Chem-News May 1992
TO: Those Interested in Pesticide Information
DATE: May 1992
FROM: William G. Smith, Senior Extension Associate
INDEX
Page
Summary of the New York State 1992 Pesticide Fee Increase Legislation 1
Status of Section 18s Requested for New York State in 1992 3
Primisulfuron (Beacon) Registered Conditionally in New York State 3
USDA Seeks Comments on Proposed Record Keeping for Restricted Pesticides 4
Tolerances Established for Fosetyl-AL (Aliette) 5
Mevinphos (Phosdrin) Intent to Suspend Notice Issued to Three Registrants 5
Vegetable, Cash Grain Farmers Found Most Pesticide Dependent 6
2,4-D, Aldicarb, Other Special Reviews' Noted 7
Proposed Atrazine Label Changes Accepted or Revised by EPA 8
Minor Crop Protection Assistance Act Introduced in House 9
USDA Files Objections to EPA Farm Worker Protection Rule 9
EBDC Cancellation Hearings Asked on Leafy Greens, Potato PHI 10
Methyl Bromide Structural Fumigation Label Changes Noted 11
****************************
SUMMARY OF THE NEW YORK STATE 1992 PESTICIDE FEE INCREASE LEGISLATION
A. Fees
Effective April 1, 1992 through July 1, 1996:
$100 per pesticide product (registration term remains at two years) with
proof in form of a federal income tax return for the previous year showing
gross annual sales, for federal income tax purposes of $3,500,000 or less; or
$300 per product.
After July 1, 1996, the fee will become $50 per product (For a two year
period).
B. Review Time Frames
Type of Registration Completeness Determination Registration Decision
New Active Ingredient 60 days, written notice 150 days + 30 days if
(AI) to applicant. applicant requests
decision.
Major Change in 60 days, written notice 150 days + 30 days if
Labeling (MCL) to applicant. applicant requests
decision.
Special Local Need 60 days, written notice 60 days + 10 days if
Registration to applicant. applicant requests
decision.
AI already registered 60 day, written notice 90 days + 30 days if
to applicant. applicant requests
decision.
Amended labeling, 60 days, written notice 30 days + 30 days if
other than MCL to applicant. applicant requests
decision.
Section 18 Emergency Filed at least 105 days Filed at least 60
before decision is days before decision
needed with DEC. is needed with EPA.
30 days to determine
completeness.
All times may be extended with consent of the applicant.
C. Data Requirements
The Department may require additional data at any time during the review
period. The data request will not extend any time period during which the
registration decision must be made.
D. Rules and Regulations
Rules are to be promulgated. A rule defining a complete application must
be promulgated by April 1, 1993.
E. Applications Received by March 31, 1992
A decision on completeness of the applications must be made by January 1,
1993. A decision on registration for applications complete as of January 1,
1993 must be made by December 1, 1993. Between April 1, 1992 and July 1, 1993
all other applications are to be processed as expeditiously as practicable.
F. Disposition of Funds
All fines, fees and penalties are deposited in the Environmental
Enforcement Account. An appropriation of $600,000 is made to be spent for
administration of the pesticide product registration program.
STATUS OF SECTION 18s REQUESTED FOR NEW YORK STATE IN 1992 (AS 5/11/92)
1. Avermectin (Agri-Mek) - Pears/Pear psylla
- Granted to NYS on 4/10/92
2. Cyromazine (Trigard/onions/onion maggot)
- EPA granted the specific exemption 3/9/92 for the use on a
maximum of 1,000 acres. The exemption expires on 5/15/92.
3. Pendimethalin (Prowl)/onions/weed control
- EPA granted the specific exemption on 5/4/92.
4. Pro Gro Seed Treatment
- EPA granted 12/12/91
5. Sodium Fluoaluminate (Kryocide, Prokil)/potatoes/Colorado potato
beetle
- Granted by EPA on 5/22/92
6. Vinclozolin/ (Ronilan) / snap beans/gray mold
- submitted to DEC 10/23/91
- DEC to EPA on 4/16/92
-- William Smith, PMEP, Cornell University
PRIMISULFURON (BEACON) REGISTERED CONDITIONALLY IN NEW YORK STATE
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has issued a
registration of primisulfuron (Beacon) to the Ciba-Geigy Cop., for use in New
York State under the following conditions:
(1) The registration will take effect on the date of this letter (May 12,
1992) and remain in effect until September 30, 1992, as will conditions
(2) through (6) listed below, except as noted otherwise.
(2) The product may not be sold or used in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, due
to unresolved concerns regarding potential groundwater contamination.
(3) The product may only be sold to certified applicators.
(4) Ciba-Geigy must maintain records of all primisulfuron (Beacon) sales to
any person by Ciba-Geigy or other persons. Ciba-Geigy will notify all
purchasers purchasing for resale of the obligation to maintain records
and to sell only to certified applicators.
(5) The records must include the name of the purchaser, the number of the
person's commercial permit (if any) the purchaser's certification
identification number (for end-use sales), the amount of the product sold
to the purchaser, and the date of sale.
(6) All required records must be submitted to the Bureau of Pesticide
Regulation at the above address.
All outstanding data required to meet EPA registration must be submitted
to the Department simultaneously with submission to EPA. Ciba-Geigy must
report any adverse effects concerning Beacon which have been reported or are
reported to Ciba-Geigy in the future, within 15 days of any such report.
Any application to register Beacon submitted subsequent to this
registration will be treated as an application to register a new active
ingredient. The data will be reviewed to determine if further registration is
appropriate.
-- N. G.. Kaul, Director, Div. of Hazardous Substances, DEC
USDA SEEKS COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RECORD KEEPING FOR RESTRICTED PESTICIDES
The United States Department of Agriculture is seeking comments on a
proposal to require record keeping by anyone using "restricted use"
pesticides. These are pesticides that, under federal law, may only be applied
by those trained/certified in their use by state pesticide regulatory
agencies.
Daniel D. Haley, administrator of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service
said the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires
applicators of restricted use pesticides to receive the special training
(certification) before using these pesticides.
All restricted use pesticides are registered with the Environmental
Protection Agency. The 1990 Farm Bill authorized USDA to design and implement
the record keeping program for these pesticides, Haley said.
The record keeping program would apply to those using or supervising the
use of any restricted use pesticide in agricultural production.
Proposed data to be recorded include:
-- address and size of treated area;
-- target pest and crop or stored product treated;
-- brand or product name, formulation and EPA registration number;
-- total amount and rate of application;
-- month, day and year treated; and
-- applicator's name, address and certification number (if available).
Records compiled under this program would form a data base for
environmental surveys by federal and state agencies, and would be used by USDA
and EPA for annual reports to Congress on the use of these pesticides, Haley
said.
The 1990 Farm Bill limits access to data gathered under the program.
Access would be available through USDA or the state agencies USDA designated
as eligible to gather the data. Access also would be available to licensed
health care professionals providing medical treatment to patients exposed to
restricted-use pesticides.
Also proposed is enforcement of the record keeping program through
cooperative agreements between USDA and state pesticide regulatory agencies.
Violators would incur civil penalties of not more than $500 for the first
violation and a minimum of $1000 for additional violations. An administrative
appeal process would be available.
Details of the pesticide registration program appeared in the May 12,
1992 Federal Register. Written comments should be receive on or before Aug.
10. Send comments to Alan Post, Docket Manager, Science Division, AMS, USDA,
Rm. 3064-S, P.O. Box 96546, Washington, DC 20090-6456.
Copies of the Federal Register announcement and additional information
are available from the Pesticide Management Education Program at Cornell
University or from Bonnie Poli, Chief, Pesticide Records Branch, Science
Division, AMS, Suite 200, 8700 Centreville Rd., Manassas, VA; telephone (703)
330-7826.
-- William Smith, PMEP, Cornell University
TOLERANCES ESTABLISHED FOR FOSETYL-AL (ALIETTE)
Tolerances were established for residues of aluminum tris
(Oethylphosphonate) of 0.5 p.p.m. in dry bulb onions; 55 p.p.m. in or on
Brassica (cole) leafy vegetables group; and 80 p.p.m. in or on leafy
vegetables (except Brassica vegetables) group. The fungicide is known as
fosetyl-Al (Aliette).
The new tolerances resulted from three petitions filed by Rhone-Poulenc.
EPA said it has 'concluded that the available data provide limited
evidence for the carcinogenicity of fosetyl-Al in male rats and has classified
the pesticide as a Category C carcinogen (possible human carcinogen with
limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)....' The agency concluded,
'Since the increase in the bladder tumor incidence was limited only to male
rats at doses well above the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg body weight/day for
carcinogenicity studies), EPA believes that no significant cancer risk would
be posed to humans.'
Stating that a quantitative risk assessment is not appropriate, the
agency said:
'(1) The carcinogenic response observed with this chemical was confined
solely to the high-dose males at one site (urinary bladder in
rats); the recent data of a 90-day feeding study of fosetyl-Al in
rats also showed a strong association between the presence of
uroliths in the urinary bladder and the incidence of urinary
bladder hyperplasia in treated rats;
(2) The tumor response was primarily due to an increase in benign
tumors;
(3) The tumors were seen only in surviving animals at the time of
terminal sacrifice;
(4) The carcinogenic effects were observed only at unusually high
doses;
(5) The chemical was not carcinogenic when administered in the diet to
Charles River CD- 1 mice at dose levels ranging from 2,500 to
30,000 ppm. (357 to 4,286 mg/kg body weight/day); and
(6) Fosetyl-Al was not mutagenic in eight well-conducted genotoxic
assays.'
-- April 8, 1992 PESTICIDE & TOXIC CHEMICAL NEWS
MEVINPHOS (PHOSDRIN) INTENT TO SUSPEND NOTICE ISSUED TO THREE REGISTRANTS
As expected, EPA issued notices of intent to suspend mevinphos (Phosdrin)
to Amvac Chemical Corp., Platte Chemical Company, and Helena Chemical Co. The
notices were issued for failure to file required Section 3(c)(2)(B)data on
time. No hearing requests had been filed at press time.
The data requirements were in a March 1988 data call-in notice, EPA
noted.
The registrants have 30 days to request a hearing or to file the required
data; otherwise the suspensions will be effective automatically.
The data were due in 1989 and included fish toxicity and hydrolysis data.
Amvac's products subject to the notice include:
Durham Duraphos EM 4 and 400 organophosphorus insecticides;
10.3 Royal; Brand Phosdrin Spray Concentrate; Royal Brand
2% Phosdrin Insecticide Dust; Shell Phosdrin Insecticide 100%;
Phosdrin 4EC Insecticide; Mevinphos Insecticide.
Platte's product covered by the notice was Clean Crop Phosdrin
4.0 Miscible.
The Helena products covered by the notice were Helena 4-E and 2-E.
-- April 8, 1992 PESTICIDE & TOXIC CHEMICAL NEWS
VEGETABLE, CASH GRAIN FARMERS FOUND MOST PESTICIDE DEPENDENT
Vegetable and cash grain farmers rely more heavily on agricultural
chemicals than other growers and are least likely to adopt sustainable
agriculture practices, according to a survey report released last week by
Public Voice for Food and Health Policy.
The survey, conducted among a sample of farmers chosen by the Wisconsin
Agricultural Statistical Service, also found that most growers would like to
adopt alternative methods but are fearful of doing so.
The report, 'Trying to Take Root: Sustainable Agriculture in the U.S.
Heartland,' said that nearly two-thirds (62%) of the 523 Wisconsin farmers
responding to the survey acknowledged relying 'exclusively,' 'mostly,' or
'half the time' on synthetic chemical fertilizers; 42% on chemical herbicides;
32% on synthetic pesticides, and 14% on chemical fungicides.
Within the sample, 92% of vegetable growers reported heavy reliance on
chemical fertilizers; 83% on chemical herbicides; 65% on synthetic
insecticides, and 47% on chemical fungicides. Among cash grain farmers, 72%
rely heavily on synthetic fertilizers; 59% on chemical herbicides; 47% on
chemical insecticides, and 25% on chemical fungicides.
By contrast, 58% of livestock farmers reported similar reliance on
synthetic fertilizers; 31% on chemical herbicides; 11% on chemical
insecticides, and 9% on chemical fungicides.
Public Voice said that only 19% of Wisconsin farmers sampled are using
'sustainable' farming systems, but 75% of farmers relying heavily on chemicals
would prefer to adopt alternative practices. Barriers cited by respondents
included fears that alternatives are 'too risky'; lender, crop insurer or
marketing contracts that specify chemical use; federal income support programs
that discourage crop rotation, and lack of information and experience with
alternatives.
'Responsive federal policies are needed to address the serious roadblocks
which discourage farmers from reducing their use of pesticides and adopting
sustainable farming systems,' Public Voice commented.
To foster growth of sustainable agriculture, the report recommended
expanded research and education programs under the 1990 farm bill. The
federal government should also 'aggressively relax commodity base acreage
requirements and expand participation in the Integrated Farm Management
Program' to facilitate crop rotation, it said.
Public Voice recommended that federal agencies undertake similar surveys
on a nationwide basis to determine U.S. farmers' production practices. The
group also urged USDA to implement the farm bill provision authorizing
research on food marketing practices and regulations that discourage pesticide
reduction in the fruit and vegetable industries.
-- April 8, 1992 PESTICIDE & TOXIC CHEMICAL NEWS
2,4-D, ALDICARB, OTHER SPECIAL REVIEWS' NOTED
The 2,4-D Minnesota and Iowa epidemiology studies have been filed with
EPA and the agency is about to select members of an expert panel to review
them and the dog study, according to Jack Housenger, Acting Chief, Special
Review Branch, Special Review and Reregistration Division, OPP, EPA
The 2,4-D Industry Task Force informed EPA last month that the mouse
study results will be filed in May 1995 and the rat study in June 1995.
The division has issued a report, Status of Chemicals in Special Review,
which noted that 2,4-D is in pre-special review and that in fiscal year 1992 a
final decision might be reached on the status of the pesticide.
Carcinogenicity was listed as the special review trigger.
Discussing aldicarb (Temik), Housenger predicted that a final decision on
the groundwater contamination aspect and a proposed regulatory decision on the
avian effects would be issued this year.
Children were not included in the human study of the pesticide, he
stated.
Propoxur (Prentox, Baygon) is described in the status report as being in
pre-special review based on carcinogenicity.
It is expected that a proposed regulatory decision on propoxur's indoor
uses will be issued this fiscal year.
In connection with a decision on the nine remaining uses of parathion,
Housenger indicated that some of the uses might be proposed for cancellation.
'In some cases, the alternative is just as bad; ... the issue is how to
determine which one is worse than another,' Housenger said. 'We need to make
sure that if we get rid of parathion that it will help,' the Acting Branch
Chief said. Drift of parathion and alternatives is being examined, he said.
This year action will be taken on aldicarb (Temik), TPTH and DDVP
(Vapona), Housenger predicted.
Information in the status report included: Alachlor final decision
(position document 4) will be issued in 1993; Amitrole proposed regulatory
decision is scheduled to be issued in fiscal year 1992; daminozide final
decision on non-food uses is to be issued in fiscal year 1992; 1,3
dichloropropene proposed regulatory decision in fiscal year 1992; dich-lorvos
(DDVP) proposed regulatory decision due in fiscal year 1992 or 1993;
oxydemeton-methyl, reproductive effects trigger, peer review expected to be
completed in fiscal year 1992, and TPTH (triphenyltin hydroxide),
developmental toxicity trigger, proposed regulatory decision due in fiscal
year 1992
Housenger said that EPA's Office of Inspector General is looking into the
special review process to see how it is working.
Case studies for the investigation include carbofuran, cyanazine and
daminozide, he said.
OPP is working on a project to try to determine acceptable negligible
risks for effects in addition to the dietary cancer risk which is ten to the
minus six Housenger said. The plan is to try to extrapolate the negligible
risk concept to other effects, he said.
And, there is an attempt to determine whether the 10 to the minus four
risk for farm workers is right or what level is acceptable.
If we can get a standard acceptable risk, we will not have to reinvent it
each time, 'Housenger said.
He predicted that the National Academy of Sciences' committee's study of
pesticide residues in the diets of infants and children would be released in
June, following peer review in May.
-- April 8, 1992 PESTICIDE & TOXIC CHEMICAL NEWS
PROPOSED ATRAZINE LABEL CHANGES ACCEPTED OR REVISED BY EPA
Most of the atrazine label changes proposed by Ciba-Geigy Corporation
have been accepted by EPA.
One of the registrant's proposed changes would require the following
label statement:
'This product may not be applied aerially or by ground
within 200 feet around natural or impounded lakes and
reservoirs.'
Jack Housenger, Acting Chief, Special Review Branch, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (SRRD), OPP, EPA, commented last week that this 200,
foot buffer would probably reduce but not prevent contamination. 'We do not
know whether the buffer will keep levels below the MCL (maximum contaminant
level),' he said.
There are a lot of atrazine detections and 'you would expect to see a lot
when 80 million-90 million pounds are applied a year,' he said.
Housenger said he was not sure whether the surface water contamination
problem could be controlled nationally. The atrazine/groundwater problem will
ultimately be dealt with by state and local governments because every instance
is different, he said.
It is possible that all triazines will be put into special review, the
EPA official said noting that the same tumor type was linked to all of them.
In an April 3 letter from Daniel Barolo, SRRD Director, EPA accepted the
registrant's proposed application rate reductions, use deletions and the 66-
foot set-backs for streams and rivers. The set-back label language:
'This product may not be applied aerially or by ground
within 66 feet of the points where field surface water
runoff enters perennial or intermittent streams or rivers.
'If this product is applied to highly erodible land, the
66-foot buffer or set-back from runoff entry points must be
planted to crop, seeded with grass or other suitable cover crop.'
In an April 6 note to Ciba-Geigy, EPA accepted the following language for
mixing and loading:
'This product may not be mixed or loaded within 50 feet of
intermittent streams, rivers, reservoirs, impounded or natural
lakes, or within 50 feet of all wells including abandoned wells,
drainage wells and sink holes.'
This note stated that the agency was 'reviewing Ciba-Geigy's request for
a waiver of the proposed 50 feet storage set-back requirement where there are
'appropriate environmental safeguards.' In the interim, the agency has
requested that the following storage guidance remain on the label:
'Groundwater contamination may be reduced by diking and
flooring of permanent liquid bulk storage sites with an
impermeable material.'
Barolo's April 3 letter to Ciba-Geigy's Richard L. Feulner, Director,
Regulatory Affairs, revised the registrant's proposed statement about
state/local requirements to read:
'Where there are state/local requirements regarding
atrazine use (including lower maximum application rates
and/or set-backs) which are different from the label,
the more restrictive/protective requirements must be followed.'
The Division Director's letter stated further:
'The agency does not accept your proposal to allow
applications of atrazine when corn or sorghum is 18
inches in height (currently, labels allow applications
when crops are 12 inches). Since the proposed change
would allow application later in the growing season,
closer to the time of harvest, this may result in
increased residue levels.
'Any change in atrazine application that may increase residues on food or
feed requires formal review by OPP Residue Chemistry Branch. This review
could not occur in time for this season's use (BASF's preference) and would
delay imposition of the surface water mitigation measures. If you and/or BASF
wish to pursue this issue, you must submit your request to OPP Registration
Division for formal review.
-- April 8, 1992 PESTICIDE & TOXIC CHEMICAL NEWS
MINOR CROP PROTECTION ASSISTANCE ACT INTRODUCED IN HOUSE
The Minor Crop Protection Assistance Act, HR 4764, was introduced in the
House April 3 by Rep. de la Garza (D-Tex.) and 50 cosponsors. The bill was
drafted by the Minor Crop Farmer Alliance.
Rep. de la Garza and Rep. Panetta (D-Calif.) noted that the bill would be
considered as part of the FIFRA reauthorization bill, HR 3742.
The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. de la Garza, noted
that the bill would provide minor use options to EPA, including: 'Waive
certain data requirements if the pesticide's use does not present an
unreasonable risk to human health or the environment; grant extensions for
developing data in certain cases; require the expedited review of applications
for registration for minor uses, and use data from an identical or
substantially similar pesticide whose registration has been allowed to lapse
for economic reasons.
The congressman listed other minor crop improvements which were needed,
specifically: USDA pesticide data collection; implementing the record-keeping
requirements of the farm bill; improving IR-4, which has 'suffered from a lack
of resources and leadership to date,' and faster investigation and
identification of 'alternative pest control strategies which place less
reliance on chemical approaches such as IPM strategies. This situation must
change. Finally, measures must be found to accelerate EPA registration of
biological pest control agents and to promote the development of safer
pesticides.'
Rep. Panetta also called for increased funding for IR-4. And, he said,
'We need to have a reasonable process for small-scale use of pesticides that
safeguards the environment and people's health but does not end up taking
necessary and safe pesticides off the market.'
-- April 8, 1992 PESTICIDE & TOXIC CHEMICAL NEWS
USDA FILES OBJECTIONS TO EPA FARM WORKER PROTECTION RULE
USDA's objections to nearly all provisions of EPA's draft final farm
worker protection regulations were based on the department's assertion that
the cost-benefit analysis was quite flawed and unsupported. The comments
filed last month listed the following issues requiring attention:
-- 'Desirable alternatives are available for certain
provisions which would protect workers, but reduce
the compliance burden on agricultural employers.
-- 'There is insufficient information provided for
adequate analysis of the costs and benefits of some
provisions.
-- 'There is no indication that EPA has considered the
costs of this rule to agricultural workers.
-- 'From a purely economic perspective based on the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) dated March 31, 1991,
the estimated pecuniary costs and anticipated pecuniary
benefits of this rule do not appear to be supportable.
This analysis relates only to the economic costs and
benefits and does not take into account social and
environmental costs and benefits.'
The comments filed by Daniel D. Haley, Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service, USDA, charged that the rule's 'training provision will
require that an employer provide training at the beginning of the season, and
then each time an additional worker or replacement worker is hired. Generally,
outside trainers must be hired each time the training program is provided.
Given the extremely high variability and turnover within labor--intensive
agricultural work groups (1,000% is not uncommon), this procedure is
unreasonably burdensome and would frequently result in virtually continuous
training of small groups of new hires by each employer.' The department also
urged EPA to implement a provision to verify training.
'USDA does not support the requirement to display for 30 days after the
restricted-entry interval has expired, in a central location, a listing of all
pesticides which have been applied,' Haley stated. He continued, 'The display
period is inappropriate, as many crops will be harvested before the display
period has expired. The previously treated area may be in production of
another crop.'
Agriculture repeated its objection to the potable water requirement for
decontamination. The department wants the requirement to be for 'clean' water,
recreational water 'suitable for close bodily contact with a possibility for
ingestion.'
-- April 8, 1992 PESTICIDE & TOXIC CHEMICAL NEWS
EBDC CANCELLATION HEARINGS ASKED ON LEAFY GREENS, POTATO PHI
EBDC cancellation hearings have been requested to restore use on leafy
greens and to change the preharvest interval (PHI) for potato use in some
states from 14 to three days. The requests have been consolidated into one
case assigned to EPA 's Administrative Law Judge, Harwood[pi].
The leafy greens -- including collards, mustard greens, spinach and
turnips -- hearing was requested by United Foods, Inc., and, jointly, the
American Food Security Coalition (AFSC) and a group of Georgia leafy green
growers.
Requesting a hearing on the potato use PHI were: Cooperative Extension,
University of Delaware; Ohio Potato Growers Association, and Michigan
Agriculture Department on behalf of the Michigan Potato Growers.
-- April 8, 1992 PESTICIDE & TOXIC CHEMICAL NEWS
METHYL BROMIDE STRUCTURAL FUMIGATION LABEL CHANGES NOTED
Methyl bromide registrants last week voluntarily agreed to label changes
for products used in structural fumigation, following determinations by EPA
and the Department of Pesticide Regulation, California EPA (Cal-EPA), that
there were health risks, acute and chronic, from reentering structures after
fumigation. The voluntary label changes delay reentry and require aeration.
The interim voluntary label changes agreed to by Great Lakes Chemical
Corp., Ethyl Corp. and Ameribrom, Inc., are:
-- After fumigation occurs and the tarp is removed,
all doors and windows must be opened and all plates
from light switches and electrical outlets must be
removed. The structure may not be certified for
reoccupancy until one of the following criteria is met:
1. For natural ventilation. A. Minimum of seven
days. B. Minimum of two samples, measurement
less than 3 p.p.m. C. Repeat measurements after
24 hours if test fails.
2. Structures without attics. A. Aeration fan in
living area with 10,000 CFM capacity for 72 hours.
B. Minimum of two samples, measurement less than
3 p.p.m. C. Repeat measurements after 12 hours
if test fails.
3. Structures with attics. A. Aeration fan in attic
with 10,000 CFM capacity for 72 hours. B. Minimum
two samples, measurement less than 3 p.p.m.
C. Repeat measurements after 12 hours if test fails.
4. A. Aeration fan in basement with 10,000 CFM capacity
for 72 hours. B. Minimum two samples, measurement
less than 3 p.p.m. C. Repeat measurements after 12
hours if test fails.'
DowElanco's Vikane, sulfuryl fluoride, is a methyl bromide alternative.
Vikane label changes were filed with EPA in 1991 by DowElanco but the changes
were not acted on, an agency official said last week.
In an April 3 press release, EPA said it was 'approving some label
changes proposed by the registrant of sulfuryl fluoride which will increase
requirements for post-treatment clearance activities and reduce potential
exposure levels before residents reenter treated dwellings.'
--April 8, 1992 PESTICIDE & TOXIC CHEMICAL NEWS
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
|
PLEASE NOTE: If you are not in New York State, you must contact the appropriate
agency for your area.
|
 |
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
