Chem-News July 1991
DATE: July 1991
TO: Those Interested in Pesticide Information
FROM: William G. Smith, Senior Extension Associate
INDEX
. Page
DEC Renews SLN 24(C) Labels For Aerial Application........................1
Reregistration Notification Network.......................................2
Pesticide Tolerance Established For Clofentezine (Apollo).................2
Gibberellins Exempt From Tolerance Requirement............................3
Pesticide Reregistration Eligibility Documents;Availability And Comments. 3
Pesticide Product Applications Received By EPA............................4
Wetlands Defined in EPA Letter............................................5
Labels Require Certified Applicators To Be Present........................6
EPA Issues Policy On Sale, Use Of Existing Stocks.........................6
Supreme Court Says Communities Can Go Beyond FIFRA........................7
Final Pesticides In Groundwater Strategy To Clear OMB Soon................8
Bill To Ban Hazardous Pesticides Is Introduced In Senate..................9
Use Blood, Not Fat........................................................9
Pesticide Briefs.........................................................10
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DEC RENEWS SLN 24(C) LABELS FOR AERIAL APPLICATION
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed
and renewed the FIFRA Section 24(C) Special Local Need Registrations for the
use of Rovral Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 264-453) and Rovral 4 Flowable (EPA Reg.
No. 264-482) to be applied by aerial application to onions under the SLN Nos.
NY-900003 and NY-900004.
This is to notify you that the registrations for both of these SLN's have
been renewed for the 1991 growing season and will expire on September 30,
1991. For any renewal beyond September 30, 1991, you must submit: 1)
information on the progress toward federal registration of the aerial use
pattern for Rovral and 2) a demonstration, supported by Cornell University,
that the special local need still exists.
-- Marilyn M. DuBois, Director, Bureau of Pesticide Management, NYSDEC
REREGISTRATION NOTIFICATION NETWORK
2,4-d + N-Oleyl-1,3-Propylenediamine Salt of 2,4-D
ISK Biotech Corp. has announced that it plans to voluntarily cancel uses
of the following herbicide that contains the active ingredient 2,4-D + N-
oleyl-1,3-propylenediamine salt of 2,4-D.
Product Uses
DACAMINE 4D ALL CROPS AND SITES (Includes: rice,
wheat, corn, turf, sugarcane, forage
crops, pear and apple orchards).
These uses are being dropped because of data development cost for
reregistration.
For additional information contact Mr. Michael A. Peplowski, Manager,
Product Registrations, ISK Biotech, 5966 Heisley Road, Mentor, OH 44060 (tel
216-357-4149; fax 216-354-9506) or the USDA National Agricultural Pesticide
Impact Assessment Program at 800-262-0216.
-- USDA Reregistration Network
PESTICIDE TOLERANCE ESTABLISHED FOR CLOFENTEZINE (APOLLO)
This rule establishes a tolerance for residues of the insecticide
clofentezine (3,6-bis(2-chlorophenyl)1,2,4,5-tetrazine) in or on apricots and
cherries at l.0 part per million (ppm) each. The tolerance was requested by
Nor-Am Chemical Co. and establishes the maximum permissible level for residues
of the insecticide in or on stone fruits.
In the Federal Register of May 9, 1990 (55 FR 19320), EPA issued a notice
which announced that Nor-Am Chemical Co., P.O. Box 7495, 3509 Silverside Rd.,
Wilmington, DE 19803, had submitted a pesticide petition (PP 9F3799) to EPA
proposing to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of
the insecticide clofentezine ([3,6-bis(2-chlorophenyl)-1,2,4,5-tetrazine]) in
or on stone fruits at 1.0 ppm each.
There were no comments or requests for referral to an advisory committee
received in response to the notice of filing. The petition was subsequently
amended on August 24, 1990, by revising the proposal for stone fruits to
specify apricots and cherries only. A conditional registration for use of
clofentezine on apricots and cherries is being issued concurrently. The
conditional registration will automatically expire on September 30, 1993. The
Agency has reviewed avian reproduction studies and found them to be deficient.
The Agency is requiring that the avian reproduction studies be repeated. The
chronic risks of clofentezine to avian species cannot be fully evaluated until
new avian reproduction studies are submitted and reviewed by the Agency.
However, because of the relatively low exposure rate and duration (only a
single application is allowed), its low acute toxicity to birds and low acute
and chronic toxicity to mammals, the Agency believes that the potential
chronic effects to avian species which may occur during the conditional
registration period would not be significant. The Agency has also identified
two aquatic studies, an aquatic invertebrate life-cycle study and fish life-
cycle study that are needed to fully evaluate the potential chronic toxicity
of clofentezine to aquatic organisms based on its ovicidal mode of action. Due
to the rapid hydrolysis of the compound, the Agency does not expect chronic
exposures to occur to aquatic animals. However, since transient exposures to
reproducing adults, eggs, or developing embryos from clofentezine could cause
some effects, the Agency is requiring the above studies.
The Agency is requiring the restricted-use classification for
clofentezine as a prudent measure in the absence of data to fully evaluate the
chronic toxicity of clofentezine to aquatic and avian organisms. After the
data described above have been submitted and evaluated, the Agency will
determine if a continued restricted use classification is warranted for
clofentezine.
-- Federal Register / Vol. 56 No. 113 / June 12, 1991
GIBBERELLINS EXEMPT FROM TOLERANCE REQUIREMENT
This rule, as announced by EPA, establishes an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of the class of biochemical plant
growth regulators known as gibberellins when used in or on certain raw
agricultural commodities (RACs). Gibberellins are exempt from a tolerance
when applied to growing crops at a rate of less than 20 grams of active
ingredient per acre (20 g ai/A) per application. This regulation was requested
by Abbott Laboratories.
Gibberellins, classified as a biochemical pesticide according to
Pesticide Assessment Guidelines Subdivision M, are naturally occurring
compounds produced by plants and several species of fungi. Based on the low-
volume use pattern, applicator exposure will be minute; therefore, adverse
human effects are highly unlikely. Gibberellins are not expected to present an
unacceptable hazard to humans, fish, and wildlife, or the environment.
Gibberellins (GA3) are exempted from the requirement of a tolerance when
used as a plant growth regulator at application rates less than 20 grams of
active ingredient per acre (20 g ai/A) in or on the following raw agricultural
commodities: Barley, beans, beets (sugar), broccoli, Brussels sprouts,
cabbage, cauliflower, corn (field, sweet, and popcorn), cotton, cucumber,
grapefruit, lemons, lettuce, melons, mint (peppermint and spearmint), mustard
greens, oats, onions, oranges, peanuts, peppers, potatoes, rice, rye, sorghum
(milo), soybeans, spinach, squash, strawberries, sugarcane, tomatoes, turnips,
and wheat.
-- Federal Register / Vol. 56 No. 113 / June 12, 1991
PESTICIDE REREGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY DOCUMENTS;
AVAILABILITY AND COMMENTS
Fosetyl-Al (Aliette)
This notice announces the availability of the final Reregistration
Eligibility Document (RED) for fosetyl-Al and the establishment of a public
comment period. The RED is the Agency's formal regulatory assessment of the
health and environmental database of the subject chemical and presents the
Agency's determination regarding which uses of fosetyl-AI are eligible for
reregistration.
This RED is one of the first completed by the Agency. Under the
provisions of the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as
amended in 1988, EPA is conducting an accelerated reregistration program to
reevaluate most existing pesticides to make sure they meet current scientific
and regulatory standards.
Fosetyl-AI has a complete database, and the Agency has determined that
the registered uses do not cause unreasonable adverse effects to people or the
environment. All registered uses of fosetyl-AI are eligible for
reregistration. All registrants of fosetyl-Al have been sent the RED and must
respond to the labeling requirements within eight months of receipt. No
additional data are being required. The 60 day public comment period does not
affect the registrant's response due date.
-- Federal Register/ Vol.56. No.113/ June 12, 1991
Heliothis zea (NPV)
This notice announces the availability of the final Reregistration
Eligibility Document (RED) for Heliothis zea (NPV) and the establishment of a
public comment period. The RED is the Agency's formal regulatory assessment of
the health and environmental data base of the subject chemical and presents
the Agency's determination regarding which uses of Heliothis zea (NPV) are
eligible for reregistration.
This RED and the one for fosetyl-Al are the first two RED's completed by
the Agency. Under the provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act, as amended in 1988, EPA is conducting an accelerated
reregistration program to reevaluate most existing pesticides to make sure
they meet current scientific and regulatory standards.
Heliothis zea (NPV) has a complete database and the Agency has
determined that the registered uses do not cause unreasonable adverse effects
to people or the environment. All registered uses of Heliothis zea (NPV) are
eligible for reregistration. All registrants of Heliothis zea (NPV) have been
sent the RED and must respond to the labeling requirements within eight months
of receipt. No additional data are being required. The 60-day public comment
period does not affect the registrant's response due date.
-- Federal Register/ Vol.56. No.113/ June 12, 1991
Methoprene (Altosid, Precor)
This notice announces the availability of the final Reregistration
Eligibility Document (RED) for methoprene and the establishment of a public
comment period.
The Agency has issued a final Reregistration Eligibility Document for
methoprene. Under the provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act, as amended in 1988, EPA is conducting an accelerated
reregistration program to reevaluate most existing pesticides to make sure
they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. The database to support
the reregistration of methoprene is substantially complete and is sufficient
to allow the Agency to conduct a reasonable risk assessment for most
registered uses of methoprene. However, two generic data requirements are
being levied: Octanol/water partition coefficient and an estuarine
invertebrate life cycle study. Although the former study is not critical to
the reregistration decision or environmental assessment of methoprene at this
time, the Agency is requiring these data to satisfy this gap in the product
chemistry database for methoprene. The latter study is needed to assess the
long term exposure to estuarine invertebrates.
Although there is concern for the long term exposure to estuarine
invertebrates, the Agency has determined that the reregistration of methoprene
can proceed at this time because most of the uses for methoprene do not
involve significant exposure to estuarine invertebrates. Only the use as a
briquette (slow release) formulation raises a concern. The other aquatic
formulations are not expected to result in significant exposure because
methoprene is short lived in the aquatic environment and does not have a high
potential for bioaccumulation. The estuarine invertebrate life cycle study is
required to confirm whether or not the estimated exposure from the briquette
formulation is sufficient to pose an adverse effect on estuarine
invertebrates. EPA has determined that all products containing methoprene as
an active ingredient are eligible for reregistration except the briquette
formulation which will be considered for reregistration once the data
requested are submitted, reviewed, and determined to cause no unreasonable
risk to nontarget organisms, specifically estuarine invertebrates.
All registrants of methoprene have been sent the RED and must respond to
the product specific data and labeling requirements within eight months of
receipt.
The docket number for methoprene is "OPP-34014". Technical questions
concerning the RED should be directed to Ms. Karen Samek at EPA. To request a
copy of the Reregistration Eligibility Document or a RED Fact Sheet for
methoprene, contact the Public Information Branch, (703-557-2805). Requests
should be submitted in time to allow sufficient time for receipt before the
close of the comment period.
-- Federal Register/ Vol.56. No.113/ June 12, 1991
PESTICIDE PRODUCT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BY EPA
The EPA has received the following applications to register pesticide
products containing active ingredients not included in any previously
registered products pursuant to the provisions of section 3(C)(14) of FIFRA.
Note: receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on
the Applications.
1. File Symbol: 64137-E. Applicant: Kemira Oy, Porkkalankatu 3, PO Box
330,00101 Helsinki, Finland. Product name: Mycostop Biofungicide. Fungicide.
Active ingredient: Dried spores and mycelium of ray fungus (Streptomyces
griseoviridis) at 30 percent. Proposed classification/Use: General. To be used
on vegetable crops grown in greenhouses or fields. (PM 21)
2. File Symbol: 634137-R. Applicant: Kemira Oy. Product name: Mycostop
Biofungicide. Fungicide. Active ingredient: Dried spores and mycelium of ray
fungus (Streptomyces griseoviridis) at 30 percent. Proposed
classification/Use: General. For Repackaging use only. (PM 21)
3. File Symbol: 64137-R Applicant: Kemira Oy. Product name: Mycostop
Biofungicide. Fungicide. Active ingredient: Dried spores and mycelium of ray
fungus (Streptomyces griseoviridis) at 30 percent. Proposed
classification/Use: General. For the control of seed rot, root and stem, and
wilt diseases caused by fusarium in agronomic crops such as cotton, corn.
soybeans, wheat, sorghum, beans, and peas. (PM 21)
4. File Symbol: 64137-R. Applicant Kemira Oy, Porkkalankatu 3, PO Box
330, 00101 Helsinki, Finland. Product name: Mycostop Biofungicide. Fungicide.
Active ingredient: Dried spores and mycelium of ray fungus (Streptomyces
griseoviridis) at 30 percent. Proposed classification/Use: General. For the
control of seed rot, root and stem rot, and wilt diseases of ornamental crops
caused by fusarium and alternaria, and also controls botrytis on certain
greenhouse ornamentals. (PM 21)
5. File Symbol: 7501-RUU. Applicant: Gustafson, Inc., PO Box 660065.
Dallas, TX 75266-0065. Product name: Gus 2000 Concentrate. Biological
Fungicide. Active ingredient: Bacillus subtilis (not less than 5.5 X 1010
viable spores per gram) at 2.75 percent. Proposed classification/Use: General.
For seed treatment on all crops. (PM 21)
Notice of approval or denial of an application to register a pesticide
product will be announced in the Federal Register. The procedure for
requesting data will be given in the Federal Register if an application is
approved.
-- Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 1991
WETLANDS DEFINED IN EPA LETTER
April 26, 1991
Ms . Bonnie Poli
National Program Leader
Pesticide Education
Extension Service
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 20250-0900
Dear Ms. Poli:
Thank you for your letter of September 7, 1990 in which you asked about
the meaning of the term "wetlands" as it appears in the environmental hazard
warning of many pesticide labels.
I am pleased to inform you that the Office of Pesticide Programs, the
Office of Compliance Monitoring and the Office of Wetlands Protection have
just issued a joint memorandum to the EPA Regions providing guidance on this
issue. A copy of that memorandum and supporting information is being sent to
you under separate cover. All states, affected industry groups and interested
organizations are being given the same package.
The EPA memorandum indicates that the term "wetlands" on pesticide
labeling has a narrower meaning than the definition given in The Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. The memorandum
states that pesticides bearing a wetlands warning must not be applied directly
to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas below
the mean high water mark. For enforcement purposes, EPA will presume that when
pesticides bearing this warning are found in water or in areas where surface
water is present or in intertidal areas below the mean high water mark, this
indicates a "use inconsistent with labeling" (i.e., misuse).
From now on, EPA will not allow the term "wetlands" to appear on the
labels of newly registered, reregistered or amended products. Instead, EPA
will use the statement: "Do not apply directly to water, or to areas where
surface water is present or to intertidal areas below the mean high water
mark." However, "wetlands" will remain on the labels of currently registered
products until EPA adopts a long-term solution as to what statement would be
most effective for protecting wetlands. Toward this end, EPA has formed a
Wetlands Pesticide Labeling Committee with representation from EPA and other
agencies to study the wetlands/pesticides issues, to evaluate EPA's risk
assessment methodology and to develop better labeling statements.
I hope that this response is timely and helpful. If you have any
questions or comments, you may contact John T. Goodin, Office of Wetlands
Protection (202-475-7799), Harry A. Winnik, Office of Pesticide Programs (557-
7463) or Phyllis Flaherty, Office of Compliance Monitoring (202-308-8383).
Sincerely,
Stephanie R. Irene
for: Anne E. Lindsay, Director
Registration Division
-- Bonnie Poli, Extension Service Update, USDA, May 17, 1991
LABELS REQUIRE CERTIFIED APPLICATORS TO BE PRESENT
Patrick Marer, Pesticide Training Coordinator for California, recently
pointed out that there are five pesticide labels that are requiring "direct
supervision" by a certified applicator apparently due to an attempt to meet
the upcoming revisions of CFR 171. The pesticides are: Methyl Parathion,
Ethyl Parathion, Aluminum Phosphide, Metasystox-R and Mevinphos. The
California Department of Agriculture has decided to actively enforce the label
statement as it appears below:
Restricted Use Pesticide
Due to very high acute toxicity to Humans and Birds
For retail sale to and use only by certified applicator or persons
under their direct supervision and only for those uses covered by the
certified applicator's certification. Direct supervision for this product
is defined as the certified applicator being physically present during
application, mixing, loading, repair and cleaning of application
equipment. Commercial certified applicators must also ensure that all
persons involved in these activities are informed of the precautionary
statements.
-- Bonnie Poli, Extension Service Update, USDA, May 17, 1991
EPA ISSUES POLICY ON SALE, USE OF EXISTING STOCKS
The EPA has published in the June 26, 1991 Federal Register an "Existing
Stocks of Pesticide Products; Statement of Policy" notice.
In general, the policy says, pesticide product cancellations involving
significant risk concerns will have existing stocks decisions made on a case-
by-case basis. It says the agency will not allow continued sale, distribution
or use of existing stocks of a cancelled pesticide with significant risk
concerns unless the benefits associated with such sale, distribution or use
exceed the risks. The policy also provides for sale, distribution and use of
existing stocks of pesticides cancelled because of a failure to comply with a
registration obligation.
"Where there are no significant risk concerns associated with the
cancellation of a pesticide (i.e. voluntary cancellation by the registrant),
the agency will generally allow unlimited use of existing stocks and unlimited
sale by persons other than the registrant. A registrant will generally be
allowed to continue to sell existing stocks for one year after the date of
cancellation is requested, or one year after the date the registrant has
ceased to comply with the responsibilities that are placed upon registrants,
whichever date is sooner."
Where a pesticide is suspended because of an imminent hazard, EPA will
apply the policies applicable to cancellations where the Agency has identified
significant risk concerns. The Agency is highly unlikely to allow significant
sale, distribution, or use of pesticides suspended because of imminent hazard
concerns.
Where a pesticide is suspended because of failure to comply with the
provisions of a data call-in or registration requirement, the Agency will
generally not allow the registrant to sell or distribute any existing stocks
during the pendency of the suspension. The Agency does not anticipate
generally placing restrictions on the sale, distribution, or use of existing
stocks by persons other than the registrant where a pesticide is suspended
because of failure to comply with the provisions of a data call-in or
registration requirement unless risk concerns were identified.
The comment deadline is August 26, 1991. Comments may result in
revisions, the EPA notice said. It also stated that the "policies in the
policy" are currently in effect but that:
"This policy will be implemented on the date of publication of this
notice. Because registrants were unaware of the policies contained in this
notice, the agency has decided to provide a 6-month 'grace period' before
certain aspects of this policy become fully effective. Specifically, in cases
where the agency has not identified any significant risk concerns, the agency
will allow registrants of products cancelled on or before Dec. 26, 1991, to
continue to sell or distribute existing stocks at least until Dec. 26, 1991,
notwithstanding the fact that application of the policies set forth in this
statement might result in a shorter existing stocks period or an outright
prohibition against the sale or distribution by the registrant of any existing
stocks."
-- Federal Register/ Vol. 56, No. 123/ June 26, 1991
SUPREME COURT SAYS COMMUNITIES CAN GO BEYOND FIFRA
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on June 21, 1991 that local
governments can go beyond FIFRA in regulating the use of pesticides within
their boundaries.
At issue was the case involving Wisconsin Public Intervenor, et al. v.
Ralph Mortier, et al. and whether the Wisconsin town of Casey could enforce an
ordinance that went beyond the 1972 FIFRA law -- specifically, whether it
could block Ralph Mortier from aerially spraying his land and restrict his
ground applications.
Farmers, ranchers, utilities and rail lines had all argued that FIFRA
should supersede local regulations. An amicus curiae brief filed by the
American Farm Bureau Federation, for example, argued that if each local entity
was allowed to enact ordinances similar to the Casey regulations, "there would
no longer be any need for FIFRA or state pesticide laws" and "there would be
regulatory chaos from one jurisdiction to another."
A county court had agreed with Mortier that FIFRA preempted local
regulations. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the decision, ruling FIFRA
preempted Casey's ordinance because FIFRA's text and legislative history
demonstrated "a clearly manifest congressional attempt to prohibit any
regulation of pesticides by local units of government."
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, said FIFRA does not preempt the town's
ordinance either explicitly, implicitly or by virtue of an actual conflict.
Justice Byron R. White, the decision's author, said "that even when
considered together, the language and legislative materials relied on ... are
insufficient to demonstrate the necessary congressional attempt to preempt. As
for the statutory language, it is wholly inadequate to convey and express
preemptive attempt on its own. Section 136v plainly authorizes the 'states' to
regulate pesticides and just as plainly is silent with reference to local
governments. Mere silence, in this context, cannot suffice to establish a
'clear and manifest purpose' to preempt local authority."
"Even if FIFRA's express grant of regulatory authority to the states
could not be read as applying to municipalities, it would not follow that
municipalities were left with no regulatory authority," he said.
The ruling said the legislative history is ambiguous because there was
disagreement between the responsible congressional committees on whether a
provision that became 136v preempted local regulation.
White said that, properly read, FIFRA's language tilts in favor of local
regulation. "The exclusion of political subdivisions cannot be inferred from
the express authorization to the 'state(s)' because political subdivisions are
components of the very entity the statute empowers. Indeed, the more plausible
reading of FIFRA's authorization to the states leaves the allocation of
regulatory authority to the 'absolute discretion' of the states themselves,
including the option of leaving local regulation of pesticides in the hands of
local authorities."
White said FIFRA gives the federal government jurisdiction over the
registration and labeling of pesticides, but nonetheless leaves substantial
portions of the field vacant, including the area at issue in this case.
"FIFRA nowhere seeks to establish an affirmative permit scheme for the
actual use of pesticides, White wrote; it certainly does not equate
registration and labeling requirements with a general approval to apply
pesticides throughout the nation without regard to regional and local factors
like climate, population, geography and water supply."
"Whatever else FIFRA may supplant, it does not occupy the field of
pesticide regulation in general or the area of local use permitting in
particular," he said.
Thus, the ruling said, 136v acts "to ensure that the states could
continue to regulate use and sales even where, such as with regard to the
banning of mislabeled products, a narrow preemptive overlap might occur.
White said that contrary to Mortier's arguments, FIFRA "implies a
regulatory partnership between federal, state and local governments." He said
FIFRA does not suggest that any goal of coordination precludes local use
ordinances "because they were enacted independent of specific state or federal
oversight." He said FIFRA provides even less indication "that local ordinances
must yield to statutory purposes of promoting technical expertise or
maintaining unfettered interstate commerce."
"Mortier nonetheless asserts that local ordinances necessarily rest on
insufficient expertise and burden commerce by allowing, among other things,
large-scale crop infestation, White said. "As with the specter of the gypsy
moth, Congress is free to find that local regulation does wreak such havoc and
enact legislation with the purpose of preventing it. We are satisfied,
however, that Congress has not done so yet."
-- Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, June 26, 1991
FINAL PESTICIDES IN GROUNDWATER STRATEGY TO CLEAR OMB SOON
The EPA strategy on pesticides in groundwater, under development since
1986, could be released by the White House Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) "any day now," EPA officials told a forum on pesticide and wetlands
issues held in Arlington, Va.
The strategy will rely on using state management plans, to be approved by
EPA after the agency identifies pesticides that are likely to contaminate
ground water, Lewis Crampton, associate administrator, EPA's Office of
Communications and Public Affairs told the forum, sponsored by the Golf Course
Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA). State plans "can be tailored
to local conditions of pesticide use, agricultural practices and ground water
vulnerability," according to an update Crampton presented to the conference.
Crampton and Cathy Kronopolus, environmental protection specialist, Regional
Operations Branch, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, indicated that the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) preferred to see fewer restrictions on
the applications of pesticides in the final policy. However, Crampton said "we
feel it is a good compromise" and expressed confidence that OMB would release
the strategy.
There will be no comment period on the policy once EPA issues it; rather,
they said, states will be asked to submit management plans after EPA
identifies ground-water leaching pesticides. The state management plan
approach is designed to prevent pesticides from being banned nationwide and
identify chemicals that are leaching into groundwater, according to officials.
Kronopolus said EPA "knows of at least six chemicals that are leaching."
She said EPA, which is providing grants to states to devise management plans,
will not expect plans until the agency identifies pesticides for which
management programs must be developed. The strategy will be issued with
guidance outlining what states must have in the plans they submit to EPA,
Kronopolus said.
The guidance to states, which she said could be issued in late August,
will require plans to have 12 components. These include a statement of the
state's philosophy toward protecting groundwater, its legal authority, actions
to prevent leaching, how it willwill involve and inform the public, monitoring
enforcement efforts and how the state will respond to detections of pesticides
in groundwater. Variability of aquifer use, value and sensitivity must be
accounted for in each state plan.
-- Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, June 26, 1991
BILL TO BAN HAZARDOUS PESTICIDES IS INTRODUCED IN SENATE
Three senators have introduced a bill (S 1353) that would amend FIFRA by
putting the burden of proving registered pesticides to be safe on registrants
and giving EPA added powers to remove or suspend marketed products. The bill
would also expand the term "environment" to consider the special needs of
children and "other population subgroups," as well as allowing EPA to issue
new neurotoxicity guidelines.
The measure was introduced on June 21, 1991 by Sen. Lieberman (D-Conn.),
Sen. Reid (D-Nev.), chairman of the Senate Environment/Public Works
Subcommittee on Toxic Substances, Environmental Oversight, Research and
Development, and Sen. Durenberger (R-Minn.).
Called the Pesticide Health and Safety Act of 1991, the measure follows a
series of hearings Reid held on Alar, pesticides in the food supply and those
used in lawn care. The measure "is almost identical" to a bill the senators
introduced in the last Congress, Reid said in a floor speech. Lieberman said,
"What we heard during those hearings was unsettling in terms of the length of
time it takes the (EPA) to cancel a dangerous pesticide, ' Lieberman, a member
of the subcommittee, said in a June 21, 1991 floor speech. "We have found that
it often takes EPA 15-20 years to remove a dangerous pesticide from the
market."
-- Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, June 26, 1991
USE BLOOD, NOT FAT
In 1967, the National Human Adipose Tissue Survey (NHATS) was established
to monitor certain toxicants in fat from cadavers and surgery patients. Over
the past 20 years, pathologists and medical examiners from 47 urban areas
collected roughly 12,000 fat samples for NHATS. The program proved useful:
First, it documented widespread prevalence of pesticide exposure in the
population; later it showed that reduced use of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), DDT, and dieldrin was followed by lower tissue levels of these
compounds.
Today, collection and analysis of human tissues remains critically
necessary for determining the potential health risk from exposure to
toxicants, but NHATS itself "is out of date and only partially fulfills its
objectives," according to a new report from the National Research Council.
Instead, said a select committee appointed to review NHATS, the survey
should be dismantled and reconstructed into an improved program that monitors
blood instead of fat. A program based on blood samples would allow researchers
to study a broader cross-section of the population and a wider range of
chemicals at lower cost.
Because of new trends in environmental exposure, advances in analytic
chemistry, better equipment, and the phasing out of DDT and similar chemicals,
blood has become the tissue of choice for monitoring human exposure to toxic
substances.
What are the advantages? Blood samples are easier to obtain and can be
collected less invasively than fat tissue. Further, because blood reflects
more recent exposures, studies could focus on volatile organic chemicals, such
as benzene and trichloroethylene, as well as lead, cadmium, or arsenic. What's
more, a blood sampling program could encompass a more representative sample of
the US population. A major deficiency of NHATS is that most fat samples came
from autopsied cadavers at urban hospitals, leaving rural and healthy
populations underrepresented. Because blood would be taken from living donors,
the program would also allow researchers to interview the donors.
To make the program as useful as possible, said the committee, it should
also collect such specimens as lean tissue, hair, urine, and other biological
fluids. All samples should be accompanied by information on demographics,
illness, known occupational exposure, or other major exposure to chemicals.
A good model for the new program, said the committee, is the National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), run by the National Center
for Health Statistics. NHANES collects and analyzes blood samples from a
cross-section of the US population to develop statistical information on a
wide range of health issues. But, said the committee, because the two programs
have significant differences in objectives, they should not be combined.
Finally, the committee recommended funding the program at a minimum of $3
million per year, which would be barely adequate to keep it in long-term
existence. A clear decision to end the program, said the committee, would be
better than seriously inadequate support. For a copy of the report ($29
prepaid), contact: National Academy Press, 2001 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Harris
Bldg. Rm 384, Washington, DC 20418; (202) 334-3313. For more on the study,
contact: John C. Bailar II, McGill University School of Medicine, Montreal,
(202) 472-5584 or (514) 398-6041.
--Health & Environment Digest, Vol. 5, No. 6, July 1991
PESTICIDE BRIEFS
ORGANIC INSECTICIDAL SOAP recalled by Ortho Consumer Products, division of
Chevron Chemical, after a single batch (about 67,000 bottles) was discovered,
the company said, to have been contaminated with the herbicide oxyfluorfen
(Goal) during manufacture at the company's Fort Madison, Ia., plant. The
recall phone number for collect calls was listed as (414) 842-2334.
-- Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, July 10, 1991
Propiconazole (Tilt)
The following tolerances for residues of the fungicide propiconazole
(Tilt) have been extended by EPA until June 21, 1993:
10.0 p.p.m. in or on grass seed screenings; 5.0 p.p.m. in or on grass
hay; 2.0 p.p.m. in kidney and liver of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep;
and 0.5 p.p.m. in or on grass forage. In originally setting these tolerances,
EPA asked for additional data submission from the petitioner, Ciba-Geigy.
-- Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, July 10, 1991
WGS/7/91
Disclaimer: Please read
the pesticide label prior to use. The information contained at this web
site is not a substitute for a pesticide label. Trade names used herein
are for convenience only; no endorsement of products is intended, nor is
criticism of unnamed products implied. Most of this information is historical
in nature and may no longer be applicable.
To Top
For more information relative to pesticides and their use in New York State, please contact the PMEP staff at:
| |
5123 Comstock Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-0901
(607) 255-1866
|
|
 |
This site is supported, in part, by funding from the
 |
Questions regarding the development of this web site should be directed to the
PMEP Webmaster
