Annual Report 2000 - Office of Pesticide Programs

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now outdated.

Links to sites outside the U.S. EPA Web site are not an endorsement of the external site or its contents.

This Annual Report has been formatted for ease of reading on the Web. References have been made to those graphics which contain textual information, but the graphics have been eliminated.

Cover:

US EPA logo

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Washington, DC 20460

EPA 735-R-00-002
August 2001

Annual Report 2000
Office of Pesticide Programs

www.epa.gov/pesticides

Protecting Public Health and the Environment

Inside Cover:

Photo Courtesy of Kathleen Knox - Pear Harvest in Oregon (See organophosphate pesticide use reduction writeup on page 20)

Message from the Director

Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 was a year for impressive accomplishments in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP). My staff worked hard to address our pesticide regulatory responsibilities- from ensuring that new pesticide technology can enter the market and meet the tough requirements of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), to reevaluating existing pesticides and managing uses to ensure that they also meet FQPA's tough standards. We continued to make our pesticide regulatory decisions in a transparent fashion by involving our many stakeholders. While our report more fully describes our overall accomplishments over the past year, I want to touch on a few highlights:

Major Regulatory/ Programmatic Actions - Several significant actions were taken this past year to help reduce potential risks from pesticides. These included announcing the phase-out of the widely used insecticides Dursban and diazinon in schools and homes- thus assuring reductions in exposure for the nation's children; registering the pesticide product Harpin as a potential alternative to methyl bromide, which causes harm to the ozone layer; issuing a stop sale of the contaminated hospital disinfectant, medaphene; proposing new restrictions on labels of insect repellants used on children; and signing a Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and the Centers for Disease Control to provide a framework for coordinating joint efforts on public health pesticides and other issues.

Improving Science - The program continued to deal with cutting-edge and high-profile science issues, many of which will have a profound effect on not only the pesticide program but also throughout EPA. Some examples of policies that have been advanced over the past year include: cumulative risk assessment guidance, use of cholinesterase inhibition data in risk assessments, aggregate exposure assessment, and drinking water exposure assessment.

Safer Foods - All 39 of the organophosphate (OP) pesticides moved through the OP pilot process for tolerance reassessment, which began in 1998, and decisions were issued for 14 of them. More than 20 technical stakeholder briefings were held to heighten awareness and understanding of the risk assessments. Beyond the tremendous progress achieved in addressing the OPs, 121 tolerances were reassessed. We established 276 tolerances for reduced-risk conventional pesticides to be used on food and 4 tolerances for biopesticides. Solid progress continued with completion of Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDS) and interim REDS covering 19 chemicals, more than 500 product reregistration decisions, and several hundred product chemistry and acute toxicity reviews. The program also made significant progress in harmonizing pesticide regulatory programs with other countries to ensure safe imported foods.

Protection of Natural Resources and Wildlife - We worked with states and tribes to develop generic pesticide management plans to manage, at a local level, pesticides that have the potential to leach and contaminate water. We reduced and phased out uses of a number of pesticides that have been shown to contribute to water contamination. We also worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the endangered jaguar from pesticides, and we declined to register the pesticide chlorfenapyr (Pirate) for use on cotton due to adverse effects on bird reproduction.

Increased Protection for Pesticide Handlers and Agricultural Workers - Through our reregistration program, we implemented risk mitigation measures that will better protect pesticide handlers and workers. Additionally, we have began a national process to assess the effectiveness of the Worker Protection Standard to better protect the health of pesticide handlers and agricultural workers.

Reaching out to Stakeholders - We increased our efforts over the past year to further improve the quality and timeliness of our outreach materials. More than 130 pesticide announcements made during the past year were developed and placed on our Web site. Our public advisory committees held key meetings- the Committee to Advise on Reassessment and Transition and the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (and its workgroups: Inerts Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup and Rodenticides Workgroup). These meetings and workgroups continue to provide meaningful opportunities for our stakeholders to interact with EPA on a wide variety of regulatory and policy issues.

I want particularly to thank the professional employees within the Office of Pesticide Programs for their dedication and hard work in making this past year successful. We thank our regional, state, and tribal partners, as well as the many other stakeholders who participated in our open decisionmaking processes. I hope you will take a few moments to review this year's report. We will look ahead to making even more progress as we fulfill our mission to protect human health and safeguard the natural environment.

Marcia E. Mulkey

Table of Contents:

Introduction

The Year In Review

Chapter 1: Advancing Science: Improved Pesticide Regulatory Decisions - page 1
New Science Policy Documents - page 2
Advanced Techniques: page 3
Models - page 4
Monitoring Efforts - page 5
Methods - page 6
Databases and Information Systems - page 6
Highlight: Consulting with the SAP - page 8

Chapter 2: Registering Pesticide Products - page 9
5 OP Alternatives Registered - page 10
16 Reduced-Risk Conventional Pesticides and Biopesticides Registered - page 10
Registering Conventional Pesticides - page 10
Registering Antimicrobial Pesticides - page 10
901 New Minor Uses Registered - page 11
549 Emergency Exemptions Processed - page 11
95 Other Ingredients Approved - page 12

Chapter 3: Regulating Plant-Incorporated Protectants Derived from Biotechnology - page 13
Updated Scientific Assessment of Expiring Bt Registrations - page 14
Understanding Bt Corn's Potential Effects on the Monarch - page 14
Insect Resistance and Refuge Requirements - page 15
StarLink Corn - page 16
Responding to Stakeholders - page 16
Promoting Dialogue and Peer Review on Biotechnology Issues - page 16
International Meetings - page 16

Chapter 4: Reregistering Pesticides and Reassessing Tolerances - page 17
19 Pesticide Reregistration Decisions - page 18
121 Tolerance Reassessment Decisions - page 18

Chapter 5: Ensuring Transition to Alternative Pest Management Tools - page 19
Committee to Advise on Reassessment and Transition Established (CARAT) - page 20
Supporting Innovative Pest Management Tools Through PESP - page 20
Highlight: Who are the PESP Members? - page 22

Chapter 6: Responding to Pesticide Safety and Public Health Concerns - page 25
Pesticide Product Uses Eliminated Due to Health Concerns - page 26
Pesticide Product Recalled Due to Asthma Concerns - page 26
Pesticide Products Recalled Due to Malfunctioning Container - page 26
Water Purifier Failure Prompts Recall - page 26
Fact Sheets Developed on Pesticides and Mosquito Control - page 26
Chlorpyrifos Mosquito Control Use Retained - page 26
Highlight: "Treated Articles" and Public Health Claims - page 28

Chapter 7: Supporting Field Programs - page 29
Increasing Protection for Pesticide Handlers and Field Workers - page 30
Reassessing Pesticide Applicator Certification and Training - page 30
Worker Protection Assessment Group - page 30
National Program to Train Farmworkers and Their Families - page 30
Educational Mentoring Program for Children of Farmworkers - page 31
Increasing the Quality of Ground Water Resources - page 31
Finalizing Ground Water Pesticide Management Plans - page 31
Protection of Wildlife and Endangered Species - page 32
New Endangered Species Information Management System - page 32
New Information Sheet on the Jaguar - page 32
Improving the Process for Protecting Endanged Species - page 32
Highlight: Endangered Species Information Sheets Available - page 32
Tribal Initiatives and Programs - page 33
The Tribal Pesticide Program Council - page 33
The Tribal Medicine Project - page 33
Tribal Groundwater Workshops - page 33
Strategic Plan for Tribal Programs - page 34
Tribal Newsletter - page 34

Chapter 8: Partnerships for the Environment - page 35
Supporting Regional Initiatives - page 36
Pesticide Urban Initiative - page 36
Joining Forces with Other Federal Agencies and States - page 36
Pesticides and the Health Care Community - page 36
Quality Management Plan Workgroup - page 37
Working with State Labs - page 37
Developing Stakeholder Partnerships - page 38
Wisconsin Potato Project - page 38
Consumer Labeling Initiative - page 38
Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup - page 38
Spray Drift Team - page 39
Highlight: New Birdcast Web Site - page 39
International Activities - page 40
North American Free Trade Agreement Technical Working Group - page 40
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Working Group on Pesticides - page 41
United Nations Environment Programme Activities - page 42

Chapter 9: Providing the Public with Pesticide Information - page 43
Sending OPP Electronic Updates - page 44
Disseminating Fact Sheets and Brochures - page 44
Responding to Written and Electronic Inquiries - page 46
Providing More Avenues to Pesticide Information - page 46
Toll-Free Access to Pesticide Information: NPTN and NAIN - page 47
Highlight: EPA's Truck-side Advertisement - page 47
Communicating OPP Policies and Regulations - page 49

Chapter 10: Appendices - page 51
A-1 - Ingredient Registrations - page 52
A-2 - FY 2000 New Uses for New Active Ingredients and Previously Registered Active Ingredients - page 53
A-3 - OP Alternatives Registered Since Passage of the FQPA - page 53
A-4 - Number of Pesticide Registrations by Category Registered Since 1984 - page 54
B-1 - Summaries of FY 2000 Reregistration and Tolerance Reassessment Decisions - page 55
B-2 - Status of OPs in the Pilot Process - page 59
B-3 - Public Participation in the Pesticide Reregistration Risk Assessment and Risk Management Process - page 60
C - OPP Structure - Divisions - page 61
D - Glossary - page 62

INTRODUCTION

EPA's overarching mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the environment -air, water and land -upon which life depends. An important component of this goal is the protection of human health and the environment from adverse risks that pesticides may pose.

EPA regulates the use of pesticides under the authority of two federal statutes - the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Under FIFRA, pesticides intended for use in the U. S. must be registered (licensed) by EPA before they may be sold or distributed in commerce. EPA will register a pesticide if scientific data provided by the registrant show that, when used according to label directions, it will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Under FIFRA, EPA also has the authority to suspend or cancel the registration of a pesticide if subsequent information shows that continued use would pose unreasonable risks. The Agency is responsible under FFDCA for setting tolerances (maximum permissible residue levels) for any pesticide used on food or animal feed.

Our mission is challenging and complex. Pesticides are used not only in agriculture, but also in parks and in almost every home, business, hospital, and school in America. Moreover, pesticide regulations affect 20 major pesticide producers, 100 small producers, 2,500 pesticide formulators, 29,000 distributors, 40,000 commercial pest control firms, one million farms, several million professional users, and 90 million households.

REGISTERING PESTICIDES AND ESTABLISHING TOLERANCES

EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is responsible for registering pesticides and establishing tolerances if they are to be used on food. Pesticide registration is the process through which EPA examines the ingredients of a pesticide; the site or crop on which it is to be used; the amount, frequency and timing of its use; and storage and disposal practices. EPA evaluates the pesticide to ensure that it will not have any adverse effects on humans, the environment and non-target species. To determine whether a pesticide can be registered, applicants seeking pesticide registration are required to submit to EPA for review data on a wide range of health effects including cancer, reproductive effects, neurological effects, acute and chronic toxic effects. A pesticide cannot be legally used if it has not been registered by OPP.

In considering whether a tolerance may be established, EPA reviews a comprehensive battery of laboratory and field data on a pesticide to determine if residue limits will be protective of public health. Commodities that contain a detectable level of a pesticide for which no tolerance has been established and commodities containing pesticide residues over the established tolerance limit are considered to be adulterated under the FFDCA.

REVIEWING OLDER PESTICIDES AGAINST CURRENT STANDARDS

OPP is also reviewing older pesticides to ensure that they meet current health, safety, and environmental standards. The goal is to update labeling and use requirements and reduce risks associated with older pesticides - those first registered when the standards for government approval were less stringent than they are today. At the same time, EPA is reassessing more than 9,000 tolerances to ensure that they also meet current safety standards. In conducting these reassessments, EPA considers the potential risks pesticides may pose to children who may be more vulnerable.

PROMOTING REDUCED-RISK PESTICIDES AND PEST MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

OPP has broadened its efforts to promote systems of pest management that better protect health and the environment, and enhance the quality of our lives. This approach recognizes that conventional pesticides are only one element in controlling pests and that, in some cases, nonchemical alternatives can be as effective as chemical pesticides while posing fewer health or environmental risks. We are also working with pesticide producers and the pesticide user community to promote and develop reduced-risk pesticides. More than half of the new pesticide registrations in recent years have involved biopesticides and other pesticides that pose less risk than conventional pesticides. Biopesticides include "microbial pesticides" (bacteria, viruses, or other microorganisms used to control pests), and "biochemical pesticides," such as pheromones (compounds that disrupt the mating behavior of insects). Based on specific criteria, some conventional chemicals may be classified as safer because of their lower toxicity or lower potential for exposure.

FIELD PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS

OPP works with pesticide officials in EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, the Agency's 10 Regional offices across the country, and state and tribal pesticide regulatory agencies to implement pesticide programs, communicate with the public about pesticides issues, and support compliance and enforcement efforts.

Together, OPP and the regions manage four major pesticide field programs involving work with pesticide users and others to ensure that they carry out safe practices. These programs involve 1) implementing regulations for the protection of agricultural workers, 2) protecting endangered species, 3) protecting ground water, and 4) ensuring applicators who use the more hazardous pesticides are appropriately trained and certified. OPP also works with other government agencies, Federal advisory committees, grower groups, environmental and consumer groups, academia, industry, the international community, and many other stakeholders.

For more information on pesticide issues, visit our Internet Web site at www.epa.gov/pesticides/ or write to us at: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, DC 20460. You may also contact the National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN). Staffed by highly qualified and trained pesticide specialists, NPTN is our sponsored toll-free telephone service that provides a variety of pesticide information. Visit ace.orst.edu/info/nptn or telephone: 1-800-858-7378; fax: 1-541-737-0761.

EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs consists of more than 800 people in nine divisions:
Registration, Antimicrobials, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention, Health Effects, Environmental Fate and Effects, Biological and Economic Analysis, Special Review and Reregistration, Information Resources and Services, and Field and External Affairs

EPA professional expertise include among others:
Chemistry, Biology, Entomology, Toxicology, Agriculture, Economics, Public health, and Law

(See Appendix C for details on OPP's structure and for contact information)

EPA Regional Offices
Region 1 - Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont
Region 2 - New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the U. S. Virgin Islands
Region 3 - Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia
Region 4 - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee
Region 5 - Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin
Region 6 - Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas
Region 7 - Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska
Region 8 - Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming
Region 9 - Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and Pacific Islands and Tribal Nations subject to U. S. law
Region 10 - Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington

The Year In Review

Chapter 1: ADVANCING SCIENCE: Improved Pesticide Regulatory Decisions

The passage of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) ushered in new, complex questions that had not yet faced EPA: What factors need to be considered when conducting a cumulative risk assessment? What are the appropriate tools for conducting a probabilistic risk assessment? How can we refine our risk assessments to better reflect real world situations and also provide an adequate margin of safety for children? How do we determine if a pesticide will adversely affect the endocrine system?

In FY 2000, EPA worked diligently to advance our scientific knowledge to better understand these questions and more accurately assess the risks pesticides may pose to public health and the environment. We developed and employed new science policy guidance documents and advanced techniques for conducting human health and ecological risk assessments. In developing these documents and techniques, we maintained our commitment to collaborate with experts in the field. While actively engaging the public, we established a transparent process whereby ideas could be generated, refined, and implemented. We received and will continue to seek guidance from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) and input from our stakeholders through the Committee to Advise on Reassessment and Transition (CARAT) and its predecessor, the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC).

SCIENCE POLICY GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS

With the assistance of TRAC, EPA identified nine science policy issue areas (see box) and several other related issues following passage of FQPA. Most of the policies were issued as drafts for public comment in 1998 and 1999. For a complete list of these science policies and other related issues, visit www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/. The following documents were published in FY 2000:

Revised Draft Documents:

• Office of Pesticide Programs' Science Policy on the Use of Data on Cholinesterase Inhibition for Risk Assessments (9/08/00)

• A User's Guide to Available OPP Information on Assessing Dietary(Food) Exposure to Pesticides (7/12/00)

• Data for Refining Anticipated Residue Estimates Used in Acute Dietary Probabilistic Risk Assessments (6/23/00). This paper was merged with two other documents: Guidelines for the Conduct of Bridging Studies for Use in Probabilistic Risk Assessment, and Guidelines for the Conduct of Residue Decline Studies for Use in Probabilistic Risk Assessment

• Assigning Values to Nondetected/Nonquantified Pesticide Residues in Human Health Dietary Exposure Assessments (3/31/00). This paper was merged with the paper, A Statistical Method for Incorporating Nondetected Pesticide Residues into Human Health Dietary Exposure Assessments

The Nine Science Policy Issues
1. Applying the FQPA Tenfold Safety Factor
2. Dietary Exposure Assessment -Whether and How to Use "Monte Carlo" Analyses
3. Exposure Assessment -Interpreting "No Residues Detected"
4. Dietary (Food) Exposure Estimates
5. Dietary (Drinking Water) Exposure Estimates
6. Assessing Residential Exposure
7. Aggregating Exposures from all Non-Occupational Sources
8. How to Conduct a Cumulative Risk Assessment for Organophosphate Insecticides or Other Pesticides with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity
9. Selection of Appropriate Toxicity Endpoints for Risk Assessments of Organophosphates

Did You Know: A part per trillion represents a teaspoon in 1.3 billion gallons of water.

• Choosing a Percentile of Acute Dietary Exposure as a Threshold of Regulatory Concern (99.9th percentile) (3/22/00)

• Estimating the Drinking Water Component of a Dietary Exposure Assessment (11/10/99)

• Threshold of Regulation Policy - Deciding Whether a Pesticide with a Food Use Pattern Needs a Tolerance (10/27/99)

• The Role of Use Related Information in Pesticide Risk Assessment and Risk Management (9/27/00).

Draft Documents:

• Cumulative Risk Assessment Guidance (6/30/00)

• Guidance for Performing Aggregate and Exposure Risk Assessment (11/10/99).

ADVANCED TECHNIQUES FOR CONDUCTING HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENTS

Ensuring that our decisions rest on sound science not only involves clear policies, but also requires continually advancing the basic tools upon which these policies depend. In FY 2000, OPP worked to expand its repertoire of science tools. We have adopted models that provide information on the potential presence of pesticides in drinking water, how pesticides can affect fish and bird populations, and the risks posed by pesticide spray drift. We have new protocols for testing the efficacy of disinfectants against Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) that reduce the need for animal subjects. We also expanded and continued the development of our databases, such as our ecotoxicity database and environmental incident information system. These tools are described in greater detail below.

MODELS

New Approach for Estimating Pesticides in Drinking Water: OPP made its estimates of pesticides in drinking water more realistic by adopting a new approach that uses a small drinking water reservoir model rather than a small pond model. We also consider the percentage of the area around the reservoir used for growing crops.

More Precise Estimates for Measuring Pesticide Concentrations: We worked with the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) to develop advanced models to estimate more precise pesticide concentrations at specific drinking water utility intakes. These models will allow OPP to tailor its risk management decisions to specific locations and help the program measure exposure to pesticides in drinking water across a large segment of the population.

Preliminary Model for Predicting Fish and Bird Kills: OPP developed a preliminary model that predicts the likelihood and magnitude of bird and fish kills as a result of pesticide use. A case study for one pesticide is being used to develop a more general probabilistic model that can be used for all pesticides.

Incorporating Spray Drift Considerations into Risk Assessments: In cooperation with EPA's Office of Research and Development and the Spray Drift Task Force, a consortium of registrants, OPP developed a preliminary model to predict pesticide spray drift and the associated risks under a wide range of agricultural applications and weather conditions. We expect to incorporate spray drift considerations in our risk assessments for agricultural pesticide sprays in FY 2001. Using this model will improve estimates of pesticide concentrations in the environment and result in better risk management decisions.

Hampshire Research Institute's Lifeline Software Model: OPP engaged in a significant amount of work this year in preparation for releasing the first phase of the Lifeline Software Model in December 2000. This model is the result of a cooperative agreement between OPP and the Hampshire Research Institute (HRI) that will support the development of an aggregate and cumulative risk modeling tool to be made available to the general public.

The computer-based modeling tool will allow persons interested in risk assessment to better engage in a discussion of exposure and risks from pesticides in the environment. This effort is geared to more effectively protect public health and the environment through fostering the dissemination of reliable information on risk and by increasing the public's ability to analyze, understand, and make decisions about environmental problems.

MONITORING EFFORTS

Pilot Reservoir Monitoring Program: Working with USGS, OPP designed and implemented a pilot reservoir monitoring program that provides pesticide monitoring data from raw and finished water in 12 reservoirs throughout the United States. The results of this monitoring study will be made public in 2001.

National Survey of Drinking Water Sources: In FY 2000, OPP, USGS, and USDA formed an Inter-Governmental FQPA Drinking Water Steering Committee to oversee the development of a drinking water survey design protocol that would be used to collect surface water monitoring data on a national level. The Agricultural Crop Protection Association also sits on this committee as an observer. OPP will use information from this survey to produce more predictive and higher-tiered water assessment models and more reliable and refined dietary risk assessments. The Steering Committee designated two scientific working groups to plan for the collection of drinking water monitoring data: the Monitoring/ Modeling Workgroup (MMWG) and the Ancillary Data Workgroup (ADWG). These workgroups will meet on a regular basis in FY 2001 to plan a pilot drinking water monitoring program.

METHODS

New Multianalyte Methods: As a result of a collaborative effort with the pesticide industry, we developed 10 new multianalyte methods (MAM) to detect certain groups of acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitor herbicides in soil and water at limits of quantitation (LOQ) between 2.0 and 0.01 parts per billion. These new methods allow state authorities to test soil or water in the field and detect extremely low levels of these herbicides.

ALS inhibitor herbicides, such as the sulfonyl ureas, are used at low application rates, but some low-level residues may remain in the soil or water. Because extremely low levels may cause phytotoxic effects in non-target plants sometime after application, state authorities need these analytical methods to enable them to test soil and water in the field.

Protocols for Testing the Efficacy of Disinfectants Against HBV: OPP developed new guidance regarding an HBV testing alternative that reduces animal testing. As part of EPA's continuing commitment to advance scientific methodologies that will protect the public and also reduce animal testing, EPA endorsed an in vitro (test tube) duck assay as the appropriate and preferred alternative. The FIFRA SAP also has endorsed and supported this approach. The in vitro duck assay uses duck HBV as a surrogate for human HBV. This method maintains rigorous efficacy testing requirements to ensure public health protection.

New Methods of Estimating Ecological Risk: OPP developed preliminary methods that estimate the magnitude, probability, and certainty of ecological risk. These probabilistic methods have been peer reviewed by the SAP, and OPP has started using these new methods in its ecological risk assessments.

DATABASES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Pesticides in Ground and Surface Water Database: OPP continued to develop this database, which compiles monitoring data on pesticides in ground and surface water across the United States provided by the states, other federal agencies, academia, and pesticide companies. These data will be used in developing risk assessments for water resources, and the database will be a Ecotoxicity Database: In FY 2000, OPP added 500 new ecotoxicity studies to the ecotoxicity database, including wildlife and plant toxicity information for over 630 active ingredients. The toxicity data are compiled from actual studies submitted by pesticide manufacturers, which are reviewed by EPA and judged for acceptability for use in OPP's ecological risk assessment process. The database also contains acceptable studies performed by EPA, USDA, and Fish and Wildlife Service laboratories.

Fate Database: The Fate Database contains studies that describe what happens to a pesticide in soil, water, and the air after it has been applied. Developed in FY 2000, this database contains fate and transport properties of 250 registered pesticides. The final version of this database will be completed in 2001.

Ecological Incident Information System: The Ecological Incident Information System was updated to include 850 incident reports. This database contains information on reports of adverse effects to non-target wildlife and plants from the use of pesticides. Information in this database is used in the Agency's ecological risk assessments.

The Pesticide Ground and Surface Water Incident Database: This electronic data base was created in 1999. In FY 2000, OPP entered the remaining incidents data it had in hard copy before this database was created. The system contains adverse effects data for specific pesticides involving ground and/or surface water incidents. These incidents are considered in OPP's drinking water assessments.

Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network: This year we made significant progress on the Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network (OPPIN). When completed, OPPIN will combine regulatory and scientific data, workflow tracking, and electronic document management into one integrated system. OPPIN will consolidate information currently stored on EPA mainframe systems, the OPP Local Area Network (LAN), stand-alone computers, and paper documents. OPPIN will: decrease OPP's data entry burden; increase analytical capabilities; track decision-making processes more effectively; prevent loss of, and improve access to, critical decision documents; and make OPP information readily available to those outside of the program.

Health Effects Division Records Reference Center

June 1, 2000 - OPP held the grand opening of the Health Effects Division (HED) Records Reference Center (RRC). This center houses all HED files, including toxicity reports on pesticides.

Although the HED files are not directly available to the general public, the new Records Management Team in charge of this center is an invaluable resource when responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in a timely fashion.

As of September 30, 2000, the RRC Series database contained over 8,700 records. The turnaround time for obtaining a hard copy of records is only four minutes. The RRC is a centralized, integrated system that is just one step in OPP's efforts to increase efficiency throughout the program.

Photo Inset - EPA officials at opening of OPP's Records Reference Center.

CONSULTING WITH THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP) IN FY 2000

November 30, 1999:
• Testing on Human Subjects

December 8-9, 1999:
• Characterization and Non-target Organism Data Requirements for Protein Plant-pesticides
• Cumulative Risk Assessment Methodology Issues of Pesticide Substances That Have a Common Mechanism of Toxicity

February 29 -March 3, 2000:
• Food Allergenicity of Cry9C Endotoxin

April 5-7, 2000:
• Implementing Probabilistic Ecological Assessments
• Insect Repellent Product Performance Testing Guideline Evaluation

June 6-9, 2000:
• Mammalian Toxicity Assessment Guidelines for Protein Plant Pesticides

June 27-29, 2000:
• Atrazine Health Risk Assessment
• National Drinking Water Survey Design for Assessing Chronic Exposure

August 17-18, 2000:
• A Consultation on the EPA Health Effects Division's Proposed Classification of the Human Carcinogenic Potential of Malathion

September 26-29, 2000:
• Test Guidelines for Chronic Inhalation Toxicity and Carcinogenicity of Fibrous Particles
• End Point Selection and Determination of Relative Potency in Cumulative Hazard Assessment: A Pilot Study of Organophosphorus Pesticide Chemicals
• Residential Exposure Models
• Calendex Dietary Exposure Model
• Aggregate and Cumulative Assessments Using LifelineT

"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them. - Albert Einstein"

Photo inset - Einstein Making an Exit: Berlin Physikalisches Institut

TOP

Chapter 2: REGISTERING PESTICIDE PRODUCTS

Photo inset - Jim Hollins is the Team Leader of the Document Processing Office where pesticide data are submitted.

One important responsibility of the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is to register, or license, new active ingredients (A.I.). In the last year we continued to not only exceed our annual registration goals, but we also placed a high priority on registering "safer" or "reduced-risk" pesticides.

In FY 2000, EPA registered 22 new pesticides, including 9 new biopesticides, 7 conventional reduced-risk pesticides, 2 antimicrobials, and 4 conventional pesticides. OPP also registered 427 new food uses and non-food uses for pesticides. Many of these pesticides are safer substitutes for more toxic conventional pesticides. Many have public health benefits and are of particular economic importance to growers.

See Appendix A-1 for a list of pesticide active ingredients registered in FY 2000. Appendix A-2 lists FY 2000 new uses for both new active ingredients and previously registered active ingredients.

5 Organophosphate (OP) Alternatives Registered: With these 5, at the end of FY 2000, the total of pesticides registered as alternatives to the more toxic OP pesticides was 12. In registering a new active ingredient, EPA gives priority to and expedites review of alternatives to OPs. Since FQPA, the average registration timeframe for a new conventional reduced-risk active ingredient (including OP alternatives) has been 22 months, compared to 31 months for non-reduced-risk/ non-OP alternative conventional chemicals. The average registration timeframe for new uses of conventional reduced-risk pesticides (including OP alternatives) is 16 months, compared to 46 months for non-reduced-risk/ non-OP alternatives new uses. Appendix A-3 lists OP alternatives registered since the passage of FQPA.

16 Reduced-Risk Conventional Pesticides and Biopesticides Registered: We remained strongly committed to promoting the development and use of safer pesticides. Reduced-risk conventional pesticides and biopesticides accounted for 73 percent of all new registered active ingredients in FY 2000. EPA registered 211 new uses for reduced-risk conventional pesticides and 276 new tolerances for all reduced-risk conventional pesticides (which includes both newly registered and existing active ingredients). We also registered 120 new uses for biopesticides and four new tolerances for all biopesticides in FY 2000. Appendix A-4 depicts the increased registration of less risky pesticides over the past 16 years.

Registering Conventional Pesticides: New uses for conventional pesticides registered in FY 2000 totaled 88, and OPP established 172 new tolerances for all conventional pesticides.

Registering Antimicrobial Pesticides: OPP made significant progress in the regulation of antimicrobials this year. We registered two new antimicrobial pesticides and eight new uses for antimicrobial pesticides. FQPA requirements mandated that OPP streamline antimicrobial registration. This was accomplished, and with revisions to registration procedures, we have been able to significantly shorten the review time. All FQPA deadlines were met in shorter times than required, and non-P>FQPA pending actions were reduced from a high of 388 on December 31, 1996, to 16 as of September 30, 2000.

Pie chart inset - New Active Ingredients Registered in FY 2000. Conventional 18.2%, Antimicrobials 9.1%, Conventional Reduced-Risk 31.8%, and Biopesticides 40.9%

Bar chart inset - Average Registration Time-Frames (in months). New conventional "reduced risk" A.I.s (including "OP Alternatives"), Non-"reduced-risk" /non- "OP alternative" conventional A.I.s, New uses of existing conventional "reduced-risk" A.I.s (including "OP alternatives"), New uses of existing non-"reduced-risk" /non "OP alternative" conventional A.I.s

Antimicrobial Decisions vs. Approvals Since FY 98

blank	FY 98 Decisions	FY 98 Approvals	FY 99 Decisions	FY 99 Approvals	FY 00 Decisions	FY 00 Approvals
Old chemical Fast Track	353	102	234	82	208	90
Old chemical Non-Fast Track	337	70	285	91	257	89
Fast Track Amendments	1547	702	1116	715	913	582
Non-Fast Track Amendments	183	79	223	71	136	63
Notifications	blank	450	blank	580	blank	550

901 New Minor Uses Registered: The Agency worked with USDA, registrants, and other stakeholders to register 901 new uses for minor use crops in FY 2000. FQPA also directed us to give special consideration to minor uses. We registered more than 100 new minor uses just for Candida oleophila, a biopesticide used on bulb vegetables, cucurbits (includes crops such as melons, cucumbers, squash, and pumpkins), legumes, root and tuber vegetables, flowers, and other ornamentals.

549 Emergency Exemption Requests Processed: In FY 2000, OPP received 549 requests for emergency exemptions, of which 458 were authorized, 34 were denied, and 59 were withdrawn by states. The average turnaround time for emergency exemption requests was a historic low of 44 days despite the additional work required by FQPA. OPP is currently processing requests faster than the regulatory goal of 50 days (in 1997 the average processing time was 81 days).

Pie chart insert - Status of Emergency Exemptions Processed in FY 2000. Authorized 83.1%, Denied 6.2%, Withdrawn 10%.

Did You Know: The Cucurbitaceae family is a medium-sized plant family, comprising some 118 genera and 825 species widely distributed throughout warmer regions of the world.

Approval of 95 Other Ingredients in Pesticide Products: During this year, OPP approved 95 "other ingredients" (also known as inert ingredients in pesticide products). All of these have been determined to be safer than many of the older ingredients of this type. The Agency also formed the Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup (IDSW) through the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC). The IDSW will advise EPA through the PPDC on ways to increase the availability of information about other ingredients in pesticide products to the public.

Use of Chlorfenapyr on Cotton Not Granted Due to Potential Harm to Birds: In March 2000, EPA completed its review of the pesticide chlorfenapyr for use on cotton. EPA made the determination that chlorfenapyr does not meet the requirements for registration under FIFRA. EPA made this determination after considerable scientific evaluation, external peer consultation, and significant evidence amassed by our experts that led to the determination that chlorfenapyr used on cotton would persist in the environment and have harmful reproductive effects on birds. The Agency concluded that the potential environmental risks posed by the proposed cotton use of chlorfenapyr significantly outweighed the substantial projected economic benefits from this use. American Cyanamid (the manufacturer) subsequently withdrew its registration application for the cotton use.

Recognizing that cotton production is vital to American agriculture, OPP worked with farmers to help ensure that they have effective, lower-risk alternatives to control devastating cotton pests, such as the beet armyworm. As a result, two alternatives were registered in FY 2000-spinosad (Tracer) and tebufenozide (Confirm).

"One of our greatest opportunities to reduce pesticide risks to public health and the environment is through our pesticide registration program. - Marcia E. Mulkey, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs"

TOP

Chapter 3: REGULATING PLANT-INCORPORATED PROTECTANTS DERIVED FROM BIOTECHNOLOGY

EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) also regulates the manufacture, sale, and use of pesticides derived from biotechnology - plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs). OPP must register these types of pesticides and set food tolerances for residues of plant-incorporated protectants (or determine on a case-by-case basis to exempt them from the food tolerance requirement) before they can be marketed. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) also regulates the plants which produce these pesticides by requiring that the manufacturers of the plants obtain permits (or an exemption from the permit requirements) before the plants may move in commerce or be released into the environment. USDA also regulates crops genetically engineered to be tolerant of herbicides, but not the herbicide applied to the plant. FDA's regulatory responsibilities are to ensure that the food is safe to eat, to set standards for food labeling, and to take corrective action if contaminants are found in food.

OPP's biotechnology activities for FY 2000 focused on increasing transparency and public participation in decision-making and strengthening the scientific foundations of our regulatory programs. We did this through a series of public advisory committee meetings and workshops on scientific issues, as well as through publication of new data and analysis for public review and comment.

Updated Scientific Assessment of Expiring Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Registrations: One of the major efforts of FY 2000 was a comprehensive risk and benefit assessment for expiring Bt PIPs. The reassessment covered all data submitted to EPA for the initial registration of these products and all data and information that have become available since the initial registration. OPP submitted a preliminary reassessment document to the public for comment and to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) in October.

Although the reassessment will guide the comprehensive reconsideration of all aspects of the registration of Bt products, in FY 2000, it has prompted EPA to make several interim changes. EPA strengthened insect resistance management requirements for these registrations. One Bt corn product scheduled to expire was voluntarily canceled, and three additional products are being phased out by the registrant.

In addition to consideration of recommendations made by the SAP and the public, the final reassessment-due in FY2001-will be guided by the findings of the 1999 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants. The assessment covers all data submitted to EPA for the initial registration of these products and everything available since the registration. Several prominent aspects of the Bt Reassessment are discussed below.

Two Divisions in OPP regulate products of modern biotechnology:
• The Registration Division regulates the herbicides used on herbicide tolerant crops such as Round Up Ready Soy-beans®.
• The Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division regulates products of biotechnology that directly produce pesticidal substances - microbial pesticides such as Bt engineered to produce an additional insecticidal compound; the Bt plant-incorporated protectant - the plants produce the protein toxic to insects; and biochemical pesticides manufactured using engineered bacteria.

Photo inset - Using a pin inoculator, a technician can simultaneously test 32 separate Bacillus thuringiensis isolates.

Understanding Bt Corn's Potential Effects on the Monarch Butterfly: In June 1999, a published study raised questions regarding the potential risks to Monarch butterflies from pollen of certain strains of genetically modified corn. Potential effects on non-target pests including several insects were part of EPA's evaluation prior to registration. EPA estimated that non-target moths and butterflies would not be exposed to a significant amount of Bt corn pollen. To help identify actual risks to Monarch butterflies, EPA issued a data call-in (DCI) notice to the registrants of Bt corn products in December of 1999. The DCI focused on information in several areas relating to potential Bt corn impacts on non-target lepidopterans, especially Monarchs and the endangered Karner Blue butterfly.

In November 1999 and February 2000, OPP staff participated in USDA meetings to review the preliminary results of these field studies and identify future needs for Monarch research. Two additional workshops are planned for Fall 2001 to discuss the results of the 2000 season's field trials. Authors of these Monarch studies will try to expedite the publications of their scientific papers so they can share their results with the public more rapidly. The final risk assessment for Bt, due in FY 2001, will reflect the field trial results, as well as OPP's analysis of the data.

Insect Resistance and Refuge Requirements: In FY 2000, the insect resistance management plans for Bt potatoes were modified to make the refuge requirements mandatory rather than voluntary, and the Bt cotton refuge requirements were strengthened. A new type of refuge option called an embedded refuge was also included. EPA also mandated a consistent set of required refuge strategies for all Bt corn products and strengthened existing resistance monitoring plans. OPP worked collaboratively with industry, grower groups, environmental organizations, and USDA to make these changes.

Did You Know: The first generation of biotech crops was approved by EPA, FDA, and USDA in the mid 1990s. By 1999, trans-genic varieties accounted for 33 percent of corn acreage, 50 percent of soybean acreage, and 55 percent of cotton acreage in the U. S.

StarLink Corn: In the fall of 2000, EPA and USDA learned that some corn products in grocery stores contained traces of StarLink corn, a strain of genetically modified corn approved for use in animal feed but not cleared for human consumption due to unresolved allergenicity questions. These findings resulted in the voluntary cancellation of StarLink's registration by Aventis CropScience, the manufacturer. In addition, EPA has worked closely with USDA and FDA to remove all possible StarLink corn from the food supply and ensure that no more StarLink is used in food products. In FY 2001, EPA will continue to follow the StarLink issue closely. Next steps by the government relating to StarLink include:

• EPA, FDA, and CDC conducting a follow-up investigation of the health incidents reported,
• EPA evaluating new data on processing effects on StarLink residues,
• EPA evaluating analytical methods to measure StarLink residues,
• FDA further monitoring of the food supply to determine if StarLink residues are present, and
• Continued review of scientific data by the FIFRA SAP.

Responding to Stakeholders: OPP produced a detailed scientific response to a Greenpeace petition that focused on insect-resistance management and ecological effects. To support the response, we revised, updated, and produced technical fact sheets for each registered Bt plant-pesticide. In addition, we produced reports for meetings with the FIFRA SAP on ecological effects and data requirements for protein PIPs. Following OPP's response, on July 21, 2000, Greenpeace withdrew its lawsuit related to the petition. The petition response and other documents can be found on our biotechnology Web site at www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides.

Promoting Dialogue and Peer Review on Biotechnology Issues: OPP staff gave presentations at workshops, symposia, and public meetings on biotechnology. In addition, the Agency held three public meetings of the SAP on specific biotechnology issues in FY 2000:

• December 8-9, 1999 - Data Requirements for Currently Registered PIPs,
• February 4, 2000- Food Allergenicity of Cry9C Endotoxin and Non-Digestible Proteins, and
• May 17, 2000 - Mammalian Toxicity Assessment Guidelines for PIPs.

EPA also took part in an administration-wide biotechnology review led jointly by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The review focused on regulation of ecological impacts of biotechnology products including relevant PIPs. A report was developed using a case study approach to be issued in FY 2001. The Agency also coordinated with the NC 205, a combination of USDA and independent scientists studying the European corn borer. NC 205 provided the Agency with research and suggestions regarding insect-resistance management programs for the Bt crops.

Photo inset - Agricultural engineer examines a sample of grain collected from this combine's grain flow sensor

International Biotechnology Meetings

International meetings held on biotechnology in FY 2000 included:

• the Codex Ad Hoc Task Force on Standards for Foods Derived from Biotechnology;
• OECD meetings implementing the biodiversity protocol, and intergovernmental meetings or conferences in South Africa, Brazil, and Europe; and
• many international guests from New Zealand, Australia, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Central and South America received briefings on our regulation of biotechnology products.

TOP

Chapter 4: REREGISTERING PESTICIDES AND REASSESSING TOLERANCES

This fiscal year, through the pesticide reregistration program, EPA made significant progress in completing risk assessments and risk management decisions for many of the organophosphates (OPs) and for several other pesticides, our highest priority for reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The Agency initiated actions to significantly reduce use and exposure to two OP pesticides used widely in and around the home: chlorpyrifos and diazinon. Our agreements with the manufacturers to phase out and cancel indoor and outdoor residential uses and other uses of concern during the next few years will significantly mitigate risks to children, families, workers, wildlife, and the environment. EPA reviewed the safety of 19 pesticide active ingredients found in approximately 2,000 pesticide products on the market and completed 121 tolerance reassessment decisions.

The Agency issued Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Documents for 6 of these 9 pesticides, Interim REDs (IREDs) for 7 pesticides, and Tolerance REDS (TREDs) for the remaining 6 pesticides. Of these 19 pesticides, all uses of 1 pesticide-ethyl parathion-are being cancelled; some uses of 6 pesticides are being cancelled: terrazole, vinclozolin, fenthion, oxamyl, phorate, propetamphos; and other types of risk mitigation measures are being taken for all except mevinphos and fenitrothion. Appendix B-1 contains summaries of our decisions for these 19 pesticides. Some examples of other risk-reduction measures include: prohibiting certain application methods, increasing entry intervals, requiring protective clothing, and restricting use near bodies of water.

Fourteen of the 19 pesticides for which reviews were completed are OPs. Appendix B-2 presents the review status of the OP pesticides. OP status information and the available risk assessment and risk management documents are also on EPA's web page (www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/).

In conducting reviews of the OPs, EPA piloted a process to enhance transparency and public participation. The process was devised in consultation with the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC), an advisory group with a wide variety of stakeholders, co-chaired by the Deputy Administrator of EPA and the USDA Deputy Secretary. Using this process, we have presented for comment and refined our risk assessments for OPs based on sound scientific data and information from our stakeholders. The Agency is committed to following a similar process to conduct reassessments mandated by FQPA for the remaining OPs and other food-use pesticides and for all pesticides undergoing pesticide reregistration. EPA took action to increase opportunities for public involvement in the development of future REDs by publishing a proposed process for public participation in risk assessment and risk management for all chemicals in reregistration. This final process will be in place for chemicals to be reviewed after 2001. An interim process was applied to non-OP chemicals reviewed in 2000 and will be used in 2001 (see Appendix B-3).

Reregistration Decisions Completed in FY 2000

* = Organophosphate (OP)
** = Carbamate

6 REDs: Diclofop-Methyl, Ethyl Parathion*, Temephos*, Terrazole (Etridiazole), Triallate, and Vinclozolin

7 IREDs: Bensulide*, Fenthion* Oxamyl**, Phorate*, Profenofos*, Propetamphos*, and Tribufos*

6 TREDs: Cadusafos*, Chlorethoxyfos*, Coumaphos*, Fenitrothion*, Mevinphos*, and Phostebupirim*

TOP

Chapter 5: ENSURING TRANSITION TO ALTERNATIVE PEST MANAGEMENT TOOLS

This year, EPA worked closely with USDA, the agricultural community, and other pesticide users to ensure that our pesticide regulatory decisions - primarily our aggregate risk assessments for the OPs - were realistic and based on sound science. The Agency increased opportunities for public involvement in the risk assessment and risk management processes for all chemicals in reregistration. We re-affirmed our commitment to registering safer OP alternatives and supported the development of other innovative pest management tools. The Committee to Advise on Reassessment and Transition (CARAT) was created as a follow-on to TRAC. At its first meeting in June 2000, CARAT members reviewed current efforts to assess pest management issues and considered ways the committee's advice could advance USDA and EPA efforts.

We also worked together to ensure that growers are able to make the transition to safer, cost-effective alternative pest management tools and approaches. For many crops, lower risk pesticides already exist. The Agency also supported innovative pest management through the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP), a voluntary partnership between EPA and pesticide users. The goal of PESP is to reduce pesticide risks encountered in both agricultural and non-agricultural settings. The voluntary program includes more than 130 partnerships (see page 22). PESP members come from a range of different organizations: commercial and residential pest control, agriculture, landscape and turf, utilities/ rights of way companies, networking/technology transfer companies, and government.

Many of the FY 2000 submissions included encouraging results, enabling growers to transition to safer, cost-effective alternative pest management tools and approaches, for example:

• Del Monte Foods, along with the Yakima Valley Pear IPM Project, has been able to reduce OP use by 45 percent. Its canned products showed no detectible residues.

• The Winter Pear Control Committee in Oregon has been able to reduce synthetic pesticide use by 74 percent during the last 5 years and also reduce OP use by 66 percent.

• Apples in Michigan. In test trials last year, OP use was cut in half on an experimental plot of 900 acres of apples in Michigan. In FY 2001, the trial plot area will be expanded to 2,900 acres and many of the orchard blocks are on track to be OP-free.

• Pears in Yakima, Washington. More than 2,000 acres, were enrolled in this project. OP and carbamate use were reduced 30 to 50 percent in trial areas.

Photo insert - PESP Goes Beyond Agriculture

The New York City Board of Education, one of our PESP Partners, reduced pesticides use in its schools by 33 percent last year. This school year (September 2000), they began using only boric acid and baits. The Board avoids any and all use of pesticide products in classrooms and other areas where students might be exposed to potentially harmful levels of pesticides.

Other exciting projects include:

• Campbell Soup Supply Company is using disease forecasting for tomatoes, celery, and peppers. By using this process called TOM-CAST, Campbell has been able to reduce sprays by 50 percent.

• Glades Crop Care, Inc., in Florida has found that its pepper growers can spend 63 percent less money on pest management by making fewer applications of pesticides, applying chemicals that are much less environmentally disruptive, and using a more biointensive pest management program. In addition, these growers used 43 percent fewer pesticides on their pepper crops.

• Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii is using an innovative injection sprayer that releases herbicides only where they are needed. The association is also testing a "living mulch" grass cover crop that is stunted in height and out-competes other weeds.

• The Mint Industry Research Council promotes the use of predatory mites to control spider mites and the use of clean rootstock that will prevent the introduction of diseased material into new fields at the time they are being established.

Did You Know: Paris green, also called Schweinfurt green, was used in 1867 to control an outbreak of the Colorado Potato Beetle. This extremely poisonous, bright green powder was once used extensively as a pigment (e.g., in wallpaper). Chemically it is a copper acetoarsenite that may be prepared from arsenic trioxide and copper acetate.

Many PESP projects are made possible through EPA grants. For example, EPA provides grants to the American Farmland Trust's Center for Agriculture in the Environment, and the USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE). American Farmland Trust, Center for Agriculture in the Environment projects are pesticide risk/ use reduction activities targeted to major commodity groups and intended to complement the FQPA. Most of the projects are unique public-private partnerships with multiple funding sources, including private foundations (. e.g, Pew Charitable Trusts) and environmental groups (e.g., the World Wildlife Fund).

The SARE program is a regionally administered education and demonstration program designed to promote environmentally friendly (and sustainable) farming practices that include: increased biodiversity, clean water, use of advanced IPM, cover crops and rotations, and soil tilth. EPA contributes grant funds to the SARE program through an IAG with USDA, and provides technical and administrative support to the program. For more information on PESP and its members, visit our Web site at http://www.pesp.org. The 2000 Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program Members are:

PESP Partners (Organizations that use pesticides or represent pesticide users are eligible to become PESP Partners.)

Photo inset - Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program logo

All Service Pest Management, Inc.
Almond Board of California
American Electric Power Service Corporation
American Mosquito Control Association
American Nursery and Landscape Association
American Peanut Council
American Pest Management, Inc.
Arizona Public Service
Artichoke Research Association
California Citrus Research Board
California Cling Peach Growers Advisory Board
California Floral Council
California Fresh Carrot Advisory Board
California Lettuce Research Board
California Melon Research Advisory Board
California Pear Advisory Board
California Pear Growers
California Pistachio Commission
California Prune Board
California Tomato Commission
Carolina Power & Light
Central Maine Power Company
Central Virginia Electric Cooperative
Chevy Chase Village
Chicago Parks District, Department of Conservatories
City of Davis, CA
City/County of San Francisco (CA)
Department of Agriculture Conectiv (DE)
Cranberry Institute (MA)
Duke Power Company (NC)
Ecolutions, Inc. (CA)
Eden Advanced Pest Technologies (WA)
Edison Electric Institute (DC)
Environ "Pest Elimination" Inc. (TN)
Fischer Environmental Services Inc. (LA)
Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association (FL)
Florida Pest Control Association (FL)
Florida Turfgrass Association (FL)
Georgia Peach Council (GA)
Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (KS)
Griggs County, ND 319 Water Quality Project (ND)
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center
Hawaii Banana Industry Association
Hawaiian Electric Company
Hood River Grower-Shipper Association
Kansas Corn Growers Association
Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers Association
Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission
Low Input Viticulture and Enology of Oregon
Massachusetts IPM Council
Massey Services, Inc.
Michigan Cherry Committee
Mint Industry Research Council
Monroe County School Corporation
National Grape Cooperative, Inc.
National Grid (formerly Eastern Utilities)
National Pest Management Association
National Potato Council
New England Vegetable & Berry Growers Association
New Orleans Mosquito Control Board
New York Berry Growers Association
New York City Board of Education
New York State Gas & Electric
Northeast Utilities
Northern Indiana Public Service Corporation
Northwest Alfalfa Seed Grower Association
Owen Specialty Services, Inc.
Pacific Coast Producers Pear
Pest Management Research Fund
Pebble Beach Company
Pennsylvania Electric
Pennsylvania Power & Light
Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association
Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii
Processed Tomato Foundation
Professional Lawn Care Association of America
Reliable Pest Control
Roses Inc.
Sanitary Pest Control Company
Sarasota County Government Public Works
South Dakota Cattlemen's Association
Sprague Pest Solutions
Steritech Group, Inc.
Sunkist Growers
Sun-Maid Growers of California
Tennessee Valley Authority
Texas Association of Nurserymen, Inc.
Texas Pest Management Association
U. S. Apple Association
U. S. Canola Association
U. S. Department of Defense
U. S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee
U. S. Public Health Service-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
University of Georgia-College of Agriculture & Environmental Sciences
Utilicorp United
VA, MD & DE Association of Electric Cooperatives
Vegetation Managers, Inc.
Walnut Marketing Board
Walt Disney World Resort
Washington State Department of Transportation
West Virginia Power
Winter Pear Control Committee
Wisconsin Ginseng Growers Association
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation

PESP Supporters (Organizations that have an interest in pesticide issues are eligible to become PESP Supporters.)

Agricultural Conservation Innovation Center
American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators
Aqumix, Inc.
Association of Applied Insect Ecologists
Auburn University-Department of Entomology & Plant Pathology
Audubon International
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
Bio-Integral Resource Center
Campbell Soup Company
Claymont Center for Continuous Education
Del Monte
Farm* A* Syst / Home* A* Syst
Gempler's Inc.
General Mills, Inc.
Gerber Products Company
Glades Crop Care, Inc.
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
IPM Institute of North America, Inc.
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
Northeast Research, Extension & Academic Program Committee for IPM
Rainforest Alliance-ECO O. K. Program
United States Golf Association
University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service
University of Wisconsin Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems

TOP

Chapter 6: RESPONDING TO PESTICIDE SAFETY AND PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS

Pesticides contribute to an ample food supply, are vital for controlling disease-causing vectors (pests, such as mosquitoes, which spread disease), and keep our homes and gardens free from deleterious pests. EPA is dedicated to ensuring that pesticides can be used without posing unreasonable risks to public health and the environment. Our dedication does not end once a pesticide has been registered. In FY 2000, EPA responded to several pesticide safety and public health concerns:

• Chlorpyrifos: We made an agreement with registrants to phase out and eliminate chlorpyrifos termiticide and residential indoor and lawn uses. The agreement also will significantly lower allowable residues on certain crops, including fruits and vegetables regularly eaten by children, thereby reducing or eliminating the most important sources of exposure.

• Allercare: To avert additional possible harmful effects to consumers, at our urging, S. C. Johnson and Son, Inc., issued an immediate voluntary recall after more than 400 people reported experiencing medical problems after using one of two products: AllerCareT Dust Mite Powder or AllerCareT Dust Mite Allergen Spray for Carpet and Upholstery.

• Pull 'N Spray Containers: We worked in cooperation with the Scotts Company and Monsanto Corporation to alert consumers to return two pesticide products in Pull 'N Spray containers for full refunds - Roundup® Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass Killer and Ortho® Ready-to-Use Home DefenseT Indoor & Outdoor Insect Killer. The Pull 'N Spray pump mechanism had the potential to malfunction and expose the user to the pesticide contents.

• PUR Water Purifier Failure: In cooperation with Procter & Gamble, EPA worked to remove from the marketplace all PUR water purifiers with carbon filters. It was determined that the carbon filter actually removed the purifying chemical from the water before it was fully successful in treating the water. Procter & Gamble recalled all such products and placed signs identifying the deficiency in retail outlets where the units were sold. They also published ads in camping magazines to advertise the recall. The company then submitted data to the Agency demonstrating that the product still works effectively without the carbon filter, so the Agency allowed remaining stocks to stay in the channels of trade.

• Pesticides and Public Health: In FY 2000, OPP's Public Health Official (PHO) coordinated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and USDA on public health issues relating to pesticides used to control mosquitoes carrying the West Nile Virus. In May 2000, OPP developed a series of fact sheets relating to pesticides used to control mosquitoes carrying the West Nile Virus:

• "Pesticides and Mosquito Control"
• "Larvicides for Mosquito Control"
• "Synthetic Pyrethroids for Mosquito Control"
• "Naled for Mosquito Control"
• "Malathion for Mosquito Control"

EPA's mosquito-related fact sheets are available online at www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/skeeters.htm. Our website also links to CDC's website which provides information on West Nile Virus: www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/index.htm

In FY 2000, OPP's PHO also chaired EPA's Public Health Steering Committee, which includes members from each OPP Division. This Committee worked with CDC to develop a list of public health pests; an EPA/CDC Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that provides a framework for interagency coordination; and standard operating procedures for the EPA and CDC consultative process.

Other pesticide issues EPA and CDC worked together on in FY 2000 include: insect repellent labeling and efficacy testing protocols, and identifying ways to further enhance coordination activities, including staff exchanges and Week in Residence (WIRE) programs.

USE OF CHLORPYRIFOS RETAINED FOR MOSQUITO CONTROL TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH

Despite great strides in vector control over the past 50 years, mosquito-borne diseases continue to pose significant threats to the public in the United States. Current challenges posed by the West Nile virus, for example, illustrate the importance of having effective mosquito control tools available. State and local health departments which have a critical, front-line role in protecting the public from mosquito-borne diseases, carry out prevention, education, and eradication efforts. They can rely on many EPA-registered insecticides that they can employ without posing unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.

Within the arsenal of pesticide products still available for public health uses are OP insecticides such as chlorpyrifos. OPs affect the functioning of the nervous system and are in the priority group of pesticides being reviewed under FQPA. Chlorpyrifos is commonly found in many home and garden bug sprays. It has been used to combat termites and is also used on some agricultural crops.

EPA released its revised risk assessment of chlorpyrifos and announced an agreement with registrants to eliminate and phase out certain uses of the pesticide. Chlorpyrifos use will be virtually eliminated in and around homes and in nonresidential settings. Under the agreement, ultra low volume applications of chlorpyrifos for mosquito control will be allowed to continue. Chlorpyrifos use by professional applicators for fire ant control will also be allowed to continue. These applications provide an important public health benefit without posing risks of concern.

Photo inset - EPA and CDC officials sign a Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate programs to control pests of public health concern. From left to right: Dr. James M. Hughes, Director of The National Center for Infectious Disease; Marcia E. Mulkey, Director of EPA's Pesticide Programs; and Dr. Richard J. Jackson, Director for the National Center for Environmental Health.

Photo inset - During 2000, infected or dead birds, such as crows, often provided the first indication that the West Nile Virus was present in the area. Mosquitoes, which are largely bird feeding species, transmit the virus to people and animals.

Did You Know: Use of Methyl Parathion on many fruit and vegetable crops became unlawful as of January 1, 2000 as a result of 1999 voluntary cancellation.

"Treated Articles" and Public Health Claims: In recent years, the marketplace has experienced a proliferation of products (e.g., sponges and cutting boards) that are treated with pesticides ("treated articles") that bear implied or explicit public health claims. Product labels for many treated articles contain claims of antibacterial properties for protection against bacteria, fungi, and viruses, or make specific claims against pathogenic organisms that may cause food poisoning, infectious diseases, or respiratory problems. EPA's treated articles policy (Federal Register Notice, 4/17/98) clarified the current enforcement policy that "no implied or explicit public health claims of any kind may be made..." for treated articles. Further, EPA's policy states that "the claims concerning the presence of a pesticide in the treated article are limited to the protection of the treated article only."

To minimize both consumer and industry confusion over what constitutes a correct and acceptable product claim, EPA clarified its current policy and offered guidance with respect to the scope of the treated-article exemption in Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2000-1. Subsequently, EPA issued PR Notice 2000-10, which indicated that the Agency will begin to rely on the guidance in PR Notice 2000-1 as of April 30, 2001.

Making Sure Hospital Disinfectants Work: OPP's Microbiology Laboratory is testing hospital disinfectants and tuberculocides. In the past year the new lab at the Environmental Science Center at Ft. Meade, Maryland, has been evaluating selected product performance claims (Pseudomonas, Staphylococcus, and Mycobacterium) for hospital disinfectants and tuberculocides to ensure that they perform as intended. The team tested product formulations including towelette, spray, and ready-to-use formulations. Results of the tests are then shared with OPP's Antimicrobial Division and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance for appropriate followup. We have also expanded the testing program by including four state laboratories (Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and Mississippi) in the project.

Workshops on antimicrobial testing at the Environmental Science Center in November 1999 and August 2000 brought scientists together from the state laboratories and the Food & Drug Administration to learn more about the technical aspects of product testing.

TOP

Chapter 7: SUPPORTING FIELD PROGRAMS

Photo inset - Tribal Pesticide Program Council members and EPA staff meet at the Yakima Nation in Washington State - September 2000.

Through increased coordination and a strong commitment to continued collaborative relationships among EPA regional offices, state pesticide regulatory agencies, tribes, public interest groups, private organizations, and other stakeholders, OPP has been successful at implementing its regulatory programs in the field.

INCREASING PROTECTION FOR PESTICIDE HANDLERS AND FIELD WORKERS

Reassessing Pesticide Applicator Certification and Training: Comprised of OPP, USDA, state pesticide agencies, tribes, and pesticide safety educators, the Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG) is reassessing the adequacy of current programs for training and certifying applicators of restricted use pesticides. These higher-risk pesticides may be applied only by or under the direct supervision of specially trained and certified applicators. States, territories, and tribes conduct these programs according to national standards set by OPP. In January 1999, CTAG published recommendations for changes to guide the program's future. In FY 2000, OPP implemented certain recommendations, which include conducting national test validation workshops, initiating public and private projects to develop training materials, and sharing training materials through website postings. Pesticide applicator certification and training information can be found at www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/applicators/applicators.htm.

Worker Protection Assessment Group: In June 2000, OPP hosted the first meeting of the Worker Protection Assessment Group, which includes over 100 stakeholders representing state departments of agriculture, worker advocacy groups, county extension services, grower groups, and federal agencies, to discuss issues and needs for improving worker protection regulations. The goal of this group is to assess the current worker protection program, generate a consortium of interests that can effect change in the program, provide a means to foster the partnerships essential to make the program work, and provide a continuing forum to focus on and resolve worker protection issues. Broad themes emerged from the meeting that will serve as the focal point for the assessment, such as inspection, training, children's health, and communication and information exchange. The worker protection assessment group will help the Agency develop a strategic plan for improving the national worker protection program.

National Program to Train Farmworkers and Their Families about Pesticide Safety: Through a cooperative agreement with the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs (AFOP), EPA funded a national program to train farmworkers and their families about pesticide safety. Joining forces with AmeriCorps, AFOP expanded its small pesticide safety education program into a highly successful partnership between AFOP, AmeriCorps, EPA, and 37 community-based organizations across the country.

Photo inset - Farmworkers participate in training led by Angela Campos, an AFOP AmeriCorps member who received the All-AmeriCorp Leadership Award for 2000.

Photo inset - Farmworkers participate in training led by Victoria Gonzales, an AFOP AmeriCorps member.

In the sixth year of this program, AFOP AmeriCorps members have trained more than 150,000 farmworkers, farmworker children, farmers, and community members in 22 states: AZ, AR, CA, CO, FL, GA, HI, IN, LA, MA, ME, MD, MT, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, TX, UT, VA, and WA. As part of this effort, farmworkers, their families, and farmers learn ways to protect themselves and others from adverse effects of pesticides and to comply with the Worker Protection Standard. Many of the AFOP AmeriCorps members come from farmworker families and will go on to utilize their educational awards toward a career in public health, community service, or the environment.

Educational Mentoring Program for Children of Farm Workers: In FY 2000, EPA provided funds for the development of the Young Farm Workers' Academy (YFA). Implemented by Equity Research Corporation, the University of Texas at Brownsville, and the Texas Southmost College, this pilot mentoring program provided 55 elementary, middle, and high school children of migrant workers with an increased awareness of organic gardening, pesticide safety, health and well-being, and opportunities for a college education. Fifty trained mentors (university students, parents, and community leaders) developed and established bonds with the children. They were also able to increase the children's awareness of pesticide safety and parents' participation in their children's education.

On September 21, 2000, 10 YFA students participated in EPA's 2000 Hispanic Heritage Month Celebration in Washington, D. C. EPA's theme was "Children: Our Hope for the Future." The YFA students shared with OPP their experiences working on the farm and what they have learned in the program. The students- Kimberley Benitez, Guadalupe Gaona, Anna Karem Garza, Rosita Reyes, Corina Torrina Ruiz, Leo Mariscal, Rodrigo Reyes, Cindy Alonso, Daisy Alonso, and Gloria Castillo - were accompanied by their chaperones-Aaron Brenner; YFA staff members; Ofelia Gaona, the Runn Elementary Principal; and Dr. Manzillas from the University of Texas at Brownsville.

INCREASING THE QUALITY OF GROUNDWATER RESOURCES

Finalizing the Groundwater Pesticide Management Plans (PMPs): In 1996, OPP published a proposed rule that represents a new regulatory approach to the management of certain pesticides that would otherwise be considered for cancellation due to their toxicity and their widespread occurrence and persistence in the environment. Under the proposed rule, use would be allowed to continue in states and on tribal lands if the state or tribe develops chemical-specific management plans for them. These plans must specify the variability in local hydrogeology, vulnerability, and use patterns. This rule was developed with state and tribal input. As of FY 2000, 24 states and one tribe have voluntarily completed "generic" management plans that have received regional concurrence.

Photo inset with poem - "Courage am I" by Corina Ruiz

Courage am I.
Outstanding art is in my community.
Read our path.
In our community we share.
Now I will change the world.
Amazing is our community.
Reflecting in my thoughts
Unity is our community.
In our community we educate.
Zipping our minds.
When I make these choices I am a hero
I am Corina Ruiz I am part of the Young Farm Workers' Academy.

-C. Ruiz, 10

Photo inset - YFA students share their farming experiences with OPP.

PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

New Information Management System: An industry task force (the FIFRA Endangered Species Task Force, or FESTF), in partnership with OPP, this year developed an Internet-based information management system to facilitate risk assessments for endangered and threatened species. Test runs and pilots of the system are expected to occur through next summer. When the system is operational at OPP, anticipated in 2002, it will provide both FESTF-member registrants and OPP risk assessors with a consistent, standardized method for analyzing pesticide-use information and species-location data. The system includes a list of species in the areas of interest, a list of EPA-approved mitigation measures applicable to the particular situation, and a large database of information from subject-area experts, allowing registrants and EPA either to identify existing mitigation measures or to propose new ones. Information on OPP's Endangered Species Protection Program is available at www.epa.gov/espp/.

New Jaguar Information Sheet: OPP worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to determine and implement mitigation measures to protect the jaguar in six counties in Arizona and one in New Mexico - the jaguar's current range in the U. S. As an obligation to conserve threatened and endangered species under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, OPP developed a draft fact sheet on the endangered jaguar. The information sheet is under review by FWS. (See box for list of available information sheets on endangered species.)

Improving the Process for Protecting Endangered Species: In FY 2000, OPP began discussions with the FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service on ways to more quickly and efficiently protect threatened and endangered species.

Endangered Species Information Sheets

Amber Darter
Arizona Cliffrose
Attwater's Prairie Chicken
Autumn Buttercup
Bald Eagle
Blackside Dace
Blue Ridge Goldenrod
Boulder Darter
Brady Pincushion Cactus
Bunched Arrowhead
California Least Tern
Chapman's Rhododendron
Clay Phacelia
Colorado Squawfish
Conasauga Logperch
Desert Tortoise
Houston Toad
Flat-Spired Three-toothed Snail
Florida Torreya
Fresno Kangaroo Rat
Giant Garter Snake
Humpback Chub
Interior Least Tern
Iowa Pleistocene Snail
Kirtland's Warbler
Kuenzler Hedgehog Cactus
Maguire Primrose
Mesa Verde Cactus
Miccosukee Gooseberry
Minnesota Trout Lily
Mississippi Sandhill Crane
Navajo Sedge
Okaloosa Darter
Painted Snake
Coiled Forest Snail
Peebles Navajo Cactus
Persistent Trillium
Piping Plover
Pondberry
Prairie Bush-Clover
Sacramento Mountains Thistle
Siler Pincushion Cactus
Snail Darter
Spotfin Chub
Tennessee Purple Coneflower
Toad-Flax Cress
Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus
Utah Prairie Dog
Whooping Crane
Wood Stork
Woundfin/Virgin River Chub
Wyoming Toad

TRIBAL INITIATIVES AND PROGRAMS

The Tribal Pesticide Program Council (TPPC): The TPPC, formed through a cooperative agreement with OPP and the Native Ecology Initiative, held two meetings this year which were attended by approximately 35 tribes and tribal organizations. The Council formed four working groups: Tribal Strategy; Development of a Resource Guide for Tribes; Tribal Legal Authority under FIFRA - particularly Section 18; and Subsistence, which includes the concerns of native fishermen, hunters, gatherers, traditional medicine people, and cultural and crafts people, such as basketweavers. The Council will be working closely with EPA to advance work and resolve issues in these and other areas of interest to tribes.

The Tribal Medicine Project: In FY 2000 OPP launched the tribal medicine project as part of the OPP health care provider outreach initiative. The project will provide health care providers with training on how to identify, treat, and prevent acute pesticide poisoning. The project also focuses on pesticide-related health conditions tailored to the unique types of exposures and health care infrastructures in tribal communities.

Tribal Groundwater Workshops are carried out by a grantee to assist tribes on technical, legal, and policy issues associated with developing groundwater management plans. In just over 2 years, more than 120 tribes have attended the workshops and over 15 tribes are developing groundwater management plans.

Photo inset - Tribal Pesticide Program Council (TPPC) Logo

"Working together on these issues [pesticide and toxic issues in Indian Country] - as teachers, parents, citizens, and governments - we set an example of respect for each other and for all parts of our Earth family." - Susan Wayland, Acting Assistant Administrator for OPPTS"

Did You Know: Ospreys are one of the birds that made a dramatic comeback due, in part, to the banning of DDT. Nationwide, Ospreys increased from fewer than 8,000 pairs in 1981 to 14,246 pairs in 1994.

Five-Year Strategic Plan for Tribal Programs: In FY 2000, OPP's tribal team began work with EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to develop a strategic plan that will set goals for the two offices' tribal programs for the next 5 years. The strategic plan, to be adopted in FY 2001, will reflect extensive input not only from EPA stakeholders but also from individual tribal members and tribal environmental groups. As the tribes' needs change, the strategic plan will be revised.

Tribal Newsletter: In FY 2000, the OPP tribal team worked with the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics staff to publish several issues of the Office of Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) newsletter, OPPTS Tribal News. The newsletter is intended to serve as a news exchange between the Agency and tribes. It features tribal success stories, summaries of the two EPA offices' activities with tribes, information on conferences, meetings and grants, resources available to tribes, and a popular kid's page. For a look at all of the issues, point your browser to www.epa.gov/opptintr/tribal.

TOP

Chapter 8: BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

By continuing to build on existing partnerships and forging new alliances, OPP and its regional counterparts are better able to implement EPA's mission of protecting public health and the environment from the risks pesticides may pose. In FY 2000, through unique partnerships, OPP worked to promote safer means of pest control and was able to develop and apply better, more consistent policies to decisionmaking. The various stakeholders include other government agencies, states, and the international community, as well as a host of others.

SUPPORTING REGIONAL INITIATIVES

Pesticide Urban Initiative: OPP continued to provide funding in support of EPA regional and state projects to prevent the misuse of pesticides in urban residential settings. The strategy is a direct response to increased Agency concerns about a series of highly dangerous incidents where a toxic agricultural pesticide, methyl parathion, was illegally used indoors in residential settings to control cockroaches. In addition to providing increased regulatory and enforcement presence in targeted urban communities, as well as training and compliance assistance to states, EPA regions have developed an array of outreach materials and programs. Partnerships have been formed with USDA cooperative extension services, state agencies, universities, and other groups.

JOINING FORCES WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES AND STATES

Pesticides and the Health Care Community: OPP partnered with the public health community to develop and publish in the Federal Register a draft implementation plan for public comment that identifies strategies for educating health care providers on how to recognize, diagnose, and manage pesticide-related conditions. The plan and implementation progress will be showcased at a national forum for health care providers scheduled for early 2001 in Washington, D.C. For more information, see the Pesticides and National Strategies for Health Care Providers report, created by OPP in collaboration with the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, USDA, the Department of Labor, and the National Environmental Education Training Foundation. To obtain more information, visit www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety.

Quality Management Plan Workgroup: States and tribal agencies are required to develop Quality Management Plans to ensure that environmental data collected are of known, documented quality. States also are required to develop Quality Assurance Project Plans, detailing the procedures for data gathering and analyses. In June 1999, OPP collaborated with state pesticide lead agencies, state pesticide laboratories, EPA regions, and EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring to develop Guidance for Quality Management Plan Development. The workgroup also began developing similar guidance for states and tribes to develop Quality Assurance Project Plans to be finalized by the end of calendar year 2000.

Working with State Labs: OPP's laboratories support state FIFRA laboratories through training workshops, the check-sample program, and provision of analytical methods and reference standards.

• Two week-long training workshops were held during the year. The first, High Performance Liquid Chromatography/ Mass Spectrometry: Fundamentals and Practical Application to Pesticide Residue Analysis, was hosted by California Department of Food and Agriculture Laboratory. The second, Analysis of Herbicides Found in Groundwater, was hosted by the Ohio Department of Agriculture. These workshops included a combination of classroom instruction and "hands-on" lab work, a format particularly popular with state lab personnel.

• Check sample exercises provide an opportunity for state laboratories to assess their performance in analyzing standard samples for pesticides and to help identify areas where additional training or better analytical methods may be needed. Participation has been excellent, with 35 state labs participating in November 1999 and 48 in March 2000.

• State laboratories are OPP's primary customers for analytical methods for pesticide residues. In June 2000, to facilitate methods requests, we posted an index of available environmental chemistry methods on the Internet, along with an e-mail request form. In the first 4 months, we received 88 requests for 173 methods. In comparison, during the same period for the prior fiscal year, we processed 48 requests for 62 methods. Similar indices for product chemistry and food residue methods are planned for the coming year.

• In its first full year of operation, the new Repository of Pesticide Analytical Standards at the Environmental Science Center showed real improvements in service to state labs. In FY 2000, nearly 3,000 standards were distributed to state labs, significantly exceeding initial projections of 3,000 in the first 5 years.

State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG)

SFIREG was established through a cooperative agreement in 1978 by OPP and the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO) to exchange information between OPP and state regulatory officials. The following meetings were held in FY 2000:

December 6-7, 1999 - SFIREG Group Meeting

February 7-8, 2000 - SFIREG Water Quality and Pesticide Disposal Working Committee

March 6-8, 2000 - AAPCO Spring Meeting

April 17-18, 2000 - SFIREG Pesticide Operations and Management Working Committee

June 26-27, 2000 - SFIREG Group Meeting

August 7-8, 2000 - AAPCO Summer Meeting

DEVELOPING STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIPS

Wisconsin Potato Project: This year OPP partnered with the grower community, environmental and consumer interest groups, and the University of Wisconsin Potato IPM Research and Extension Team to enhance ecosystem health and grower profitability. This was achieved through pesticide risk/use reductions and promotion of IPM. This collaboration has been successful at lowering growers' use of toxic pesticides, and EPA is in the process of expanding the project to include more growers.

Consumer Labeling Initiative (CLI): In March 2000 at the Philadelphia Flower Show, OPP and industry partners launched a nationwide public education campaign to encourage consumers to read the information on household product labels. The "Read the Label First!" campaign is part of CLI, a voluntary partnership to improve labels and help the public purchase, use, and dispose of products more safely and responsibly. The campaign coincides with new, easier-to-read labels on many home pesticide and cleaning products now on store shelves. For more information on CLI, visit http://www.epa.gov/oppt/labeling/.

Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup: Early this year, OPP established the Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup to advise the Agency through the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) on ways to make information on inert ingredients more available to the public while working within the mandates of FIFRA and related Confidential Business Information (CBI) concerns. The group has been examining the current Agency processes and policies for disseminating inert ingredient information to the public, including informational needs for a variety of stakeholders, as well as business reasons for limiting the disclosure of inert ingredient information. In FY 2001, the workgroup is expected to make recommendations on how to increase the availability of inert ingredient information to the public.

Spray Drift Team: OPP's Spray Drift Team worked with industry, academia, applicators, USDA, states, tribes, and EPA regions to develop guidance for new labeling language for off-target pesticide drift control. As a result, the Team developed a draft PR Notice, "Spray and Dust Drift Label Statements for Pesticide Products," and a supporting draft Federal Register Notice, both expected to be published in FY 2001. The purpose of the PR Notice is to provide registrants and applicators with improved and more consistent product label statements for controlling pesticide drift from spray and dust applications. In FY 2000, team members consulted stakeholders and met with state representatives to discuss their needs for effectively enforcing off-target drift and held a question-and-answer session with aerial applicators. The team has developed a draft guidance document for performing screening-level spray drift-related risk and exposure assessments using the AgDRIFT model.

Birdcast Web Site: OPP supported the development of the new Birdcast Web Site (launched March 2000), which provides the public with near real -time forecasts of bird migration in the Mid-Atlantic region. Birdcast integrates weather radar, audio monitoring, and ground observations of birds to track migration. One major goal is to enable people to make better-informed decisions about when to apply pesticides and conduct other activities that might affect migrating birds. The coalition of partners who developed Birdcast includes the Academy of Natural Sciences, National Audubon Society, Clemson University Radar Ornithology Lab, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Geomarine, and EPA's Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking Program (EMPACT).

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Technical Working Group (TWG): Under the NAFTA TWG on Pesticides, OPP's cooperation with Canada and Mexico produced significant accomplishments in FY 2000. For example, the TWG:

• Completed the North American Crop Field Trial Zone Maps for Canada and the U. S. to support registration of pesticides in all three NAFTA countries and development of data in support of minor crops.

• Identified, through the USDA and State-Funded Interregional Research (IR-4) Project, 10 pesticide/ crop combinations in Canada and the U. S., and one combination between Mexico and the U. S. for development of field trial data to support minor-use registrations.

• Finalized a Geographic Information System that registrants can use to select field dissipation study sites that will satisfy requirements of both Canadian and American regulators.

• Agreed on assessment procedures for occupational and residential exposures that have facilitated routine work sharing and common outcomes.

• Developed a NAFTA document entitled, Status of Harmonization of Pesticide Registration Between Canada and the United States -Environmental Fate. This document outlines the areas of substantial agreement between Canada and the United States for environmental fate data requirements and test protocols.

• Developed a NAFTA document entitled, "Harmonization of Regulation of Pesticide Seed Treatment in Canada and the United States," which outlines how pesticide products used for seed treatment are currently regulated in both Canadian and the United States. Seed treatment products are primarily intended to provide protection against soil fungi and insect damage. The document also explains the degree of harmonization between the two countries' pesticide registration data requirements and test protocols related to pesticide seed treatment (www.epa.gov/oppfead1/international/naftatwg/).

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Working Group on Pesticides: In FY 2000, OPP worked closely with OECD to develop and implement pesticide program activities of common interest. OPP worked with OECD on many pesticide issues:

• Developed data requirements. Common data requirements are an important building block of harmonizing regulatory reviews between countries. The data requirements for agricultural pesticides are largely harmonized. The work group developed proposals for similar core data requirements for biological pesticides, pheromones, and microbials.

• Developed harmonized guidelines applicable to industrial chemicals and pesticides through the OECD Test Guidelines Program.

• Agreed with the European Commission (EC), and Germany to conduct a parallel review of an application to register the new corn herbicide, foramsulfuron (Equip®, Tribute TM ). The parallel review is a pilot project to identify the similarities and differences between EPA's and the EC's data requirements, data evaluations, and overall regulatory processes. The successful completion of this parallel review project will lay the ground work for further cooperation on pesticide regulation between the U. S. and Europe.

• Continued to develop information that would assist national Governments in measuring the success of risk reduction programs. As a beginning, OECD has developed prototypes of aquatic risk indicators, which are designed to measure trends in pesticide risk over time. In 2001, member countries will test the risk indicators in pilot projects to determine their applicability for national use.

• Attended several OECD meetings and workshops throughout the year: the OECD Environmental Exposure to Wood Preservatives Workshop; the Biennial Science and Technology Meeting; the OECD Human Exposure to Wood Preservatives Workshop in Ottawa, Canada; and the OECD/FAO/UNEP Obsolete Pesticides Workshop.

Persistent Organic Pollutants: OPP Provided pesticide program expertise to and participated in the U. S. delegation to intergovernmental negotiations for a global treaty on persistent organic pollutants. The fourth intergovernmental negotiating session occurred in March 2000 in Bonn, Germany and the fifth, and last, was held in December 2000 in South Africa.

Did You Know: The OECD Working Group is the only established international forum for OECD member countries to meet regularly to discuss pesticide regulatory issues of common interest.

Prior Informed Consent: In FY 2000, EPA continued work on the issue of Prior Informed Consent (PIC).

PIC began when, in September 1998, the U. S. signed the Convention on the PIC Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (The Rotterdam Convention).

This agreement governs trade in pesticides and other hazardous chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted based on health or environmental risk concerns, or which pose special risks in developing countries. The agreement has been transmitted to the U. S. Senate for its formal advice and consent.

In FY 2000, the signatory countries established an Interim PIC Procedure, which will be in effect until the agreement is ratified. During this interim period, four pesticides have been approved for inclusion on the PIC list: toxaphene, binapacryl, ethylene dichloride, and ethylene oxide. Also in FY2000, an Interim Chemical Review Committee (ICRC) was established, and OPP currently provides the U. S. representative. The ICRC has been developing streamlined operational procedures and improvements in the Decision Guidance Documents, which summarize the PIC-listed chemicals and their health and/ or environmental concerns. The ICRC is also working on a simplified Incident Report Form to help countries report pesticide poisoning incidents and to implement that portion of the agreement.

United Nations Environment Programme Activities: In FY 2000, working through the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety, EPA and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) formed a partnership to conduct a pilot project to provide Internet access to chemical management officials in several countries in Africa. The pilot project, which included several OPP representatives, involved setting up computer workstations, training officials, and providing guidance on how to access chemical information on the Internet.

TOP

Chapter 9: PROVIDING THE PUBLIC WITH PESTICIDE INFORMATION
www.epa.gov/pesticides

EPA knows that when people have ready access to accurate pesticide information they can better understand pesticide risks and take actions to reduce their exposure. All Americans have a right to know about the pesticides in their environment, as well as those used to grow the food they eat.

Sending OPP Updates to Our Electronic Listserv (an electronic mailing list): In late 1998, OPP established an electronic listserv for people who want to stay abreast of pesticide issues and decisions. By the end of FY 2000, more than 1,680 people added their names to the listserv. In FY 2000, OPP distributed over 147 Pesticide Program Updates to the listserv to provide information on OPP's actions and policies.

Disseminating Pesticide Information Publications: During the past year, we developed and disseminated more than 17 publications, including 9 fact sheets, 4 brochures, 2 reports, 1 poster, and 1 bookmarker for kids.

Fact Sheets
December 1999 Spray Drift of Pesticides
March 2000 Proposed Public Participation Process for Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration
May 2000 Pesticides and Mosquito Control
May 2000 Larvicides for Mosquito Control
May 2000 Synthetic Pyrethroids for Mosquito Control
May 2000 Naled for Mosquito Control
May 2000 Malathion for Mosquito Control
June 2000 Reregistration Eligibility Decisions Projected for FY 2000- FY 2001 November 2000 Supplemental Notice on Pesti