john leahy, epa pesticide re-evaluation division risk overview why changes are needed
Post on 19-Dec-2015
213 views
TRANSCRIPT
John Leahy, EPAPesticide Re-evaluation Division
Risk Overview
Why Changes are Needed
2
Fumigants Are Applied Many Ways to Control a Variety of Pests
2
3
Focus On Acute Residential Bystander & Occupational Risks
Wind blows emissions from an application to a receptor of
concern (e.g., house or school)
Wind
Other types of exposures also considered including:Dietary (methyl bromide only)Drinking water (methyl bromide only)EnvironmentalCommunity based or ambient exposures in the population
3
Risk Assessment Process
Hazard IdentificationDoes the agent cause the adverse effect?
Dose-Response Assessment
What is the relationship betweendose and incidence/severity of effects?
Exposure Assessment
What exposures are currently experienced or anticipated underdifferent conditions?
Risk Characterization
What is the estimated incidencelikelihood of the adverse effectin a given population?
4
Scientific Foundation
• Recognized methods used• Public peer review processes under FACA rules
• SAB on RfC inhalation risk methodology (1998)• SAP on exposure modeling (2004)
• Multi-agency collaboration• USDA• DPR• FDACS
• Based on multiple lines of evidence• Hazard data, Monitoring, Modeling, Incidents
• Refined as a result of multiple public comment periods
5
Fumigant Toxicity ComparisonParameter Chloropicrin
MITC(Metam/Dazomet)
MeBr Iodomethane 1,3-D DMDS
Study used in risk
assessment
Human Eye Irritation1 hr/day
Human Odor & Eye
1-8 hr/day
Developmental Rabbit
6 hrs/day
1.Subchronic-Rat
6 hrs/day2. Develop.-
Rabbit6 hrs/day
Acute -Rat4 hrs
Special 24-hour inhalation study-rat
Endpoint Eye irritationEye irritation
response
Agenesis of gall bladder, ↑fused
sternebrae, ↓fetal wt
Degeneration of olfactory
epithelium, ↑ fetal losses
↓ body weights
Inflammation and
degeneration of the nasal olfactory
epithelium (levels II-VI); all minimal
Completeness of Database
Moderate-High Low Moderate High Moderate Moderate-High
Symptoms reported from
Incidents
Odor, eye, nasal irritation, difficulty breathing, pulmonary
edema
Eye, throat & skin irritation, nausea,
coughing
Headache, weakness, difficulty breathing,
convulsions (soil uses)
No incidentsEye, throat & skin irritation,
cough
Limited incidents, odor issues, no other
confirmed effects
6
Field Emissions (Flux) Monitoring
Cross Section Of Cross Section Of
Treated Field WithTreated Field With
Known Surface AreaKnown Surface Area
Emissions Are Described As Flux Values (µg/m2/sec)
Volatile ResiduesVolatile Residues
7
MeBr Field 8 Results
19A; tarped raised bed in CA
200 lb/A; 98/2 MeBr/Pic
12 hr samples; LOD 0.005 ppm
30’ – 0.52 & 0.029 ppm
430’ - ND & ND ppm
5’ 0.65
&1.0
ppm
30’ – 0.39 & 0.23 ppm
430’ – 0.028 & 0.65 ppm
30’ 0.24
& 0.005 ppm
430’ 0.042
&ND
ppm
405’ 0.46
& 0.69 ppm
288’ 0.13
& 0.21 ppm
408’ 0.089
& 0.017 ppm
430’ 0.072 & ND ppm
430’ 0.072
&0.74 ppm
Actual Flux Monitoring Results
8
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Mean Time Since Application (hours)
Flu
x R
ate
(%
of
Ap
pli
ca
tio
n)
Example Emissions Profiles
9
Sources Include*:
• National Weather Service (NWS)
• FAA’s Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS)
• California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS)
• Florida Automated Weather Network (FAWN)
Modeling5 Years of Weather Data Used
*Data from 6 stations used for analyses including *Data from 6 stations used for analyses including Ventura & Bakersfield CA; Bradenton & Tallahassee Ventura & Bakersfield CA; Bradenton & Tallahassee
FL; Flint MI; Yakima WAFL; Flint MI; Yakima WA 10
PERFUM Model Outputs
Weather Day 1
Weather Day 2
•Solves for distance at target concentration which is defined by HEC/UF
•Uses 5 years of weather data so each analysis would contain 1825 sets of outputs
•Tallahassee & Bradenton weather used for southeast region
Treated Field
11
12
Incident Overview• Generally, low frequency of incidents relative to
numbers of applications– Severe effects occur but low percentage of overall
incident rate
– Reports are consistent with risk assessments based on the nature of effects
– Major incidents (those involving many people) typically occur because of equipment failure, applicator error, atmospheric conditions
– Workers tend to have higher incident rates than bystanders
• “Reconstructing” incidents to examine exact factors which lead to problem can be difficult especially for bystander exposure
12
Summary• Peer reviewed methods• Extensive emissions & occupational monitoring
data• Also focused on factors which impact emissions• Results indicate risk management required,
incident rates are low and effects consistent with risk assessment
• Key concern is near applications, buffers reduce those types of exposures
• Much ongoing research to evaluate emission controls (e.g., low permeability tarps & soil adjuvants)
13