residential ORETF data) ( 3) Non crop 7.3 0.5 2.6 11 2200 7600 Lawn edging 0.00018 1000 11 16 11000 110000 Mixing/ Loading/ Apply ing Liquid Concentrates with a Watering Can ( using ORETF residential hose end data) ( 4) Lawn renovation 0.00017 1000 11 16 11000 110000 Lawn edging 0.00018 1000 54 19 2200 91000 Lawn renovation 0.00017 1000 54 19 2300 96000 Applying Ready to Use Formulations via Trigger Pump Sprayer ( ORETF) ( 5) Non crop 0.00017 1000 54 19 2300 96000 Page 78 of 177 Table 32: CAMA Residential Handler Short and Intermediate term Dermal and Inhalation Exposure and Risks Baseline Unit Exposure Baseline MOEs Exposure Scenario Crop or Target App Rate ( lb ai/ A) App Rate of MMA ( lb ai/ A) Area Treated Daily ( acres) Dermal ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalation ( ug/ lb ai) Dermal Inhalation Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Lawn and ornamental turf ( on grasses other than Bent) 5 4.4 0.5 38 2.7 840 52000 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on Bermuda and Zoysia grass) 4.182 3.7 0.5 38 2.7 1000 62000 Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with Low Pressure Handwand ( ORETF) ( 1) Lawn and ornamental turf ( on bentgrass) 2.5 2.2 0.5 38 2.7 1700 100000 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on grasses other than Bent) 5 4.4 0.5 11 17 2900 8200 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on Bermuda and Zoysia grass) 4.182 3.7 0.5 11 17 3500 9800 Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with Hose End Sprayer ( Residential ORETF data) ( 2) Lawn and ornamental turf ( on bentgrass) 2.5 2.2 0.5 11 17 5800 16000 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on grasses other than Bent) 5 4.4 0.023 54 19 13000 160000 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on Bermuda and Zoysia grass) 4.182 3.7 0.023 54 19 15000 190000 Applying Ready to Use Formulations via Trigger Pump Sprayer ( ORETF) ( 3)

Lawn and ornamental turf ( on bentgrass) 2.5 2.2 0.023 54 19 26000 320000 Page 79 of 177 Table 33: DSMA Residential Handler Short and Intermediate term Dermal and Inhalation Exposure and Risks Baseline Unit Exposure Baseline MOEs Exposure Scenario Crop or Target App Rate of DSMA ( lb ai/ acre) App Rate of MMA ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Daily ( acres) Dermal ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalation ( ug/ lb ai) Dermal Inhalation Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with Low Pressure Handwand ( ORETF) ( 1) lawns and ornamental turf 3.293 2.5 0.5 38 2.7 1500 91000 Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates via Hose End Sprayer ( ORETF data) ( 2) lawns and ornamental turf 3.293 2.5 0.5 11 17 5100 14000 Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with RTU Hose End Sprayer ( Residential ORETF data) ( 3) lawns and ornamental turf 3.293 2.5 0.5 2.6 11 21000 22000 Page 80 of 177 Table 34: MSMA Residential Handler Short and Intermediate term Dermal and Inhalation Exposure and Risks Baseline Unit Exposure Baseline MOEs Exposure Scenario Crop or Target App Rate of MSMA ( lb ai/ acre) App Rate of MMA ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Daily ( acres) Dermal ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalation ( ug/ lb ai) Dermal Inhalation Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator lawns and ornamental turf 3.9204 3.4 0.5 38 2.7 1100 67000 lawns and ornamental turf 2.6136 2.3 0.5 38 2.7 1600 100000 Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with Low Pressure Handwand ( ORETF  ground directed) ( 1) lawns and ornamental turf 2.178 1.9 0.5 38 2.7 2000 120000 lawns and ornamental turf 3.9204 3.4 0.5 11 17 3800 11000 lawns and ornamental turf 2.6136 2.3 0.5 11 17 5600 16000 Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with Hose End Sprayer ( Residential ORETF data) ( 2) lawns and ornamental turf 2.178 1.9 0.5 11 17 6800 19000 3.9204 3.4 0.5 2.6 11 16000 17000 2.6136 2.3 0.5 2.6 11 24000 25000 Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with RTU Hose End Sprayer ( Residential ORETF data) ( 3) lawns and ornamental turf 2.178 1.9 0.5 2.6 11 29000 30000 3.1.4 Residential Handler Exposure and Risk Estimates for Cancer No cancer endpoints of concern for DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA were identified, therefore cancer risks to residential handlers were not assessed.

3.1.5 Summary of Risk Concerns and Data Gaps for Handlers All noncancer risks ( i. e., MOEs) to handlers associated with the scenarios are not of concern, because they exceed HED's uncertainty factor of 100 for DMA, CAMA, MSMA, and DSMA. Page 81 of 177 3.1.6 Recommendations for Refining Residential Handler Risk Assessment In order to refine this residential risk assessment, more data on actual use patterns including rates, timing, and areas treated would better characterize DMA, CAMA, MSMA and DSMA risks. Exposure studies for many equipment types that lack data or that are not well represented in PHED ( e. g., because of low replicate numbers or data quality) should also be considered based on the data gaps identified above and based on a review of the quality of the data used in this assessment.

3.2 Residential Postapplication Exposures and Assumptions HED uses the term " postapplication" to describe exposures to individuals that occur as a result of being in an environment that has been previously treated with a pesticide. DMA, CAMA, MSMA and DSMA can be used in many areas that can be frequented by the general population including residential areas ( e. g., home lawns and gardens). As a result, individuals can be exposed by entering these areas if they have been previously treated.

All of these arsenic compounds are expected to accumulate in the soil and not degrade over time. In order to estimate exposures over a year, it was assumed that applications would take place four times per year and the total amount that would be applied over a year was used to calculate exposures to DMA, CAMA, MSMA and DSMA.

3.2.1 Residential Postapplication Exposure Scenarios A wide array of individuals of varying ages can potentially be exposed to DMA, CAMA, MSMA and DSMA when they are in areas that have been previously treated. Postapplication exposure scenarios were developed for each residential setting where DMA, CAMA, MSMA and DSMA can be used. The scenarios likely to result in postapplication exposures are as follows:

  Dermal exposure from residue on lawns ( adult and toddler);   Hand to mouth transfer of residues on lawns ( toddler);   Ingestion of pesticide treated grass ( toddler); and   Incidental ingestion of soil from pesticide treated residential areas ( toddler).

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

  Series 875, Residential and Residential Exposure Test Guidelines: Group B  Postapplication Exposure Monitoring Test Guidelines ( V 5.4, Feb. 1998) This document provides general risk assessment guidance and criteria for analysis of residue dissipation data. Page 82 of 177   Standard Operating Procedures For Residential Exposure Assessment ( Dec. 1997) This document provides the overarching guidance for developing residential risk assessments including scenario development, algorithms, and values for inputs.

  Science Advisory Council For Exposure Policy 12 ( Feb. 2001): Recommended Revisions To The Standard Operating Procedures ( SOPs) For Residential Exposure Assessment This document provides additional, revised guidance for completing residential exposure assessments.

  Overview of Issues Related To The Standard Operating Procedures For Residential Exposure Assessment ( August 1999 Presentation To The FIFRA SAP) This document provides rationale for Agency changes in SOPs.

When the guidance in current labels and these documents is considered, it is clear that HED should consider children of differing ages as well as adults in its assessments. It is also clear that different age groups should be considered in different situations. The populations that were considered in the assessment include:

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

  Residential Children: children are members of the general population that can also be exposed in their residences ( e. g., on lawns and other residential turfgrass areas). These kinds of exposures are attributable to a variety of activities such as playing outside. Toddlers have been selected as the sentinel ( representative) population for the turf assessment. Youth aged children ( ages 10 to 12) are considered the sentinel population for a golfing assessment, because it is likely that children of this age would be playing golf. Children are addressed by HED in risk assessments by considering representative activities for each age group in an exposure calculation.

The SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessment define several scenarios that apply to uses specified in current labels. These scenarios served as the basis for the residential postapplication assessment along with the modifications to them and the additional data and approaches described above. HED used this guidance to define the exposure scenarios that essentially include dermal and nondietary ingestion exposure to toddlers on treated lawns and dermal exposure to adults and youth on treated lawns. The SOPs and the associated scenarios are presented below: Page 83 of 177   Dose from dermal exposure on treated turf: Postapplication dermal dose calculations for toddlers from playing on treated turf, for youth and adults playing golf on treated turf, and for adults mowing and exercising on treated turf.

  Dose from hand to mouth activity from treated turf: Postapplication dose calculations for toddlers from incidental nondietary ingestion of pesticide residues on treated turf from hand to mouth transfer ( i. e., those residues that are swallowed when toddlers get pesticide residues on their hands from touching treated turf and then put their hands in their mouth).

  Dose from object to mouth activity from treated turf: Postapplication dose calculations for toddlers from incidental nondietary ingestion of pesticide residues on treated turf from object to mouth transfer ( i. e., those residues that are swallowed when toddlers put treated turf in their mouths).

  Dose from soil ingestion activity from treated turf: Postapplication dose calculations for toddlers from incidental nondietary ingestion of pesticide residues from ingesting soil in a treated turf area ( i. e., those soil residues that are swallowed when toddlers get pesticide residues on their hands from touching treated soil and then put their hands in their mouth).

The detailed residential postapplication calculations are presented in the appendices of this document.

3.2.2 Data and Assumptions for Residential Postapplication Exposure Scenarios Assumptions and Exposure Factors A series of assumptions and exposure factors served as the basis for completing the residential postapplication risk assessments. The assumptions and factors used in the risk calculations are consistent with current Agency policy for completing residential exposure assessments ( i. e., SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessment). The values used in this assessment include:

  There are many factors that are common to the occupational and residential postapplication risk assessments, such as body weights for adults, and analysis of residue dissipation data. Please refer to the assumptions and factors in Section 2.1.2 for further information concerning these common values.

  HED combines risks resulting from exposures to individual applications when it is likely they can occur simultaneously based on the use pattern and the behavior associated with the exposed population. The toxicological endpoints used in assessing risks must have the same toxicological effect in order for the risks to be aggregated. For DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA, HED has combined risks Page 84 of 177 ( i. e., MOEs) for different kinds of exposures for the following scenario: for toddlers on turf   hand to mouth plus object to mouth plus soil ingestion.

  The measured TTR levels quantified in MRID 449589 01 ( used above in the occupational postapplication assessment for MMA) have not been used to complete the short term dermal exposure calculations as the 0 day transferability was < 1 percent of the application rate. Studies where transferability is less than 1 percent are not used for residential postapplication risk assessment purposes because the transfer coefficients used by the Agency for defining exposures are based on Jazzercize studies in which TTR values were measured by techniques where transferability is generally in the 1 to 5 percent range. In these cases, HED utilizes the assumptions explained below taken from HED's standard operating procedures.

  The endpoint used to assess these incidental oral exposures ( BMDL10) comes from data measured at 10 weeks of DMA exposure in the feed to female rats ( Arnold et al, 1999). However, Cohen et al, ( 2001) shows that regenerative proliferation occurred as early as 1 week into the DMA exposure. HED believes that using the Arnold ( 1999) study ( with the Cohen 2001 study as characterization), constitutes the use of the best available data and that results calculated using this endpoint can be considered conservative for risk assessment purposes.

  Exposures to adults and children on treated turf have been addressed using the latest HED standard operating procedures for this scenario including: o the transfer coefficients used are those presented during the 1999 Agency presentation before the FIFRA Science Advisory Panel that have been adopted in routine practice by HED; o 3 year old toddlers are expected to weigh 15 kilograms ( representing an average weight from years one to six); o hand to mouth exposures are based on a frequency of 20 events/ hour and a surface area per event of 20 cm2, representing the palmar surfaces of three fingers; o saliva extraction efficiency is 50 percent meaning that every time the hand goes in the mouth approximately ½ of the residues on the hand are removed; o object to mouth exposures are based on a 25 cm2 surface area; o exposure durations for turfgrass scenarios are estimated to be 2 hours based on information in HED's Exposure Factors Handbook; o soil residues are contained in the top centimeter and soil density is 0.67 mL/ gram; and o hand and object to mouth, and soil ingestion are combined to represent an overall risk from exposure to turf.

  Postapplication residential risks are based on maximum application rates or values specified in the SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessment. Page 85 of 177   The Jazzercize approach is the basis for the dermal transfer coefficients as described in HED's Series 875 guidelines, SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessment, and the 1999 FIFRA SAP Overview document. Page 86 of 177 3.2.3 Residential Postapplication Exposure and Noncancer Risk Estimates Noncancer risks were calculated using the Margin of Exposure ( MOE) approach, which is a ratio of the body burden to the toxicological endpoint of concern. Exposures were calculated by considering the potential sources of exposure ( i. e., TTRs on lawns), then calculating dermal and nondietary ingestion exposures.

Dermal exposures and risks from lawn uses were calculated in the same manner as described above in Section 2.2.3. Along with calculating these dermal exposures, other aspects of the turf exposure scenarios were calculated such as the dose from nondietary ingestion. The algorithms used for each type of calculation are presented below which have not been previously addressed in Section 2.2.3.

Nondietary Ingestion Exposure from Treated Turf: Nondietary ingestion exposure from treated turf was calculated using the following equations. These values were then used to calculate MOEs.

Dermal Exposure from Treated Lawns ( adult and toddler)

The approach used to calculate the dermal doses that are attributable to exposure from contacting treated lawns is:

ADD = ( TTR0 * ET * TC * DA * CF1) / BW Where: ADD = average daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day); TTRt = turf transferable residue on day " 0" ( µ g/ cm2). TTR = application rate ( µ g/ cm2) * fraction of ai retained on foliage ( 5% for turf activities, 20% for gardening activities) ; ET = exposure time ( 2 hr/ day); TC = transfer coefficient ( 14,500 cm2/ hr for adults and 5,200 cm2/ hr for toddlers); DA = dermal absorption factor; CF1 = weight unit conversion factor to convert µ g units to mg for the daily exposure ( 0.001 mg/ µ g); and BW = body weight ( 70 kg for adults and 15 kg for toddlers). Page 87 of 177 Hand to mouth Transfer of Pesticide Residues on Lawns ( toddler)

The approach used to calculate the nondietary ingestion exposures that are attributable to hand to mouth behavior on treated turf is:

ADD = ( TTR0 * SA * FQ * ET * SE * CF1) / BW Where: ADD = average daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day); TTRt = turf transferable residue on day " 0" ( µ g/ cm2); TTR = application rate ( µ g/ cm2) * fraction of ai retained on foliage ( 5%) ; SA = surface area of the hands ( 20 cm2/ event); FQ = frequency of hand to mouth activity ( 20 events/ hr); ET = exposure time ( 2 hr/ day); SE = extraction by saliva ( 50%); CF1 = weight unit conversion factor to convert µ g units in the TTR value to mg for the daily exposure ( 0.001 mg/ µ g); and BW = body weight ( 15 kg).

Object to mouth Transfer of Pesticide Residues on Lawns ( toddler)

The approach used to calculate doses that are attributable to object to mouth behavior on treated turf that is represented by a child mouthing on a handful of turf is:

ADD = ( TTR0 * IgR* CF1) / BW Where: ADD = average daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day); TTRt = turf transferable residue on day " 0" ( µ g/ cm2); TTR = application rate ( µ g/ cm2) * fraction of ai retained on foliage ( 20%) IgR = ingestion rate of grass ( 25 cm2/ day); CF1 = weight unit conversion factor to convert the µ g of residues on the grass to mg to provide units of mg/ day ( 1E 3 mg/ µ g); and BW = body weight ( 15 kg).

Incidental Ingestion of Soil from Pesticide Treated Residential Areas ( toddler)

The approach used to calculate doses that are attributable to soil ingestion is:

ADD = ( SR0 * IgR * CF1) / BW Where: ADD = average daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day); SR0t = soil residue on day " 0" ( 0.0022 µ g/ g); IgR = ingestion rate of soil ( 100 mg/ day); CF1 = weight unit conversion factor to convert the µ g of residues on the soil to grams to provide units of mg/ day ( 1E 6 g/ µ g); and BW = body weight ( 15 kg).

and Page 88 of 177 SRt = AR * F * CF2 * CF3 * CF4 Where: AR = application rate ( lb ai/ acre); F = fraction of ai available in uppermost cm of soil ( 1 fraction/ cm) ( 100%); CF2 = volume to weight unit conversion factor to convert the volume units ( cm3) to weight units for the SR value ( U. S. EPA, 1992) ( 0.67 cm3/ g soil); CF3 = area unit conversion factor to convert the surface are units ( acres) in the application rate to cm2 ( 2.47E 8 acre/ cm2); and CF4 = weight unit conversion factor to convert the lbs ai in the application rate to µ g ( 4.54E8 µ g/ lb).

Noncancer Risk Summary Adults Tables 35  38 present the postapplication MOE values calculated for adults after lawn and home garden applications of DMA, CAMA, DSMA and MSMA. For the lawn and scenarios for DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA, short term MOEs are > 100 for all scenarios.

Table 35 DMA Adult Residential Risk Estimates for Postapplication Exposure Exposure Scenario Route of Exposure Application Type Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) MOE at Day 0 Spray   Lawn Edging 7.72 170 Residential Turf ( High Contact Activities) Spray   Broadcast 7.3 180 Spray   Lawn Edging 7.72 710 Residential Turf ( Mowing) Spray   Broadcast 7.3 750 Spray   Lawn Edging 7.72 180 Home Garden ( Ornamentals) Spray   Broadcast 7.3 190 Spray   Lawn Edging 7.72 2,400 Golfer Dermal Spray   Broadcast 7.3 2,600 Table 36: CAMA Adult Residential Risk Estimates for Postapplication Exposure Exposure Scenario Route of Exposure Formulation CAMA Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) MOE at Day 0 4.4 980 3.7 1,200 Residential Turf ( High Contact Activities) 2.2 2,000 4.4 4,200 3.7 5,000 Residential Turf ( Mowing) 2.2 8,300 4.4 1,100 3.7 1,300 Home Garden ( Ornamentals) 2.2 2,100 4.4 14,000 3.7 17,000 Golfer Dermal Liquid 2.2 28,000 Page 89 of 177 Table 37: DSMA Adult Residential Risk Estimates for Postapplication Exposure Exposure Scenario Route of Exposure Formulation DSMA Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) MOE at Day 0 Residential Turf ( High Contact Activities) 2.5 1,700 Residential Turf ( Mowing) 2.5 7,300 Home Garden ( Ornamentals) 2.5 1,900 Golfer Dermal Spray 2.5 25,000 Table 38: MSMA Adult Residential Risk Estimates for Postapplication Exposure Exposure Scenario Route of Exposure Formulation MSMA Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) MOE at Day 0 Residential Turf ( High Contact Activities) 3.4 1,300 Residential Turf ( Mowing) 3.4 5,400 Home Garden ( Ornamentals) 3.4 1,400 Golfer Dermal Spray 3.4 18,000 Youths ( 11 12 years old)

Risks ( MOEs) to youths were calculated for postapplication activities following the application of DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA to home lawns. Tables 39  42 summarize the risk assessment for youths. Short term MOEs for DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA for these youths were > 100 for all scenarios considered.

Table 39. DMA Youths Residential Risk Estimates for Postapplication Exposure Exposure Scenario Route of Exposure Formulation Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) MOE at Day 0 Spray   Lawn Edging 7.72 400 Residential Turf ( Mowing) Spray   Broadcast 7.3 420 Spray   Lawn Edging 7.72 410 Home Garden ( Ornamentals) Spray   Broadcast 7.3 430 Spray   Lawn Edging 7.72 1,400 Golfer Dermal Spray   Broadcast 7.3 1,400 Page 90 of 177 Table 40: CAMA Youths Residential Risk Estimates for Postapplication Exposure Exposure Scenario Route of Exposure Formulation CAMA Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) MOE at Day 0 4.4 2,300 3.7 2,800 Residential Turf ( Mowing) 2.2 4,600 4.4 2,400 3.7 2,800 Home Garden ( Ornamentals) 2.2 4,800 4.4 7,900 3.7 9,400 Golfer Dermal Spray 2.2 16,000 Table 41: DSMA Youths Residential Risk Estimates for Postapplication Exposure Exposure Scenario Route of Exposure Formulation DSMA Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) MOE at Day 0 Residential Turf ( Mowing) 2.5 4,100 Home Garden ( Ornamentals) 2.5 4,200 Golfer Dermal Spray 2.5 14,000 Table 42: MSMA Youths Residential Risk Estimates for Postapplication Exposure Exposure Scenario Route of Exposure Formulation MSMA Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) MOE at Day 0 Residential Turf ( Mowing) 3.4 3,000 Home Garden ( Ornamentals) 3.4 3,100 Golfer Dermal Spray 3.4 10,000 Toddler ( 3 year old)

Risks ( MOEs) to toddlers were calculated for postapplication risks following the application of DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA to home lawns. Tables 43   46 summarize the risk assessment for toddlers. The target level of concern for DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA dermal scenarios and for CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA incidental oral scenarios is 100 ( i. e., MOEs   100 is not of concern to HED). The target level of concern for DMA incidental oral scenarios is 30 ( i. e., MOEs   30 is not of concern to HED), since the endpoint is an BMDL10. Short term incidental oral MOEs for DMA for toddlers were < 30 for the hand to mouth activity and object to mouth activities on turf. Short term incidental oral MOEs for incidental soil ingestion of DMA were greater than 30 and not a concern to HED. Short term dermal MOEs for DMA were > 100 and were not a concern to HED. Short term dermal and incidental oral MOEs for CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA for toddlers were > 100 for all scenarios considered. Page 91 of 177 Table 43: DMA Toddler Residential Risk Estimates for Postapplication Exposure Exposure Scenario Route of Exposure Formulation Application Rate ( lb ai/ A) MOE  Day 0 Spray   Lawn Edging 7.72 100 Residential Turf ( High Contact Activities) Dermal Spray   Broadcast 7.3 110 Spray   Lawn Edging 7.72 4 Hand to Mouth Activity on Turf Spray   Broadcast 7.3 4 Spray   Lawn Edging 7.72 15 Object to Mouth Activity on Turf Spray   Broadcast 7.3 16 Spray   Lawn Edging 7.72 1,100 Incidental Soil Ingestion Oral Spray   Broadcast 7.3 1,200 Table 44: CAMA Toddler Residential Risk Estimates for Postapplication Exposure Exposure Scenario Route of Exposure Formulation CAMA Application Rate ( lb ai/ A) MOE  Day 0b 4.4 580 3.7 700 Residential Turf ( High Contact Activities) Dermal 2.2 1,200 4.4 110 3.7 130 Hand to Mouth Activity on Turf 2.2 210 4.4 430 3.7 510 Object to Mouth Activity on Turf 2.2 850 4.4 32,000 3.7 38,000 Incidental Soil Ingestion Oral Spray 2.2 64,000 Table 45: DSMA Toddler Residential Risk Estimates for Postapplication Exposure Exposure Scenario Route of Exposure Formulation DSMA Application Rate ( lb ai/ A) MOE  Day 0b Residential Turf ( High Contact Activities) Dermal 2.5 1,000 Hand to Mouth Activity on Turf 2.5 190 Object to Mouth Activity on Turf 2.5 750 Incidental Soil Ingestion Oral Spray 2.5 56,000 Table 46: MSMA Toddler Residential Risk Estimates for Postapplication Exposure Exposure Scenario Route of Exposure Formulation MSMA Application Rate ( lb ai/ A) MOE  Day 0b Residential Turf ( High Contact Activities) Dermal 3.4 760 Hand to Mouth Activity on Turf 3.4 140 Object to Mouth Activity on Turf 3.4 550 Incidental Soil Ingestion Oral Spray 3.4 41,000 Page 92 of 177 Combined Risk Assessment for Residential Scenarios HED combines risk values resulting from separate postapplication exposure scenarios when it is likely they can occur simultaneously based on the use pattern and the behavior associated with the exposed population. In the case of the DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA the dermal and incidental oral ingestion toxicological endpoints do not have the same toxicological effect therefore dermal and oral doses were not aggregated. An aggregate of incidental oral exposures were combined, including hand to mouth, object to mouth, and soil ingestion doses for toddlers. Tables 47  50 present a summary of the combined MOE estimates for DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA, respectively.

The combined risk assessment for exposures to toddlers following home lawn applications was calculated:

Combined MOE = NOAEL/( ADDhand to mouth + ADDobject to mouth + ADDincidental soil ingestion)

Calculated aggregated risks to toddlers ( i. e., hand to mouth activity, object to mouth activity on treated turf plus incidental soil ingestion of pesticide residue from treated turf areas) are of concern for applications of DMA at both application rates and for CAMA at the highest application rate of 4.4 lb ai/ acre. The target level of concern for DMA incidental oral scenarios is 30 ( i. e., MOE   30 is not of concern to HED), since the endpoint is a BMDL10. The aggregated risks from DMA treatment at both application rates are of concern, with MOEs of 3 for both use rates. The target level of concern for incidental ingestion scenarios for CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA is 100 ( i. e., MOE   100 is not of concern to HED.) A postapplication aggregated MOE of 85 was determined when assessing risks following treatment with CAMA at 4.4 lb ai/ acre. Application at the two lower use rates for CAMA resulted in MOEs which were above the level of concern. Aggregate MOEs calculated for DSMA and MSMA were above the target level of 100.

Table 47: DMA Residential Scenarios for Combined Risk Estimates  Toddlers Margins of Exposure ( MOEs)

Postapplication Exposure Scenario Short Term ( Non Dietary) Total Non Dietary Risk Turf Hand to Mouth 4 Object to Mouth 15 Turf: Lawn Edging ( 7.72 lb ai/ acre) Incidental Soil Ingestion 1,100 3 Hand to Mouth 4 Object to Mouth 16 Toddler Turf: Broadcast ( 7.3 lb ai/ acre) Incidental Soil Ingestion 1,200 3 Page 93 of 177 Table 48: CAMA Residential Scenarios for Combined Risk Estimates  Toddlers Margins of Exposure ( MOEs) ( UF= 100) Postapplication Exposure Scenario Short Term ( Non Dietary) Total Non Dietary Risk Turf Hand to Mouth 110 Object to Mouth 430 Turf ( 4.4 lb ai/ acre) Incidental Soil Ingestion 32,000 85 Hand to Mouth 130 Object to Mouth 510 Turf ( 3.7 lb ai/ acre) Incidental Soil Ingestion 38,000 101 Hand to Mouth 210 Object to Mouth 850 Toddler Turf ( 2.2 lb ai/ acre) Incidental Soil Ingestion 64,000 170 Table 49: DSMA Residential Scenarios for Combined Risk Estimates  Toddlers Margins of Exposure ( MOEs) ( UF= 100) Postapplication Exposure Scenario Short Term ( Non Dietary) Total Non Dietary Risk Turf Hand to Mouth 190 Object to Mouth 750 Toddler Turf ( 2.5 lb ai/ acre) Incidental Soil Ingestion 56,000 149 Table 50: MSMA Residential Scenarios for Combined Risk Estimates  Toddlers Margins of Exposure ( MOEs) ( UF= 100) Postapplication Exposure Scenario Short Term Oral ( Non Dietary) Total Non Dietary Risk Turf Hand to Mouth 140 Object to Mouth 550 Toddler Turf ( 3.4 lb ai/ acre) Incidental Soil Ingestion 41,000 110 3.2.4 Residential Postapplication Exposure Characterization HED considered a number of exposure scenarios for products that can be used in the residential environment representing different segments of the population including toddlers, youth aged children, and adults. Short term noncancer MOEs were calculated for all scenarios. Cancer risks were not calculated, since no toxicological endpoint for Page 94 of 177 cancer was selected. In residential settings, HED does not use restricted entry intervals or other mitigation approaches to limit postapplication exposures, because they are viewed as impractical and not enforceable. As such, risk estimates on the day of application are the key concern.

In the assessment for residential postapplication exposure and risk, there are risks of concern for DMA and CAMA, as they are currently used in a residential environment. In the assessment for residential postapplication exposure and risk, there are risks of concern for DMA, as they are currently used in a residential environment. The endpoint used to assess these incidental oral exposures ( BMDL10) comes from data measured at 10 weeks of DMA exposure in the feed to female rats ( Arnold et al, 1999). However, Cohen et al, ( 2001) shows that regenerative proliferation occurred as early as 1 week into the DMA exposure. HED believes that using the Arnold ( 1999) study ( with the Cohen 2001 study as characterization) in conjunction with Day 0 DMA residues ( calculated from the labeled application rates), constitutes the use of the best available data and that the results can be considered conservative for risk assessment purposes.

In order to refine this residential assessment, data on actual use patterns including rates, timing, and the kinds of tasks performed are required to better characterize DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA risks.

3.2.5 Residential Postapplication Exposure to Inorganic Arsenic The Federal Government and most states have established limits and/ or screening levels for " total arsenic" ( unspeciated) exposure from a variety of sources; drinking water, air, and soil. Typically in monitoring programs, arsenic is measured and reported as total arsenic, regardless of what species, or mixture of species, may be present. These limits or screening levels are established based on risks ( cancer) from exposure to iAs and technically feasible clean up levels. As mentioned previously, the differing species ( DMA, MMA, iAs) of arsenic have dissimilar toxicities and target organs; iAs being the most toxic. An extensive review of the literature, as well as limited speciated monitoring data, have shown that exposure to iAs can occur from the registered uses of the organic arsenics as well as from background residues already in the soil, given time and under environmental conditions that favor the transformation to iAs. In some media ( food, water, soil) and in some parts of the United States, the likelihood of exposure to iAs is higher than in others. Under FQPA, the Agency is required to consider all potential sources of exposure to the organic arsenics, and their metabolites and/ or transformation products. Since the limits and/ or screening levels are established for total arsenic ( all species included) and there is potential for transformation and exposure to iAs from the registered uses of the organic arsenics, an analysis for potential risks from exposure to iAs was performed, which included a comparison of estimated exposures from registered uses to existing regulatory limits or screening levels.

The active ingredients DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA are all organic species of arsenic. Since inorganic arsenic is an element, it is not subject to biological or Page 95 of 177 chemical degradation in the environment. CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA are salts of MMA and quickly covert to MMA when mixed in water before application. Following application, under certain conditions, MMA converts to DMA and/ or to iAs. Similarly, following application, under certain conditions, DMA converts to iAs. Data available to date indicate that MMA and DMA are stable in the environment when they remain on the outside of the treated foliage of plants. They transform to other species in the environment only when inside a plant or in the soil, suggesting microbial or enzymatic involvement. Therefore, for the purposes of HED's assessment of occupational and residential postapplication exposures and risks, the dermal and incidental oral exposures to foliar surfaces are conducted using the form that was applied ( i. e., MMA when CAMA, DSMA, or MSMA was applied or DMA when DMA was applied). Postapplication inhalation exposures are not a concern due to the low vapor pressure of the organic and inorganic forms and the infinite dilution in outdoor environments.

HED must consider the possible in soil conversion of MMA to DMA or to iAs and the possible conversion of DMA to iAs to appropriately assess the range of potential risks from postapplication dermal exposures to the soil ( i. e., in harvesting/ transplanting sod or lawn renovation) and from postapplication incidental oral exposures to toddlers ingesting soil. Several factors appear to influence the conversion of organic arsenic to the inorganic form in soil, including soil organic matter, soil moisture, soil temperature and the concentration and species of the arsenic in the soil.

HED generally assumes a degradation curve where the pesticide residues degrade over time to nontoxic byproducts when assessing postapplication exposure and risk. However, with the organic arsenical herbicides, the metabolites, when formed, may be more toxic than the initial residue ( i. e., iAs is more toxic than DMA and MMA). Also, for most pesticides, residues typically degrade over time to nondetectable levels. However, arsenic in its inorganic form does not degrade and evidence indicates that it may build up in soil over time as applications are repeated.

For postapplication dermal exposures and incidental ingestion of soil, HED is concerned both about the build up of arsenicals in the soil ( of any species) and the possible transformation in soil to more toxic forms. At this time, because of the dynamic and variable nature of transformation, HED does not have sufficient data to estimate either the percent of conversion from one form of arsenic to another ( i. e., from a less toxic to more toxic form) or the amount of time necessary for the conversion to take place. Consequently, it is not possible at this time to perform a refined quantitative risk assessment from soil treated repeatedly with organic arsenical herbicides. HED notes that incidental ingestion of soil by toddlers results in risks not of concern when assessed for exposures following a single application of either MMA or DMA. Even assuming that all residues from four applications per year ( maximum allowed) converted to iAs in the soil and that all of the iAs was 100% bioavailable from the soil   both very conservative assumptions   the risks would not be a concern when compared to dermal and incidental oral endpoints established for iAs by EPA/ OPP's Antimicrobial Division ( Chen 2001). However, the potential risks to toddlers incidentally ingesting soil from an area that had been treated with compounds that transformed to iAs for several years Page 96 of 177 might be a concern, depending on the amount of arsenic that remained on site ( versus runoff or leaching) and the degree of conversion to the more toxic iAs that had occurred. Likewise, the risks to adults dermally exposed while performing tasks involving high contact with the soil, such as turf transplanting or harvesting, would not be a concern assuming established soil adherence factors for dermal exposures, and that all residues from four applications per year ( maximum allowed) converted to iAs in the soil and were 100 percent bioavailable from the soil. However, the risks to adults contacting soil from an area that had been treated with compounds that transformed to iAs for several years might be a concern, depending on the amount of arsenic that remained on site ( versus runoff or leaching) and the degree of conversion to the more toxic iAs that has occurred.

HED has also attempted to estimate arsenic levels in soil and then compare these values to the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response's ( OSWER) arsenic soil screening levels ( SSLs). SSLs are not national clean up standards and SSLs alone do not define " unacceptable" levels of contaminants in soil. Screening refers to the process of identifying and defining areas, contaminants, and conditions, at a particular site that do not require further Federal attention. Generally, at sites where contaminant concentrations fall below SSLs, no further action or study is warranted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( CERCLA), commonly known as " Superfund." When contaminant concentrations equal or exceed SSLs, further study or investigation, but not necessarily clean up, is warranted. Detailed information on SSLs is available at: http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund/ resources/ soil.

The SSL for total arsenic ( unspeciated) is 0.4 ppm. State cleanup levels for total arsenic vary by state and site from 0.1 ppm to 200 ppm depending on land use ( i. e., residential, industrial, agricultural, recreational), background level, and other factors. The arsenic SSL is based on a value that corresponds to a 10 6 excess risk level using the iAs cancer slope factor. This " target" hazard quotient is used to calculate the 0.4 ppm total arsenic soil screening level, below which, it is unlikely that sensitive populations will experience adverse health effects resulting from exposure to total arsenic.

In order to estimate arsenic levels in soil, HED assumed that all residues from an application of either MMA or DMA converted to iAs and were 100% bioavailable from the soil ( both very conservative assumptions). In all cases, after one application, the arsenic levels in soil exceeded the 0.4 ppm SSL for total arsenic. HED believes the possibility of exceeding the arsenic SSL would increase with the number of arsenic applications as arsenic in its inorganic form does not degrade and evidence indicates that it may build up in soil overtime as applications are repeated. More detailed information regarding arsenic transformation, mobility, and soil buildup can be found in Moore 2006.

3.2.6 Residential Postapplication Exposure and Risk Estimates for Cancer Residential postapplication cancer risks were not assessed for DMA, CAMA, DSMA, or MSMA because no cancer endpoints of concern were identified. Page 97 of 177 3.2.7 Summary of Residential Postapplication Risk Concerns and Data Gaps HED considered a number of exposure scenarios for products that can be used in the residential environment representing different segments of the population including toddlers, youth aged children, and adults. Short term noncancer MOEs were calculated for all scenarios. Cancer risks were not calculated, since no toxicological endpoint for cancer was selected. In residential settings, HED does not use restricted entry intervals or other mitigation approaches to limit postapplication exposures, because they are viewed as impractical and not enforceable. As such, risk estimates on the day of application are the key concern.

In the assessment for residential postapplication exposure and risk, there are a few risk concerns for DMA and CAMA as they are currently used in a residential environment.

3.2.8 Recommendations for Refining Residential Postapplication Risk Assessments In order to refine this residential assessment, data on actual use patterns including rates, timing, and the kinds of tasks performed are required to better characterize DMA, CAMA, DSMA, and MSMA risks. Page 98 of 177 References Arnold et al., 1999.

Franzblau, A. and Lilis, R. 1989. Acute Arsenic Intoxication from Environmental Arsenic Exposure. Archives of Envir. Health 44( 6). 385 390. MRID 45496802.

Mizuta, N, Mizuta, et al. 1956. An Outbreak of Acute Arsenic Poisoning Caused by Arsenic 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. MRID 444598 01 D. Merricks. ( 1997).

Containing Soy Sauce ( Shoyu). A Clinical Report of 220 Cases. Bull Yamaguchi Med Sch 4( 2 3): 131 149. MRID 45496803.

Integrated Report for Evaluation of Potential Exposures to Homeowners and Professional Lawn Care Operators Mixing, Loading, and Applying Granular and Liquid Pesticides to Residential Lawns. MRID 449722 01. D. Klonne. ( 1999).

U. S. EPA 1996. Non Dietary Cancer Risk Policy. Daniel Brown. August 14, 1996.

U. S. EPA 1997. Draft Standard Operating Procedures ( SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments. December 1997 with revisions stated in Overview of Issues Related to The Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Exposure Assessments. Presented to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel on September 21, 1999.

U. S. EPA 1998. PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide. Version 1.1. Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, August 1998.

U. S. EPA 1999a. Cacodylic Acid: Hazard Identification Committee Report. June 10, 1999.

U. S. EPA 1999b. Cacodylic Acid  Ad Hoc Meeting of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee. December 14, 1999.

U. S. EPA 2000a. FQPA Committee memo on Cacodylic Acid. January 5, 2000.

USEPA 2000b. Request to Use MSMA Turf Transferable Residue Data as Surrogate Data for Cacodylic Acid and Sodium Cacodylate in Lieu of Conducting Studies ( PC Code 012501 and DP Barcode 258787). Renee SAndvig. February 9, 2000. Page 99 of 177 U. S. EPA. 2001. Inorganic Arsenic Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee. August 21, 2001. Page 100 of 177 Appendix A

DMA Occupational Handler Exposures and Risks Page 101 of 177 Table A1. DMA Occupational Dermal Exposures and Risks Dermal Unit Exposures ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Dermal MOEg Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of DMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyb ( acres) Baselinec PPE w/ Glovesd PPE double layer w/ glovese Eng Conf Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Mixer/ Loader Cotton ( defoliation) 0.8 1200 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 40 0.32 0.23 0.12 7.5 950 1300 2500 Mixing/ Loading Liquid Concentrates for Aerial Applications ( 1a) Cotton ( preconditionin g for defoliation) 0.3 1200 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 15 0.12 0.087 0.044 20 2500 3400 6800 Cotton ( defoliation) 0.8 200 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 6.6 0.053 0.039 0.02 45 5700 7700 15000 Cotton ( preconditionin g for defoliation) 0.3 200 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 2.5 0.02 0.015 0.0074 120 15000 21000 41000 Non crop 7.3 100 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 30 0.24 0.18 0.09 9.9 1300 1700 3300 Mixing/ Loading Liquids Concentrates for Groundboom Applications ( 1b) Non bearing citrus orchards 4.96 80 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 16 0.13 0.096 0.049 18 2300 3100 6200 Page 102 of 177 Table A1. DMA Occupational Dermal Exposures and Risks Dermal Unit Exposures ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Dermal MOEg Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of DMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyb ( acres) Baselinec PPE w/ Glovesd PPE double layer w/ glovese Eng Conf Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Lawn edging 7.72 100 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 32 0.25 0.19 0.095 9.4 1200 1600 3200 Mixing/ Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support LCO Handgun Applications ( mixing/ loading supports 20 LCOs) ( 1c) Lawn renovation 7.3 100 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 30 0.24 0.18 0.09 9.9 1300 1700 3300 Mixing/ Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support Rights of Way ( 1d) Non crop 7.3 80 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 24 0.19 0.14 0.072 12 1600 2100 4200 Applicator Cotton ( defoliation) 0.8 1200 No Data No Data No Data 0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.069 No Data No Data No Data 4400 Applying Sprays via Aerial Equipment ( 2) Cotton ( preconditionin g for defoliation) 0.3 1200 No Data No Data No Data 0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.026 No Data No Data No Data 12000 Applying Sprays via Groundboom Equipment ( 3) Cotton ( defoliation) 0.8 200 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.005 0.032 0.032 0.025 0.011 9400 9400 12000 26000 Page 103 of 177 Table A1. DMA Occupational Dermal Exposures and Risks Dermal Unit Exposures ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Dermal MOEg Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of DMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyb ( acres) Baselinec PPE w/ Glovesd PPE double layer w/ glovese Eng Conf Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Cotton ( preconditionin g for defoliation) 0.3 200 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.005 0.012 0.012 0.0094 0.0043 25000 25000 32000 70000 Non crop 7.3 100 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.005 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.052 2100 2100 2600 5800 Non bearing citrus orchards 4.96 80 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.005 0.079 0.079 0.062 0.028 3800 3800 4800 11000 Lawn edging 7.72 5 No Data 0.34 0.19 Not Feasible No Data 0.19 0.1 No Data No Data 1600 2900 No Data Applying Sprays via Handgun Equipment ( 4) Lawn renovation 7.3 5 No Data 0.34 0.19 Not Feasible No Data 0.18 0.099 No Data No Data 1700 3000 No Data Applying Sprays via Rights of Way Equipment ( 5) Non crop 7.3 80 1.3 0.39 0.29 Not Feasible 11 3.3 2.4 No Data 28 92 120 No Data Flagger Cotton ( defoliation) 0.8 350 0.011 Not applicable 0.01 0.00022 0.044 No Data 0.04 0.00088 6800 No Data 7500 340000 Flagging for Aerial Sprays Applications ( 6) Cotton ( preconditionin g for defoliation) 0.3 350 0.011 Not applicable 0.01 0.00022 0.017 No Data 0.015 0.00033 18000 No Data 20000 910000 Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Page 104 of 177 Table A1. DMA Occupational Dermal Exposures and Risks Dermal Unit Exposures ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Dermal MOEg Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of DMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyb ( acres) Baselinec PPE w/ Glovesd PPE double layer w/ glovese Eng Conf Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Non bearing citrus orchards 4.96 5 15 0.33 Data available Not Feasible 5.3 0.12 No Data Not Feasible 56 2600 No Data Not Feasible Lawn edging 7.72 5 15 0.33 Data available Not Feasible 8.3 0.18 No Data Not Feasible 36 1600 No Data Not Feasible Lawn renovation 7.3 5 15 0.33 Data available Not Feasible 7.8 0.17 No Data Not Feasible 38 1700 No Data Not Feasible Mixing/ Loading/

Applying Liquid Concentrates with Low Pressure Handwand ( ORETF) ( 7) Non crop 7.3 5 15 0.33 Data available Not Feasible 7.8 0.17 No Data Not Feasible 38 1700 No Data Not Feasible Non bearing citrus orchards 4.96 5 No Data 0.45 0.245 Not Feasible No Data 0.16 0.087 Not Feasible No Data 1900 3500 Not Feasible Mixing/ Loading/

Applying Liquid Concentrates with a Handgun Sprayer ( LCO ORETF data) ( 8) Lawn edging 7.72 5 No Data 0.45 0.245 Not Feasible No Data 0.25 0.14 Not Feasible No Data 1200 2200 Not Feasible Page 105 of 177 Table A1. DMA Occupational Dermal Exposures and Risks Dermal Unit Exposures ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Dermal MOEg Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of DMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyb ( acres) Baselinec PPE w/ Glovesd PPE double layer w/ glovese Eng Conf Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Lawn renovation 7.3 5 No Data 0.45 0.245 Not Feasible No Data 0.23 0.13 Not Feasible No Data 1300 2300 Not Feasible Non crop 7.3 5 No Data 0.45 0.245 Not Feasible No Data 0.23 0.13 Not Feasible No Data 1300 2300 Not Feasible Applying Ready to Use Formulations via Trigger Pump Sprayer ( ORETF)

( 9) Non crop 0.00017 1000 42 1.8 Data available Not Feasible 0.1 0.0043 No Data Not Feasible 3000 70000 No Data Not Feasible Lawn edging 0.00018 1000 11 No Data No Data Not Feasible 0.028 No Data No Data No Data 11000 No Data No Data Not Feasible Mixing/ Loading/

Applying Liquids with a Watering Can ( using ORETF residential hoseend data) ( 11) Lawn renovation 0.00017 1000 11 No Data No Data Not Feasible 0.026 No Data No Data No Data 11000 No Data No Data Not Feasible a Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for DMA b Amount handled per day values are HED estimates of acres or gallons or other area/ amount treated per day based on industry sources and HED estimates.

c Baseline is long sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes, socks and no gloves and no respirator d Single layer w/ gloves is baseline attire plus chemical resistant gloves.

e Double layer w/ gloves is coveralls worn over long sleeve shirt and long pants, plus chemical resistant gloves.

f Engineering control is closed mixing/ loading system, enclosed cab, or enclosed cockpit.

g Dermal MOE = NOAEL ( 300 mg/ kg/ day) / dermal daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day), where dermal dose = daily unit exposure ( mg/ lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day / body weight ( 70 kg adult). Page 106 of 177 Table A2. DMA Occupational Inhalation Exposures and Risks Inhalation Unit Exposures ( ug/ lb ai) Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Inhalation MOEg Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of DMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyb ( acres) Baselinec 80%

PPE Rd 90%

PPE Re Eng Conf Baseline 80% PPER 90% PPER Eng Cont Baseline 80% PPER 90% PPER Eng Cont Mixer/ Loader Cotton ( defoliation) 0.8 1200 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.016 0.0033 0.0016 0.0011 270 1300 2700 3800 Mixing/ Loading Liquid Concentrates for Aerial Applications ( 1a) Cotton ( preconditioning for defoliation) 0.3 1200 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.0062 0.0012 0.00062 0.00043 710 3500 7100 10000 Cotton ( defoliation) 0.8 200 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.0027 0.00055 0.00027 0.00019 1600 8000 16000 23000 Cotton ( preconditioning for defoliation) 0.3 200 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.001 0.00021 0.0001 0.000071 4300 21000 43000 62000 Non crop 7.3 100 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.013 0.0025 0.0013 0.00087 350 1800 3500 5100 Mixing/ Loading Liquids Concentrates for Groundboom Applications ( 1b) Non bearing citrus orchards 4.96 80 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.0068 0.0014 0.00068 0.00047 640 3200 6400 9300 Page 107 of 177 Table A2. DMA Occupational Inhalation Exposures and Risks Inhalation Unit Exposures ( ug/ lb ai) Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Inhalation MOEg Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of DMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyb ( acres) Baselinec 80%

PPE Rd 90%

PPE Re Eng Conf Baseline 80% PPER 90% PPER Eng Cont Baseline 80% PPER 90% PPER Eng Cont Lawn edging 7.72 100 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.013 0.0026 0.0013 0.00092 330 1700 3300 4800 Mixing/ Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support LCO Handgun Applications ( mixing/ loading supports 20 LCOs) ( 1c) Lawn renovation 7.3 100 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.013 0.0025 0.0013 0.00087 350 1800 3500 5100 Mixing/ Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support Rights of Way ( 1d) Non crop 7.3 80 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.01 0.002 0.001 0.00069 440 2200 4400 6300 Applicator Cotton ( defoliation) 0.8 1200 No Data No Data No Data 0.068 No Data No Data No Data 0.00093 No Data No Data No Data 4700 Cotton ( preconditioning for defoliation) 0.3 1200 No Data No Data No Data 0.068 No Data No Data No Data 0.00035 No Data No Data No Data 13000 Cotton ( defoliation) 0.8 200 0.74 0.148 0.074 0.043 0.0017 0.00034 0.00017 0.000098 2600 13000 26000 45000 Applying Sprays via Aerial Equipment ( 2)

Applying Sprays via Groundboom Equipment ( 3) Cotton ( preconditioning for defoliation) 0.3 200 0.74 0.148 0.074 0.043 0.00063 0.00013 0.000063 0.000037 6900 35000 69000 120000 Page 108 of 177 Table A2. DMA Occupational Inhalation Exposures and Risks Inhalation Unit Exposures ( ug/ lb ai) Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Inhalation MOEg Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of DMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyb ( acres) Baselinec 80%

PPE Rd 90%

PPE Re Eng Conf Baseline 80% PPER 90% PPER Eng Cont Baseline 80% PPER 90% PPER Eng Cont Non crop 7.3 100 0.74 0.148 0.074 0.043 0.0077 0.0015 0.00077 0.00045 570 2800 5700 9800 Non bearing citrus orchards 4.96 80 0.74 0.148 0.074 0.043 0.0042 0.00084 0.00042 0.00024 1000 5200 10000 18000 Lawn edging 7.72 5 1.4 0.28 0.14 Not Feasible 0.00077 0.00015 0.00077 No Data 5700 28000 57000 No Data Applying Sprays via Handgun Equipment ( 4) Lawn renovation 7.3 5 1.4 0.28 0.14 Not Feasible 0.00073 0.00015 0.00073 No Data 6000 30000 60000 No Data Applying Sprays via Rights of Way Equipment ( 5) Non crop 7.3 80 3.9 0.78 0.39 Not Feasible 0.033 0.0065 0.0033 No Data 130 670 1300 No Data Flagger Cotton ( defoliation) 0.8 350 0.35 0.07 0.035 0.007 0.0014 0.00028 0.00014 0.000028 3100 16000 31000 160000 Flagging for Aerial Sprays Applications ( 6) Cotton ( preconditioning for defoliation) 0.3 350 0.35 0.07 0.035 0.007 0.00053 0.00011 0.000053 0.000011 8300 42000 83000 420000 Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Mixing/ Loading/

Applying Liquid Concentrates with Low Pressure Handwand ( ORETF) ( 7) Non bearing citrus orchards 4.96 5 2.7 0.54 0.27 Not Feasible 0.00096 0.00019 0.000096 Not Feasible 4600 23000 46000 Not Feasible Page 109 of 177 Table A2. DMA Occupational Inhalation Exposures and Risks Inhalation Unit Exposures ( ug/ lb ai) Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Inhalation MOEg Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of DMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyb ( acres) Baselinec 80%

PPE Rd 90%

PPE Re Eng Conf Baseline 80% PPER 90% PPER Eng Cont Baseline 80% PPER 90% PPER Eng Cont Lawn edging 7.72 5 2.7 0.54 0.27 Not Feasible 0.0015 0.0003 0.00015 Not Feasible 2900 15000 29000 Not Feasible Lawn renovation 7.3 5 2.7 0.54 0.27 Not Feasible 0.0014 0.00028 0.00014 Not Feasible 3100 16000 31000 Not Feasible Non crop 7.3 5 2.7 0.54 0.27 Not Feasible 0.0014 0.00028 0.00014 Not Feasible 3100 16000 31000 Not Feasible Non bearing citrus orchards 4.96 5 1.8 0.36 0.18 Not Feasible 0.00064 0.00013 0.000064 Not Feasible 6900 34000 69000 Not Feasible Lawn edging 7.72 5 1.8 0.36 0.18 Not Feasible 0.00099 0.0002 0.000099 Not Feasible 4400 22000 44000 Not Feasible Mixing/ Loading/

Applying Liquid Concentrates with a Handgun Sprayer ( LCO ORETF data) ( 8) Lawn renovation 7.3 5 1.8 0.36 0.18 Not Feasible 0.00094 0.00019 0.000094 Not Feasible 4700 23000 47000 Not Feasible Page 110 of 177 Table A2. DMA Occupational Inhalation Exposures and Risks Inhalation Unit Exposures ( ug/ lb ai) Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Inhalation MOEg Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of DMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyb ( acres) Baselinec 80%

PPE Rd 90%

PPE Re Eng Conf Baseline 80% PPER 90% PPER Eng Cont Baseline 80% PPER 90% PPER Eng Cont Non crop 7.3 5 1.8 0.36 0.18 Not Feasible 0.00094 0.00019 0.000094 Not Feasible 4700 23000 47000 Not Feasible Applying Ready to Use Formulations via Trigger Pump Sprayer ( ORETF)

( 9) Non crop 0.00017 1000 19 3.8 1.9 Not Feasible 0.000045 0.0000091 0.0000045 Not Feasible 96000 480000 960000 Not Feasible Lawn edging 0.00018 1000 17 3.4 1.7 Not Feasible 0.000043 0.0000086 0.0000043 No Data 100000 510000 1000000 Not Feasible Mixing/ Loading/

Applying Liquids with a Watering Can ( using ORETF residential hoseend data) ( 11) Lawn renovation 0.00017 1000 17 3.4 1.7 Not Feasible 0.000041 0.0000081 0.0000041 No Data 110000 540000 1100000 Not Feasible a Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for DMA b Amount handled per day values are HED estimates of acres, miles, or feet treated per day based on industry sources and HED estimates.

c Baseline is no respirator d 80% Respirator is quarter face dust/ mist respirator ( that provides an 80% protection factor).

e 90% Respirator is half face dust/ mist respirator ( that provides a 90% protection factor).

f Engineering control is closed mixing/ loading system or enclosed cockpit.

g Inhalation MOE = NOAEL ( 4.38 mg/ kg/ day) / inhalation daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day), where inhalation dose = daily unit exposure ( mg/ lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day / body weight ( 70 kg adult) Page 111 of 177 Appendix B

DMA Residential Handler Exposure and Risk Appendices Page 112 of 177 Table B1. DMA Residential Handler Exposures and Risks Baseline Unit Exposure Baseline Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Baseline MOE Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Applicatio n Ratea ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyb ( lb ai/ acre) Dermalc( mg/

lb ai) Inhalationd ( ug/ lb ai) Dermal Inhalation Dermale Inhalationf Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Lawn edging 7.72 0.5 38 2.7 2.1 0.00015 140 29000 Lawn renovation 7.3 0.5 38 2.7 2 0.00014 150 31000 Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with Low Pressure Handwand ( ORETF gardens) ( 1) Non crop 7.3 0.5 38 2.7 2 0.00014 150 31000 Lawn edging 7.72 0.5 11 17 0.61 0.00094 490 4700 Lawn renovation 7.3 0.5 11 17 0.57 0.00089 520 4900 Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with Hose End Sprayer ( Residential ORETF data)

( 2) Non crop 7.3 0.5 11 17 0.57 0.00089 520 4900 Lawn edging 7.72 0.5 2.6 11 0.14 0.00061 2100 7200 Lawn renovation 7.3 0.5 2.6 11 0.14 0.00057 2200 7600 Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with RTU Hose End Sprayer ( Residential ORETF data)

( 3) Non crop 7.3 0.5 2.6 11 0.14 0.00057 2200 7600 Lawn edging 0.00018 1000 11 16 0.028 0.000041 11000 110000 Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with a Watering Can ( using ORETF residential hose end data) ( 4) Lawn renovation 0.00017 1000 11 16 0.026 0.000038 11000 110000 Lawn edging 0.00018 1000 13.5 123 0.034 0.00031 8800 14000 Lawn renovation 0.00017 1000 13.5 123 0.032 0.00029 9300 15000 Applying Ready to Use Formulations via Trigger Pump Sprayer ( using Propoxur study) ( 5) Non crop 0.00017 1000 13.5 123 0.032 0.00029 9300 15000 Page 113 of 177 Table B1. DMA Residential Handler Exposures and Risks Baseline Unit Exposure Baseline Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Baseline MOE Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Applicatio n Ratea ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyb ( lb ai/ acre) Dermalc( mg/

lb ai) Inhalationd ( ug/ lb ai) Dermal Inhalation Dermale Inhalationf Lawn edging 0.00018 1000 54 19 0.14 0.000048 2200 91000 Lawn renovation 0.00017 1000 54 19 0.13 0.000045 2300 96000 Applying Ready to Use Formulations via Trigger Pump Sprayer ( ORETF) ( 6) Non crop 0.00017 1000 54 19 0.13 0.000045 2300 96000 a Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for cacodylic acid b Amount handled per day values are HED estimates of acres, square feet, or gallons applied based on the Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Assessments,

industry sources, and HED estimates.

c Baseline Dermal is short sleeve shirt, short pants, shoes, socks and no gloves d Baseline Inhalation: no respirator.

e Dermal MOE = NOAEL ( 300 mg/ kg/ day) / dermal daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day), where dermal dose = daily unit exposure ( mg/ lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day x dermal absorption factor / body weight ( 70 kg adult).

f Inhalation MOE = NOAEL ( 4.38 mg/ kg/ day) / inhalation daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day), where inhalation dose = daily unit exposure ( mg/ lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day / body weight ( 70 kg adult). Page 114 of 177 Appendix C

DMA Residential Postapplication Exposure and Risk Appendices Page 115 of 177 Table C1  Oral Exposure from Hand to Mouth Activity on DMA Treated Turf Exposure Scenario Formulation Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) Fraction AI Transferable Surface area of hands ( cm2) Exposure Frequency ( events/ hr) Saliva Extraction Factor Exposure Time ( hrs/ day) Body Weight ( kg) Average Daily Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Incidental Oral MOE 7.72 5% 20 20 50% 2 15 0.115 4 Hand to Mouth Spray 7.3 5% 20 20 50% 2 15 0.109 4 Average Daily Oral Dose Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = AR ( mg/ cm2) x SAhand ( cm2) x EXT x FQ( events/ hr) x ET( hrs/ day)

BW ( kg)

Where:

Rmg/ cm2 = application rate ( mg/ cm2)

F = fraction of residue transferable from treated turf (%)

SAhand = surface area of 1 to 3 fingers ( cm2)

EXT = extraction rate by saliva (%)

FQ = frequency of hand to mouth events ( events/ hour)

ET = exposure duration ( hours/ day)

BW = body weight ( kg)

Assumptions:

F  The fraction of residue transferable from turf is 5%

SA  The surface area of 1 to 3 fingers is 20 cm2 FQ  The frequency of hand to mouth events is 20 events per hour EXT  The extraction rate by saliva is 50%.

ET  The time spent outdoors is 2 hours/ day BW  Body weight of a toddler is 15 kg Application Rate ( mg/ cm2) = AR ( lb ai/ A) * CF1 * CF2 Where:

APlb/ A = application rate ( lb ai/ A)

CF1 = weight unit conversion factor to convert the lbs ai in the application rate to mg ( 4.54 x 105 mg/ lb)

CF2 = area unit conversion factor to convert the surface area units ( acres) in the application rate to cm2 ( 2.47 x 10 8 acre/ cm2) Page 116 of 177 Table C2  Oral Exposure from Mouthing DMA Treated Turf Exposure Scenario Formulation Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) Fraction AI Transferable Body Weight ( kg) Surface area of turf mouthed ( cm2) Average Daily Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Incidental Oral MOE 7.72 20% 15 25 0.029 15 Object to Mouth ( Tier 3) Spray 7.3 20% 15 25 0.027 16 Average Daily Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = AR ( mg/ cm2) x F x SA ( cm2)

BW ( kg)

Where:

ADOD = oral dose on day of application ( mg/ kg/ day)

ARmg/ cm2 = application rate ( mg/ cm2)

F = fraction of residue transferable from treated turf (%)

SA = surface area of turf mouthed ( cm2/ day)

BW = body weight ( kg)

Assumptions:

SA  The surface area of turf mouthed is 25 cm2/ day F  The fraction of residue transferable from treated turf is 20%

BW  Body weight of a toddler is 15 kg Application Rate ( mg/ cm2) = AR ( lb ai/ A) * CF1 * CF2 Where:

APlb/ A = application rate ( lb ai/ A)

CF1 = weight unit conversion factor to convert the lbs ai in the application rate to mg ( 4.54 x 105 mg/ lb)

CF2 = area unit conversion factor to convert the surface area units ( acres) in the application rate to cm2 ( 2.47 x 10 8 acre/ cm2) Page 117 of 177 Table C3  Oral Exposure to DMA from Incidental Soil Ingestion Exposure Scenario Formulation Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) % of rate in uppermost 1 cm of soil Ingestion Rate ( mg/ day) Body Weight ( kg) Soil Residue ( ug/ g) Average Daily Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Incidental Oral MOE 7.72 100% 100 15 58.0 0.00039 1,100 Soil Ingestion Spray 7.3 100% 100 15 54.8 0.00037 1,200 Average Daily Oral Dose = AR ( mg/ cm2) x F ( cm) x IgR( mg/ day) x SDF ( cm3/ mg)

BW ( kg)

Where:

ADOD = oral dose on day of application ( mg/ kg/ day)

ARmg/ cm2 = application rate ( mg/ cm2)

F = fraction or residue retained on uppermost 1 cm of soil (%) ( note: this is an adjustment from surface area to volume)

SDF = soil density factor  volume of soil ( cm3) per microgram of soil;

IgR = ingestion rate of soil ( mg/ day)

BW = body weight ( kg)

Assumptions:

F  fraction or residue retained on uppermost 1 cm of soil is 100 percent based on soil incorporation into top 1 cm of soil after application ( 1.0/ cm)

SDF = soil density factor  volume of soil ( cm3) per gram of soil; to weight 6.7 x 10 4 cm3/ mg soil)

IgR  ingestion rate of soil is 100 mg/ day BW  body weight of a toddler is 15 kg Application Rate ( mg/ cm2) = AR ( lb ai/ A) * CF1 * CF2 Where:

APlb/ A = application rate ( lb ai/ A)

CF1 = weight unit conversion factor to convert the lbs ai in the application rate to mg ( 4.54 x 105 mg/ lb)

CF2 = area unit conversion factor to convert the surface area units ( acres) in the application rate to cm2 ( 2.47 x 10 8 acre/ cm2) Page 118 of 177 Table C4. Dermal Exposure from DMA Treated Turfgrass Exposure Scenario Formulation Age Group Exposed Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) Default transferable residue (%) Hours of Exposure Transfer Coefficient ( cm2/ hr) Absorbed Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Dermal MOE 7.72 1.8 170 Adult 7.3 14,500 1.7 180 7.72 3 100 High Contact Lawn Activities Spray Toddler 7.3 5% 2 5,200 2.8 110 7.72 0.42 710 Adult 7.3 0.4 750 7.72 0.75 400 Mowing Turf Spray Youths ( 10 12 yrs) 7.3 5% 2 3400 0.71 420 7.72 1.7 180 Adult 7.3 0.67 10,000 1.6 190 7.72 0.73 410 Gardening Spray Youths ( 10 12 yrs) 7.3 20% 0.33 5,000 0.69 430 7.72 0.12 2,400 Adult 7.3 0.12 2,600 7.72 0.22 1,400 Golfer Spray Youths ( 10 12 yrs) 7.3 5% 4 500 0.21 1,400 Average Daily Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = TTR ( mg/ cm2) x TC ( cm2/ hr) x ET ( hr/ day) x DA (%)

BW ( kg)

Where:

ADDD = Dermal exposure at on day of application attributable for activity in a previously treated area ( mg/ kg/ day)

ARmg/ cm2 = application rate ( mg/ cm2)

F = fraction of residue transferable from treated turf (%)

TC = Transfer Coefficient ( cm2/ hour);

ET = Exposure Time ( hours/ day);

DA = Dermal Absorption ( 5); and BW = Body Weight ( kg)

Assumptions:

F  fraction of residue transferable from treated turf is 5%; dislodgeable from garden foliage is 20%; Page 119 of 177 TC  The assumed transfer coefficients ( TCs) for adults and children performing short term high contact activities on treated turf are 14,500 and 5,200 cm2/ hour, respectively. The assumed transfer coefficients ( TCs) for adults and children performing short term high contact activities in treated gardens are 10,000 and 5,000 200 cm2/ hour, respectively. Golfing, mowing and other low contact activities were assumed to have a TC of 500 cm2/ hour.

ET  exposure time for high contact activities on residential lawns is 2 hours; exposure time for adults and children while gardening are 0.67 and 0.33 hours, respectively.; exposure time while golfing is 4 hours.

DA  Dermal absorption is 30%

BW  body weight for a toddler is 15 kg; for a youth is 39 kg; for an adult is 70 kg.

Application Rate ( mg/ cm2) = AR ( lb ai/ A) * CF1 * CF2 Where:

APlb/ A = application rate ( lb ai/ A)

CF1 = weight unit conversion factor to convert the lbs ai in the application rate to mg ( 4.54 x 105 mg/ lb)

CF2 = area unit conversion factor to convert the surface area units ( acres) in the application rate to cm2 ( 2.47 x 10 8 acre/ cm2) Page 120 of 177 Table C5   Combined DMA Incidental Oral Exposures to Toddlers from Postapplication Exposures to Treated Turf Exposure Scenario Application Type Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) Hand to Mouth Average Daily Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Object to Mouth Average Daily Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Soil Ingestion Average Daily Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Combined Average Daily Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Combined Incidental Oral MOE 7.72 0.115 0.029 0.00039 0.145 3 Toddler on Turf Spray 7.3 0.109 0.027 0.00037 0.137 3 Page 121 of 177 Appendix D

CAMA Occupational Handler Exposures and Risks Page 122 of 177 Table D1. CAMA Dermal Occupational Handler Exposures and Risks Dermal Unit Exposures ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Dermal MOEh Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of CAMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Application Rate of MAAb ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyc ( acres) Baseline d PPE w/ Glovese PPE double layer w/ glovesf Eng Cong Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Mixer/ Loader Lawn and ornamental turf ( on grasses other than Bent) 5 4.4 40 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 7.3 0.058 0.043 0.022 140 17000 23000 46000 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on Bermuda and Zoysia grass) 4.182 3.7 40 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 6.1 0.048 0.036 0.018 160 21000 28000 55000 Mixing/ Loading Liquids Concentrates for Groundboom Applications ( 1) Lawn and ornamental turf ( on bentgrass) 2.5 2.2 40 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 3.6 0.029 0.021 0.011 270 35000 47000 92000 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on grasses other than Bent) 5 4.4 100 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 18 0.14 0.11 0.054 55 6900 9400 18000 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on Bermuda and Zoysia grass) 4.182 3.7 100 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 15 0.12 0.089 0.045 66 8300 11000 22000 Mixing/ Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support LCO Handgun Applications ( mixing/ loadin g supports 20 LCOs) ( 1b) Lawn and ornamental turf ( on bentgrass) 2.5 2.2 100 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 9.1 0.072 0.053 0.027 110 14000 19000 37000 Page 123 of 177 Table D1. CAMA Dermal Occupational Handler Exposures and Risks Dermal Unit Exposures ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Dermal MOEh Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of CAMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Application Rate of MAAb ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyc ( acres) Baseline d PPE w/ Glovese PPE double layer w/ glovesf Eng Cong Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Applicator Lawn and ornamental turf ( on grasses other than Bent) 5 4.4 40 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.005 0.035 0.035 0.028 0.013 28000 28000 36000 80000 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on Bermuda and Zoysia grass) 4.182 3.7 40 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.005 0.029 0.029 0.023 0.011 34000 34000 43000 95000 Applying Sprays via Groundboom Equipment ( 2) Lawn and ornamental turf ( on bentgrass) 2.5 2.2 40 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.005 0.018 0.018 0.014 0.0063 57000 57000 72000 160000 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on grasses other than Bent) 5 4.4 5 No Data 0.34 0.19 Not Feasible No Data 0.11 0.06 No Data No Data 9400 17000 No Data Lawn and ornamental turf ( on Bermuda and Zoysia grass) 4.182 3.7 5 No Data 0.34 0.19 Not Feasible No Data 0.089 0.05 No Data No Data 11000 20000 No Data Applying Sprays via Handgun Equipment ( 3) Lawn and ornamental turf ( on bentgrass) 2.5 2.2 5 No Data 0.34 0.19 Not Feasible No Data 0.053 0.03 No Data No Data 19000 33000 No Data Page 124 of 177 Table D1. CAMA Dermal Occupational Handler Exposures and Risks Dermal Unit Exposures ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Dermal MOEh Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of CAMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Application Rate of MAAb ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyc ( acres) Baseline d PPE w/ Glovese PPE double layer w/ glovesf Eng Cong Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Lawn and ornamental turf ( on grasses other than Bent) 5 4.4 5 No Data 0.45 0.245 Not Feasible No Data 0.14 0.077 Not Feasible No Data 7100 13000 Not Feasible Lawn and ornamental turf ( on Bermuda and Zoysia grass) 4.182 3.7 5 No Data 0.45 0.245 Not Feasible No Data 0.12 0.064 Not Feasible No Data 8500 16000 Not Feasible Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with a Handgun Sprayer ( LCO ORETF data)

( 4) Lawn and ornamental turf ( on bentgrass) 2.5 2.2 5 No Data 0.45 0.245 Not Feasible No Data 0.071 0.039 Not Feasible No Data 14000 26000 Not Feasible a Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for CAMA b Application Rate of MMA = ( MW of MAA/ MW of CAMA * Application Rate of CAMA)

c Amount handled per day values are HED estimates of acres or gallons or other area/ amount treated per day based on industry sources and HED estimates.

d Baseline is long sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes, socks and no gloves and no respirator e Single layer w/ gloves is baseline attire plus chemical resistant gloves.

f Double layer w/ gloves is coveralls worn over long sleeve shirt and long pants, plus chemical resistant gloves.

g Engineering control is closed mixing/ loading system, enclosed cab, or enclosed cockpit.

h Dermal MOE = NOAEL ( 1000 mg/ kg/ day) / dermal daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day), where dermal dose = daily unit exposure ( mg/ lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day / body weight ( 70 kg adult). Page 125 of 177 Table D2. CAMA Inhalation Occupational Handler Exposures and Risks Inhalation Unit Exposures ( ug/ lb ai) Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Inhalation MOEh Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of CAMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Application Rate of MAAb ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyc ( acres) Baseline d 80%

PPE Re 90%

PPE Rf Eng Cong Baseline 80% PPER 90% PPER Eng Cont Baseline 80%

PPE R 90%

PPE R Eng Cont Mixer/ Loader Lawn and ornamental turf ( on grasses other than Bent) 5 4.4 40 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.003 0.0006 0.0003 0.00021 1500 7300 15000 21000 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on Bermuda and Zoysia grass) 4.182 3.7 40 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.0025 0.0005 0.00025 0.00017 1700 8700 17000 25000 Mixing/ Loading Liquids Concentrates for Groundboom Applications ( 1) Lawn and ornamental turf ( on bentgrass) 2.5 2.2 40 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.0015 0.0003 0.00015 0.0001 2900 15000 29000 42000 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on grasses other than Bent) 5 4.4 100 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.0075 0.0015 0.00075 0.00052 580 2900 5800 8400 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on Bermuda and Zoysia grass) 4.182 3.7 100 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.0063 0.0013 0.00063 0.00044 690 3500 6900 10000 Mixing/ Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support LCO Handgun Applications ( mixing/ loading supports 20 LCOs) ( 1b) Lawn and ornamental turf ( on bentgrass) 2.5 2.2 100 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.0038 0.00075 0.00038 0.00026 1200 5800 12000 17000 Applicator Lawn and ornamental turf ( on grasses other than Bent) 5 4.4 40 0.74 0.148 0.074 0.043 0.0019 0.00037 0.00019 0.00011 2400 12000 24000 40000 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on Bermuda and Zoysia grass) 4.182 3.7 40 0.74 0.148 0.074 0.043 0.0016 0.00031 0.00016 0.00009 2800 14000 28000 48000 Applying Sprays via Groundboom Equipment ( 2) Lawn and ornamental turf ( on bentgrass) 2.5 2.2 40 0.74 0.148 0.074 0.043 0.00093 0.00019 0.000093 0.000054 4700 24000 47000 81000 Page 126 of 177 Table D2. CAMA Inhalation Occupational Handler Exposures and Risks Inhalation Unit Exposures ( ug/ lb ai) Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Inhalation MOEh Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of CAMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Application Rate of MAAb ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyc ( acres) Baseline d 80%

PPE Re 90%

PPE Rf Eng Cong Baseline 80% PPER 90% PPER Eng Cont Baseline 80%

PPE R 90%

PPE R Eng Cont Lawn and ornamental turf ( on grasses other than Bent) 5 4.4 5 1.4 0.28 0.14 Not Feasible 0.00044 0.000088 0.000044 No Data 10000 50000 10000 No Data Lawn and ornamental turf ( on Bermuda and Zoysia grass) 4.182 3.7 5 1.4 0.28 0.14 Not Feasible 0.00037 0.000074 0.000037 No Data 12000 59000 120000 No Data Applying Sprays via Handgun Equipment ( 3) Lawn and ornamental turf ( on bentgrass) 2.5 2.2 5 1.4 0.28 0.14 Not Feasible 0.00022 0.000044 0.000022 No Data 20000 100000 20000 No Data Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Lawn and ornamental turf ( on grasses other than Bent) 5 4.4 5 1.8 0.36 0.18 Not Feasible 0.00057 0.00011 0.000057 Not Feasible 7700 39000 77000 Not Feasible Lawn and ornamental turf ( on Bermuda and Zoysia grass) 4.182 3.7 5 1.8 0.36 0.18 Not Feasible 0.00047 0.000095 0.000047 Not Feasible 9300 46000 93000 Not Feasible Mixing/ Loading/

Applying Liquid Concentrates with a Handgun Sprayer ( LCO ORETF data) ( 4) Lawn and ornamental turf ( on bentgrass) 2.5 2.2 5 1.8 0.36 0.18 Not Feasible 0.00028 0.000057 0.000028 Not Feasible 15000 77000 150000 Not Feasible a Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for CAMA b Application Rate of MMA = ( MW of MAA/ MW of CAMA * Application Rate of CAMA)

c Amount handled per day values are HED estimates of acres, miles, or feet treated per day based on industry sources and HED estimates.

d Baseline is no respirator e 80% Respirator is quarter face dust/ mist respirator ( that provides an 80% protection factor).

f 90% Respirator is half face dust/ mist respirator ( that provides a 90% protection factor).

g Engineering control is closed mixing/ loading system or enclosed cockpit.

h Inhalation MOE = NOAEL ( 4.38 mg/ kg/ day) / inhalation daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day), where inhalation dose = daily unit exposure ( mg/ lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day / body weight ( 70 kg adult) Page 127 of 177 Appendix E

CAMA Residential Handler Exposure and Risk Appendices Page 128 of 177 Table E1. CAMA Residential Handler Exposures and Risks Baseline Unit Exposure Baseline Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Baseline MOE Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Ratea ( lb ai/ acre) Application Rate of MMAb ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyc ( acres) Dermald ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalatione ( ug/ lb ai) Dermal Inhalation Dermalf Inhalationg Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Lawn and ornamental turf ( on grasses other than Bent) 5 4.4 0.5 38 2.7 1.2 0.000085 840 52000 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on Bermuda and Zoysia grass) 4.182 3.7 0.5 38 2.7 1 0.000071 1000 62000 Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with Low Pressure Handwand ( ORETF) ( 1) Lawn and ornamental turf ( on bentgrass) 2.5 2.2 0.5 38 2.7 0.6 0.000042 1700 100000 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on grasses other than Bent) 5 4.4 0.5 11 17 0.35 0.00053 2900 8200 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on Bermuda and Zoysia grass) 4.182 3.7 0.5 11 17 0.29 0.00045 3500 9800 Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with Hose End Sprayer ( Residential ORETF data)

( 2) Lawn and ornamental turf ( on bentgrass) 2.5 2.2 0.5 11 17 0.17 0.00027 5800 16000 Page 129 of 177 Table E1. CAMA Residential Handler Exposures and Risks Baseline Unit Exposure Baseline Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Baseline MOE Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Ratea ( lb ai/ acre) Application Rate of MMAb ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyc ( acres) Dermald ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalatione ( ug/ lb ai) Dermal Inhalation Dermalf Inhalationg Lawn and ornamental turf ( on grasses other than Bent) 5 4.4 0.023 54 19 0.078 0.000027 13000 160000 Lawn and ornamental turf ( on Bermuda and Zoysia grass) 4.182 3.7 0.023 54 19 0.065 0.000023 15000 190000 Applying Ready to Use Formulations via Trigger

Pump Sprayer ( ORETF)

( 3) Lawn and ornamental turf ( on bentgrass) 2.5 2.2 0.023 54 19 0.039 0.000014 26000 320000 a Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for CAMA b Application Rate of MMA = ( MW of MMA/ MW of CAMA * Application Rate of CAMA)

c Amount handled per day values are HED estimates of acres, square feet, or gallons applied based on the Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Assessments,

industry sources, and HED estimates.

d Baseline Dermal is short sleeve shirt, short pants, shoes, socks and no gloves e Baseline Inhalation: no respirator.

f Dermal MOE = NOAEL ( 1000 mg/ kg/ day) / dermal daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day), where dermal dose = daily unit exposure ( mg/ lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day x dermal absorption factor / body weight ( 70 kg adult).

g Inhalation MOE = NOAEL ( 4.38 mg/ kg/ day) / inhalation daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day), where inhalation dose = daily unit exposure ( mg/ lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day / body weight ( 70 kg adult). Page 130 of 177 Appendix F

CAMA Residential Postapplication Exposure and Risk Appendices Page 131 of 177 Table F1  Oral Exposure from Hand to Mouth Activity on CAMA Treated Turf Exposure Scenario Formulation Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) Fraction AI Transferable Surface area of hands ( cm2) Exposure Frequency ( events/ hr) Saliva Extraction Factor Exposure Time ( hrs/ day) Body Weight ( kg) Average Daily Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Incidental Oral MOE 4.4 5% 20 20 50% 2 15 0.066 110 3.7 5% 20 20 50% 2 15 0.055 130 Hand to Mouth Spray 2.2 5% 20 20 50% 2 15 0.033 210 Average Daily Oral Dose Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = AR ( mg/ cm2) x SAhand ( cm2) x EXT x FQ( events/ hr) x ET( hrs/ day)

BW ( kg)

Where:

ADOD = oral dose on day of application ( mg/ kg/ day)

ARmg/ cm2 = application rate ( mg/ cm2)

F = fraction of residue transferable from treated turf (%)

SAhand = surface area of 1 to 3 fingers ( cm2)

EXT = extraction rate by saliva (%)

FQ = frequency of hand to mouth events ( events/ hour)

ET = exposure duration ( hours/ day)

BW = body weight ( kg)

Assumptions:

F  The fraction of residue transferable from turf is 5%

SA  The surface area of 1 to 3 fingers is 20 cm2 FQ  The frequency of hand to mouth events is 20 events per hour EXT  The extraction rate by saliva is 50%.

ET  The time spent outdoors is 2 hours/ day BW  Body weight of a toddler is 15 kg Application Rate ( mg/ cm2) = AR ( lb ai/ A) * CF1 * CF2 Where:

APlb/ A = application rate ( lb ai/ A)

CF1 = weight unit conversion factor to convert the lbs ai in the application rate to mg ( 4.54 x 105 mg/ lb)

CF2 = area unit conversion factor to convert the surface area units ( acres) in the application rate to cm2 ( 2.47 x 10 8 acre/ cm2)

Table F2  Oral Exposure from Mouthing CAMA Treated Turf Page 132 of 177 Exposure Scenario Formulation Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) Fraction AI Transferable Body Weight ( kg) Surface area of turf mouthed ( cm2) Average Daily Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Incidental Oral MOE 4.4 20% 15 25 0.016 430 3.7 20% 15 25 0.014 510 Object to Mouth ( Tier 3) Spray 2.2 20% 15 25 0.008 850 Average Daily Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = AR ( mg/ cm2) x F x SA ( cm2)

BW ( kg)

Where:

ADOD = oral dose on day of application ( mg/ kg/ day)

ARmg/ cm2 = application rate ( mg/ cm2)

F = fraction of residue transferable from treated turf (%)

SA = surface area of turf mouthed ( cm2/ day)

BW = body weight ( kg)

Assumptions:

SA  The surface area of turf mouthed is 25 cm2/ day F  The fraction of residue transferable from treated turf is 20%

BW  Body weight of a toddler is 15 kg Application Rate ( mg/ cm2) = AR ( lb ai/ A) * CF1 * CF2 Where:

APlb/ A = application rate ( lb ai/ A)

CF1 = weight unit conversion factor to convert the lbs ai in the application rate to mg ( 4.54 x 105 mg/ lb)

CF2 = area unit conversion factor to convert the surface area units ( acres) in the application rate to cm2 ( 2.47 x 10 8 acre/ cm2)

Table F3  Oral Exposure from Incidental Soil Ingestion Following CAMA Applications to Turf Page 133 of 177 Exposure Scenario Formulation Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) % of rate in uppermost 1 cm of soil Ingestion Rate ( mg/ day) Body Weight ( kg) Soil Residue ( ug/ g) Average Daily Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Incidental Oral MOE 4.4 100% 100 15 33.1 0.00022 32,000 3.7 100% 100 15 27.8 0.00019 38,000 Soil Ingestion Spray 2.2 100% 100 15 16.5 0.00011 64,000 Average Daily Oral Dose = AR ( mg/ cm2) x F ( cm) x IgR( mg/ day) x SDF ( cm3/ mg)

BW ( kg)

Where:

ADOD = oral dose on day of application ( mg/ kg/ day)

ARmg/ cm2 = application rate ( mg/ cm2)

F = fraction or residue retained on uppermost 1 cm of soil (%) ( note: this is an adjustment from surface area to volume)

SDF = soil density factor  volume of soil ( cm3) per microgram of soil;

IgR = ingestion rate of soil ( mg/ day)

BW = body weight ( kg)

Assumptions:

F  fraction or residue retained on uppermost 1 cm of soil is 100 percent based on soil incorporation into top 1 cm of soil after application ( 1.0/ cm)

SDF = soil density factor  volume of soil ( cm3) per gram of soil; to weight 6.7 x 10 4 cm3/ mg soil)

IgR  ingestion rate of soil is 100 mg/ day BW  body weight of a toddler is 15 kg Application Rate ( mg/ cm2) = AR ( lb ai/ A) * CF1 * CF2 Where:

APlb/ A = application rate ( lb ai/ A)

CF1 = weight unit conversion factor to convert the lbs ai in the application rate to mg ( 4.54 x 105 mg/ lb)

CF2 = area unit conversion factor to convert the surface area units ( acres) in the application rate to cm2 ( 2.47 x 10 8 acre/ cm2)

Table F4. Dermal Exposure from CAMA Treated Turfgrass Page 134 of 177 Exposure Scenario Formulation Age Group Exposed Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) Default transferable residue (%) Hours of Exposure Transfer Coefficient ( cm2/ hr) Absorbed Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Dermal MOE 4.4 1 980 3.7 0.86 1,200 Adult 2.2 14,500 0.51 2,000 4.4 1.7 580 3.7 1.4 700 High Contact Lawn Activities Spray Toddler 2.2 5% 2 5,200 0.86 1,200 4.4 0.24 4,200 3.7 0.2 5,000 Adult 2.2 0.12 8,300 4.4 0.43 2,300 3.7 0.36 2,800 Mowing Turf Spray Youths ( 10 12 yrs) 2.2 5% 2 3400 0.22 4,600 4.4 0.94 1,100 3.7 0.79 1,300 Adult 2.2 0.67 10,000 0.47 2,100 4.4 0.42 2,400 3.7 0.35 2,800 Gardening Spray Youths ( 10 12 yrs) 2.2 20% 0.33 5,000 0.21 4,800 4.4 0.07 14,000 3.7 0.059 17,000 Adult 2.2 0.035 28,000 4.4 0.13 7,900 3.7 0.11 9,400 Golfer Spray Youths ( 10 12 yrs) 2.2 5% 4 500 0.063 16,000 Average Daily Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = TTR ( mg/ cm2) x TC ( cm2/ hr) x ET ( hr/ day) x DA (%)

BW ( kg)

Where:

ADDD = Dermal exposure at on day of application attributable for activity in a previously treated area ( mg/ kg/ day)

ARmg/ cm2 = application rate ( mg/ cm2)

F = fraction of residue transferable from treated turf (%)

TC = Transfer Coefficient ( cm2/ hour); Page 135 of 177 ET = Exposure Time ( hours/ day);

DA = Dermal Absorption ( 5); and BW = Body Weight ( kg)

Assumptions:

F  fraction of residue transferable from treated turf is 5%; dislodgeable from garden foliage is 20%;

TC  The assumed transfer coefficients ( TCs) for adults and children performing short term high contact activities on treated turf are 14,500 and 5,200 cm2/ hour, respectively. The assumed transfer coefficients ( TCs) for adults and children performing short term high contact activities in treated gardens are 10,000 and 5,000 200 cm2/ hour, respectively. Golfing, mowing and other low contact activities were assumed to have a TC of 500 cm2/ hour.

ET  exposure time for high contact activities on residential lawns is 2 hours; exposure time for adults and children while gardening are 0.67 and 0.33 hours, respectively.; exposure time while golfing is 4 hours.

DA  Dermal absorption is 30%

BW  body weight for a toddler is 15 kg; for a youth is 39 kg; for an adult is 70 kg.

Application Rate ( mg/ cm2) = AR ( lb ai/ A) * CF1 * CF2 Where:

APlb/ A = application rate ( lb ai/ A)

CF1 = weight unit conversion factor to convert the lbs ai in the application rate to mg ( 4.54 x 105 mg/ lb)

CF2 = area unit conversion factor to convert the surface area units ( acres) in the application rate to cm2 ( 2.47 x 10 8 acre/ cm2) Page 136 of 177 Table F5   Combined Incidental Oral Exposures to Toddlers from Postapplication Exposures to CAMA Treated Turf Exposure Scenario Application Type Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) Hand to Mouth Average Daily Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Object to Mouth Average Daily Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Soil Ingestion Average Daily Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Combined Average Daily Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Combined Incidental Oral MOE 4.4 0.066 0.016 0.00022 0.082 85 3.7 0.055 0.014 0.00019 0.069 101 Toddler on Turf Spray 2.2 0.033 0.008 0.00011 0.041 170 Page 137 of 177 Appendix G

DSMA Occupational Handler Exposure and Risk Appendices Page 138 of 177 Table G1. DSMA Dermal Occupational Handler Exposures and Risks Dermal Unit Exposures ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Dermal MOEh Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of MSMA or DSMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Application Rate of MAAb ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyc ( acres) Baselined PPE w/ Glovese PPE double layer w/ glovesf Eng Cong Baseline PPEw gloves PPEdouble layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Mixer/ Loader Mixing/ Loading Liquid Concentrates for Aerial Applications ( 1a) Cotton ( pre plant or postplant up to cracking) 2.268 1.7 1200 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 85 0.68 0.5 0.25 12 1500 2000 4000 Cotton ( postemergent directed spray) 2.268 1.7 200 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 14 0.11 0.083 0.042 70 8900 12000 24000 Turf for sod farms 3.293 2.5 80 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 8.2 0.065 0.048 0.024 120 15000 21000 41000 Lawns and Ornamental Turf ( well established actively growing turfgrass) 3.293 2.5 40 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 4.1 0.033 0.024 0.012 240 31000 41000 82000 Nonbearing Fruit, Nut,

& Vineyards 4.85 3.7 80 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 12 0.096 0.071 0.036 82 10000 14000 28000 Mixing/ Loading Liquids Concentrates for Groundboom Applications ( 1b) Noncrop Areas 5.1 3.85 100 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 16 0.13 0.094 0.047 63 7900 11000 21000 Page 139 of 177 Table G1. DSMA Dermal Occupational Handler Exposures and Risks Dermal Unit Exposures ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Dermal MOEh Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of MSMA or DSMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Application Rate of MAAb ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyc ( acres) Baselined PPE w/ Glovese PPE double layer w/ glovesf Eng Cong Baseline PPEw gloves PPEdouble layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Mixing/ Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support LCO Handgun Applications ( mixing/ loadin g supports 20 LCOs) ( 1c) Lawns and Ornamental Turf ( well established actively growing turfgrass) 3.293 2.5 100 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 10 0.082 0.06 0.031 97 12000 17000 33000 Mixing/ Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support Rights of Way ( 1d) Noncrop Areas 5.1 3.85 80 2.9 0.023 0.017 0.0086 13 0.1 0.075 0.038 78 9900 13000 26000 Applicator Applying Sprays via Aerial Equipment ( 2) Cotton 2.268 1.7 1200 No Data No Data No Data 0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.15 No Data No Data No Data 6800 Cotton 2.268 1.7 200 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.005 0.069 0.069 0.054 0.024 15000 15000 19000 41000 Applying Sprays via Groundboom Equipment ( 3) Turf on sod farms 3.293 2.5 80 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.005 0.04 0.04 0.031 0.014 25000 25000 32000 70000 Page 140 of 177 Table G1. DSMA Dermal Occupational Handler Exposures and Risks Dermal Unit Exposures ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Dermal MOEh Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of MSMA or DSMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Application Rate of MAAb ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyc ( acres) Baselined PPE w/ Glovese PPE double layer w/ glovesf Eng Cong Baseline PPEw gloves PPEdouble layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Lawns and Ornamental Turf ( well established actively growing turfgrassgolf courses) 3.293 2.5 40 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.016 0.0071 50000 50000 64000 140000 Nonbearing Fruit & Nut Orchards &

Vineyards 4.85 3.7 80 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.005 0.059 0.059 0.046 0.021 17000 17000 22000 48000 Applying Sprays via Groundboom Equipment ( 3)

Cont. Noncrop Areas 5.1 3.85 100 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.005 0.077 0.077 0.061 0.028 13000 13000 17000 36000 Applying Sprays via Handgun Equipment ( 4) Lawns and Ornamental Turf ( well established actively growing turfgrass) 3.293 2.5 5 No Data 0.34 0.19 Not Feasible No Data 0.06 0.034 No Data No Data 17000 30000 No Data Applying Sprays via Rights of Way Equipment ( 5) Noncrop Areas 5.10 3.85 80 1.3 0.39 0.29 Not Feasible 5.7 1.7 1.3 No Data 170 580 780 No Data Flagger Flagging for Aerial Sprays Applications ( 6) Cotton 2.268 1.7 350 0.011 Not applicab le 0.01 0.00022 0.094 No Data 0.086 0.0019 11000 No Data 12000 530000 Page 141 of 177 Table G1. DSMA Dermal Occupational Handler Exposures and Risks Dermal Unit Exposures ( mg/ lb ai) Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Dermal MOEh Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of MSMA or DSMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Application Rate of MAAb ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyc ( acres) Baselined PPE w/ Glovese PPE double layer w/ glovesf Eng Cong Baseline PPEw gloves PPEdouble layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Baseline PPEw gloves PPE double layer w/ gloves Eng Cont Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with Low Pressure Handwand ( ORETF) ( 7) Lawns and Ornamental Turf ( well established actively growing turfgrass) 3.293 2.5 5 15 0.33 Data available Not Feasible 3.5 0.078 No Data Not Feasible 280 13000 No Data Not Feasible Lawns and Ornamental Turf ( well established actively growing turfgrass) 3.293 2.5 5 No Data 0.45 0.245 Not Feasible No Data 0.08 0.044 Not Feasible No Data 13000 23000 Not Feasible Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with a Handgun Sprayer ( LCO ORETF data)

( 8) Nonbearing Fruit & Nut Orchards &

Vineyards 4.85 3.7 5 No Data 0.45 0.245 Not Feasible No Data 0.12 0.064 Not Feasible No Data 8500 16000 Not Feasible a Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for MSMA/ DSMA b Application Rate of MMA = ( MW of MAA/ MW of MSMA or DSMA * Application Rate of MSMA or DSMA)

c Amount handled per day values are HED estimates of acres or gallons or other area/ amount treated per day based on industry sources and HED estimates.

d Baseline is long sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes, socks and no gloves and no respirator e Single layer w/ gloves is baseline attire plus chemical resistant gloves.

f Double layer w/ gloves is coveralls worn over long sleeve shirt and long pants, plus chemical resistant gloves.

g Engineering control is closed mixing/ loading system, enclosed cab, or enclosed cockpit.

h Dermal MOE = NOAEL ( 1000 mg/ kg/ day) / dermal daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day), where dermal dose = daily unit exposure ( mg/ lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day / body weight ( 70 kg adult). Page 142 of 177 Table G2. DSMA Occupational Inhalation Handler Exposure and Risks Inhalation Unit Exposures ( ug/ lb ai) Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Inhalation MOEh Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of DSMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Application Rate of MAAb ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyc ( acres) Baselined 80%

PPE Re 90%

PPE Rf Eng Cong Baseline 80% PPER 90% PPER Eng Cont Baseline 80%

PPER 90%

PPE R Eng Cont Mixer/ Loader Mixing/ Loading Liquid Concentrates for Aerial Applications ( 1a) Cotton (

preplant or post plant up to cracking) 2.268 1.7 1200 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.035 0.007 0.0035 0.0024 120 620 1200 1800 Cotton ( postemergent directed spray) 2.268 1.7 200 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.0059 0.0012 0.00059 0.00041 750 3700 7500 11000 Turf for sod farms 3.293 2.5 80 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.0034 0.00068 0.00034 0.00024 1300 6400 13000 19000 Lawns and Ornamental Turf ( well established actively growing turfgrass) 3.293 2.5 40 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.0017 0.00034 0.00017 0.00012 2600 13000 26000 37000 Nonbearing Fruit, Nut, &

Vineyards 4.85 3.7 80 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.005 0.001 0.0005 0.00035 870 4400 8700 13000 Mixing/ Loading Liquids Concentrates for Groundboom Applications ( 1b) Noncrop Areas 5.1 3.85 100 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.0066 0.0013 0.00066 0.00046 660 3300 6600 9600 Page 143 of 177 Table G2. DSMA Occupational Inhalation Handler Exposure and Risks Inhalation Unit Exposures ( ug/ lb ai) Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Inhalation MOEh Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of DSMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Application Rate of MAAb ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyc ( acres) Baselined 80%

PPE Re 90%

PPE Rf Eng Cong Baseline 80% PPER 90% PPER Eng Cont Baseline 80%

PPER 90%

PPE R Eng Cont Mixing/ Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support LCO Handgun Applications ( 1c) Lawns and Ornamental Turf ( well established actively growing turfgrass) 3.293 2.5 100 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.0043 0.00085 0.00043 0.00029 1000 5100 10000 15000 Mixing/ Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support Rights of Way ( 1d) Noncrop Areas 5.1 3.85 80 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.083 0.0053 0.0011 0.00053 0.00037 830 4100 8300 12000 Applicator Applying Sprays via Aerial Equipment ( 2) Cotton 2.268 1.7 1200 No Data No Data No Data 0.068 No Data No Data No Data 0.002 No Data No Data No Data 2200 Cotton 2.268 1.7 200 0.74 0.148 0.074 0.043 0.0036 0.00072 0.00036 0.00021 1200 6000 12000 21000 Turf on sod farms 3.293 2.5 80 0.74 0.148 0.074 0.043 0.0021 0.00042 0.00021 0.00012 2100 10000 21000 36000 Lawns and Ornamental Turf ( well established actively growing turfgrassgolf courses) 3.293 2.5 40 0.74 0.148 0.074 0.043 0.0011 0.00021 0.00011 0.000061 4200 21000 42000 72000 Nonbearing Fruit & Nut Orchards &

Vineyards 4.85 3.7 80 0.74 0.148 0.074 0.043 0.0031 0.00062 0.00031 0.00018 1400 7100 14000 24000 Applying Sprays via Groundboom Equipment ( 3) Noncrop Areas 5.1 3.85 100 0.74 0.148 0.074 0.043 0.0041 0.00081 0.00041 0.00024 1100 5400 11000 19000 Applying Sprays via Handgun Equipment ( 4) Lawns and Ornamental Turf ( well established actively growing turfgrass) 3.293 2.5 5 1.4 0.28 0.14 Not Feasible 0.00025 0.00005 0.000025 No Data 18000 88000 180000 No Data Page 144 of 177 Table G2. DSMA Occupational Inhalation Handler Exposure and Risks Inhalation Unit Exposures ( ug/ lb ai) Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Inhalation MOEh Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of DSMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Application Rate of MAAb ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyc ( acres) Baselined 80%

PPE Re 90%

PPE Rf Eng Cong Baseline 80% PPER 90% PPER Eng Cont Baseline 80%

PPER 90%

PPE R Eng Cont Applying Sprays via Rights of Way Equipment ( 5) Noncrop Areas 5.10 3.85 80 3.9 0.78 0.39 Not Feasible 0.017 0.0034 0.0017 No Data 260 1300 2600 No Data Flagger Flagging for Aerial Sprays Applications ( 6) Cotton 2.268 1.7 350 0.35 0.07 0.035 0.007 0.003 0.0006 0.0003 0.00006 1500 7300 15000 73000 Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Mixing/ Loading/

Applying Liquid Concentrates with Low Pressure Handwand ( ORETF) ( 7) Lawns and Ornamental Turf ( well established actively growing turfgrass) 3.293 2.5 5 2.7 0.54 0.27 Not Feasible 0.00064 0.00013 0.000064 Not Feasible 6900 34000 69000 Not Feasible Lawns and Ornamental Turf ( well established actively growing turfgrass) 3.293 2.5 5 1.8 0.36 0.18 Not Feasible 0.00032 0.000064 0.000032 Not Feasible 14000 68000 140000 Not Feasible Mixing/ Loading/

Applying Liquid Concentrates with a Handgun Sprayer ( LCO ORETF data)

( 8) Nonbearing Fruit & Nut Orchards &

Vineyards 4.85 3.7 5 1.8 0.36 0.18 Not Feasible 0.00047 0.000094 0.000047 Not Feasible 9300 46000 93000 Not Feasible a Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for DSMA b Application Rate of MMA = ( MW of MAA/ MW of DSMA * Application Rate of DSMA)

c Amount handled per day values are HED estimates of acres, miles, or feet treated per day based on industry sources and HED estimates.

d Baseline is no respirator e 80% Respirator is quarter face dust/ mist respirator ( that provides an 80% protection factor).

f 90% Respirator is half face dust/ mist respirator ( that provides a 90% protection factor).

g Engineering control is closed mixing/ loading system or enclosed cockpit.

h Inhalation MOE = NOAEL ( 4.38 mg/ kg/ day) / inhalation daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day), where inhalation dose = daily unit exposure ( mg/ lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day / body weight ( 70 kg adult) Page 145 of 177 Appendix H

DSMA Residential Handler Exposure and Risk Appendices Page 146 of 177 Table H1. DSMA Residential Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure and Risks Baseline Unit Exposures Baseline Doses ( mg/ kg/

day) Baseline MOE Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate of DSMAa ( lb ai/ acre) Applicatio n Rate of MAAb ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyc ( acres) Dermald ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalatione ( ug/ lb ai) Dermal Inhalation Dermalf Inhalationg Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with Low Pressure Handwand ( ORETF  ground directed)

( 1) lawns and ornamental turf 3.293 2.5 0.5 38 2.7 0.68 0.000048 1500 91000 Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with Hose End Sprayer ( Residential ORETF data)

( 2) lawns and ornamental turf 3.293 2.5 0.5 11 17 0.2 0.0003 5100 14000 Loading/ Applying Liquid Concentrates with RTU Hose ( Residential ORETF data) ( 3) lawns and ornamental turf 3.293 2.5 0.5 2.6 11 0.046 0.0002 22000 22000 a Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from master labels for DSMA b Application Rate of MMA = ( MW of MAA/ MW of DSMA * Application Rate of DSMA)

c Amount handled per day values are HED estimates of acres, square feet, or gallons applied based on the Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Assessments,

industry sources, and HED estimates.

d Baseline Dermal is short sleeve shirt, short pants, shoes, socks and no gloves e Baseline Inhalation: no respirator.

f Dermal MOE = NOAEL ( 1000 mg/ kg/ day) / dermal daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day), where dermal dose = daily unit exposure ( mg/ lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day x dermal absorption factor / body weight ( 70 kg adult).

g Inhalation MOE = NOAEL ( 4.38 mg/ kg/ day) / inhalation daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day), where inhalation dose = daily unit exposure ( mg/ lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day / body weight ( 70 kg adult). Page 147 of 177 Appendix I

DSMA Residential Postapplication Exposure and Risk Appendices Page 148 of 177 Table I1  Oral Exposure from Hand to Mouth Activity on DSMA Treated Turf Exposure Scenario Formulation Application Rate ( lb ai/ acre) Fraction AI Transferable Surface area of hands ( cm2) Exposure Frequency ( events/ hr) Saliva Extraction Factor Exposure Time ( hrs/ day) Body Weight ( kg) Average Daily Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Incidental Oral MOE Hand to Mouth Spray 2.5 5% 20 20 50% 2 15 0.037 190 Average Daily Oral Dose Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = AR ( mg/ cm2) x SAhand ( cm2) x EXT x FQ( events/ hr) x ET( hrs/ day)

BW ( kg)

Where:

ADOD = oral dose on day of application ( mg/ kg/ day)

ARmg/ cm2 = application rate ( mg/ cm2)

F = fraction of residue transferable from treated turf (%)

SAhand = surface area of 1 to 3 fingers ( cm2)

EXT = extraction rate by saliva (%)

FQ = frequency of hand to mouth events ( events/ hour)

ET = exposure duration ( hours/ day)

BW = body weight ( kg)

Assumptions:

F  The fraction of residue transferable from turf is 5%

SA  The surface area of 1 to 3 fingers is 20 cm2 FQ  The frequency of hand to mouth events is 20 events per hour EXT  The extraction rate by saliva is 50%.