### Page 1 of 13 **U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY**

**Washington, D.C. 20460** OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### PC Code: 120603 DP Barcode: 380619

381445 **October 12**  **, 2010 MEMORANDUM**  **SUBJECT:** Tier II Drinking Water Exposure Assessment to E stab lish Tolerance s of

Tetraconazole on Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup 13 - 07F, Low Growing Berry Subgroup 13 - 07G and Corn . **TO:** Sidney Jackson , Risk Manager Reviewer Barbara Madden , Risk Manager Li sa Jones , Risk Manager Reviewer Mary Waller, Risk Manager **FROM:** Christopher M. Koper, Chemist

Stephen Wente, Secondary Reviewer Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) **THROUGH:** Nancy Andrews , Branch Chief, Environmental Risk Branch I Sujatha Sankula , Risk Assessment Process Leader (RAPL), ERB I Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) **Executive Summary** A Tier II screening- level drinking water ass essment was conducted for a p etition submitted by Is agro SpA to establish tolerance s of tetraconazole for Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup 13 - 07F, Low Growing Berry S ubgroup 13 - 07G and Corn . Two actions have been bundled in this assessment: small fruit vine climbing subgroup 13 - 07F, low growing berry subgroup 13 - 07G (D380619) and corn (D381445). It is important to note that cranberry i s part of the 13 - 07G subgroup; however, the registrant chose to withdraw cranberry f rom the label. The letter of withdrawal dated 06 October 2010 is located in Appendix C. T etraconazole can be applied to fruit and berries by aerial, ground or airblast application in addition to chemigation according to MettleTM 

### 125 ME Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 80289 - 8 ) label . Inaddition, the fungicide can be applied to corn by aerial or ground application in addition to chemigation according to Domark® 

### 230 ME Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 80289 - 7 ) label. The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs ) are based on the maximum proposed application rates specified in the product label . The EDWCs for the human health risk assessment are presented in Table 1.

### Page 2 of 13

For surface water, the EDWCs for the crops modeled in this assessment did not exceed the previous EDWCs for use on grapes and pecans reported (Table 3, page 5) in the previous drinking water asses sment (D347085, D350213) dated 01 July 2008 . The previously reported acute concentration of 10.69 μg/L (GA Pecan

– aerial) , annual mean (chronic) concentration of 4.68 μg/L (MN Sugarbeet

– aerial) and the highest 30 ye ar annual average concentration of 3.88 μg/L (NC Peanuts

– aerial) are higher than the reported EDWCs for various uses in Table 1 . Therefore, the current EDWCs for surface water do not supersede the drinking water concentrations previously estimated for this chemical. For groundwater, based on the proposed highest annual use rate s f or low growing berry

subgroup 13 - 07G (D380619) and corn (D381445) , the SCI - GROW model concentration s of tetraconazole were 0.127 μg/L and 0.0715 μg/L, respectively (Table 1 ) . This value was compared to 0.397 μg/L reported for pecans in the previous drinking water assessment (D347805, D350213 ) dated 01 July 2 008. Since 0.127 μg/Land 0.0715 μg/L μ g/L are less than 0.397 μg/L , the current EDWC s do not supersede the previous estimated drinking water concentration s . In conclusion, the current EDWCs for surface and ground water do not supersede the estimated drinking water concentrations previously calculated for tetraconazole . **Table 1. Tetraconazole Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWC**  **s) 1**  

### for Surface Water **and Ground Water**  **based on selected Crop Scenarios Proposed**  **Label Use PRZ** **M/EXAMS Scenario**  **1 (first app date)**  **Me thod**  **2 Application Rate**  **(in terval between**  **applications) 1**  **- in** **- 10** 

**year acute**  **(** 

### μg/L **) 1**  **- in** **- 10** 

**year chronic**  **(** 

### μg/L **) 30**  **- year** 

**average (**  

### μg/L **) Surface Water**  **Me ttleTM 125 ME Fungicide**  Small Fruit Vine Climbing subgroup 13 - 07F (except fuzzy kiwifruit) CA Grapes (August 3

– foliar) A 2 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 1.32 1.05 0.79 CA Grapes (August 3

– foliar) G 2 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 0.83 0.64 0.48 CA Grapes (August 3

–airblast) AB 2 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 0.83 0.64 0.48 CA Grapes (August 3

– chemigation) C 2 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 0.56 0.37 0.27 NY Grapes (September 17

– foliar) A 2 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 3.18 2.21 1.57 NY Grapes (September 17

– foliar) G 2 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 3.06 2.08 1.45 NY Grapes (September 17

–airblast) AB 2 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 3.06 2.08 1.45 NY Grapes (Sept. 17

– chemigation) C 2 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 2.93 1.97 1.34 Lo w Growing Berry subgroup 13 - 07G CA Strawberry **3** (May 20 - foliar) A 4 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) **5.21 3.06**  **2.43** CA Strawberry (May 20 - foliar) G 4 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 5.20 2.91 2.27 CA Strawberry (May 20 - airblast) AB 4 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 5.20 2.91 2.26 CA Strawberry (May 20 - chemigation) C 4 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 5.1 1 2.76 2.12 FL Straw berry A 4 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre 4.22 1.78 1.48

### Page 3 of 13 **Table 1. Tetraconazole Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWC**  **s) 1**  

### for Surface Water **and Ground Water**  **based on selected Crop Scenarios Proposed**  **Label Use PRZ** **M/EXAMS Scenario**  **1 (first app date)**  **Me thod**  **2 Application Rate**  **(in terval between**  **applications) 1**  **- in** **- 10** 

**year acute**  **(** 

### μg/L **) 1**  **- in** **- 10** 

**year chronic**  **(** 

### μg/L **) 30**  **- year** 

**average (**  

### μg/L **)** (January 04 - foliar) (14 - day interval) FL Straw berry (January 04 - foliar) G 4 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 4.28 1.74 1.43 FL Straw berry (January 04 - airblast) AB 4 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 4.28 1.74 1.43 FL Straw berry (January 04 - chemigation) C 4 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 4.24 1.69 1.38 OR Berries **3** (June 18 - foliar) A 4 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 3.34 2.48 2. 02 OR Berries (June 18 - foliar) G 4 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 3.13 2.21 1.78 OR Berries (June 18 - airblast) AB 4 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 3.13 2.21 1.77 OR Berries (June 18 - chemigation) C 4 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre (14 - day interval) 2.94 2.01 1.59 **Groundwater** SCI - GROW Lo w Growing Berry subgroup 13 - 07G -- 4 app @ 0.04 lb a.i./acre 0.127 0.127 0.127 **Surface Water Dom** **ark ®**  **230 ME Fungicide** Corn (field corn and popcorn including field corn grown for seed) PA Corn (July 08 - foliar) A 1 app @ 0.090 lb a.i./acre 3.52 1.73 1.30 PA Corn (July 08 - foliar) G 1 app @ 0.090 lb a.i./acre 3.45 1.67 1.23 PA Corn (July 08 - chemigation) C 1 app @ 0.090 lb a.i./acre 3.35 1.61 1.16 PA Corn (July 01 - foliar) A 2 app @ 0.045 lb a.i./acre (7 - day interval) 3.54 1.74 1.31 PA Corn (July 01 - foliar) G 2 app @ 0.045 lb a.i./acre (7 - day interval) 3.49 1.68 1.24 PA Corn (July 01 - chemigation) C 2 app @ 0.045 lb a.i./acre (7 - day interval) 3.39 1.61 1.17 MS Corn (July 02 - foliar) A 1 app @ 0.090 lb a.i./acre 2.92 1.19 0.93 MS Corn (July 02 - foliar) G 1 app @ 0.090 lb a.i./acre 2.99 1.18 0.92 MS Corn (July 02 - chemigation) C 1 app @ 0.090 lb a.i./acre 2.98 1.16 0.90 MS Corn (June 25 - foliar) A 2 app @ 0.045 lb a .i./acre (7 - day interval) 2.89 1.19 0.93 MS Corn (June 25 - foliar) G 2 app @ 0.045 lb a.i./acre (7 - day interval) 2.93 1.19 0.92 MS Corn (June 25 - chemigation) C 2 app @ 0.045 lb a.i./acre (7 - day interval) 2.91 1.17 0.90 IL Corn (July 23 - foliar) A 1 app @ 0.090 lb a.i./acre 3.01 1.81 1.46 IL Corn (July 23 - foliar) G 1 app @ 0.090 lb a.i./acre 2.95 1.78 1.41

### Page 4 of 13 **Table 1. Tetraconazole Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWC**  **s) 1**  

### for Surface Water **and Ground Water**  **based on selected Crop Scenarios Proposed**  **Label Use PRZ** **M/EXAMS Scenario**  **1 (first app date)**  **Me thod**  **2 Application Rate**  **(in terval between**  **applications) 1**  **- in** **- 10** 

**year acute**  **(** 

### μg/L **) 1**  **- in** **- 10** 

**year chronic**  **(** 

### μg/L **) 30**  **- year** 

**average (**  

### μg/L **)** IL Corn (July 23 - chemigation) C 1 app @ 0.090 lb a.i./acre 2.83 1.73 1.35 IL Corn (July 16 - foliar) A 2 app @ 0.045 lb a.i./acre (7 - day interval) 2.99 1.82 1.47 IL Corn (July 16 - foliar) G 2 app @ 0.045 lb a.i./acre (7 - day interval) 2.87 1.78 1.42 IL Corn (July 16 - chemigation) C 2 app @ 0.045 lb a.i./acre (7 - day interval) 2.76 1.73 1.36 KS Corn (August 01 - foliar) A 1 app @ 0. 090 lb a.i./acre 3.83 1.83 1.45 KS Corn (August 01 - foliar) G 1 app @ 0.090 lb a.i./acre 3.73 1.82 1.42 KS Corn (August 01 - chemigation) C 1 app @ 0.090 lb a.i./acre 3.65 1.78 1.38 KS Corn (July 25 - foliar) A 2 app @ 0.045 lb a.i./acre (7 - day interval) 4.06 1.86 1.47 KS Corn (July 25 - foliar) G 2 app @ 0.045 lb a.i./acre (7 - day interval) 4.00 1.85 1.44 KS Corn (July 25 - chemigation) C 2 app @ 0.045 lb a.i./acre (7 - day interval) 3.90 1.80 1.40 NC Corn (July 07 - foliar) A 1 app @ 0.090 lb a. i./acre 2.44 1.35 1.16 NC Corn (July 07 - foliar) G 1 app @ 0.090 lb a.i./acre 2.29 1.29 1.10 NC Corn (July 07 - chemigation) C 1 app @ 0.090 lb a.i./acre 2.15 1.23 1.04 NC Corn (June 30 - foliar) A 2 app @ 0.045 lb a.i./acre (7 - day interval) 2.38 1 .34 1.17 NC Corn (June 30 - foliar) G 2 app @ 0.045 lb a.i./acre (7 - day interval) 2.24 1.28 1.10 NC Corn (June 30 - chemigation) C 2 app @ 0.045 lb a.i./acre (7 - day interval) 2.12 1.22 1.04 Groundwater SCI - GROW Corn -- 1 app @ 0.090 lb a.i./acre 0.0 715 0.0715 0.0715 1 EDWC values adjusted with a Percent Cropped Area (PCA) factor of 0.87. Bold numbers denote maximum EDWC values. 2 A = aerial application, G = ground application, AB = airblast (orchard) application, C = chemigation. 3 It is important to note, two specialty scenarios were employed to properly assess the low growing berry subgroup. CA Straw berry is a Red- Legged Frog (RLF) scenario. OR Berries is an organophosphate (OP) scenario. 

### Introduction Tetraconazole is a broad spectrum systemic fungicide with protective, curative , and eradicate properties . It is absorbed by the root, stem, and leaves with subsequent translocation to all portions of the plant . Tetraconazole is persistent in the environment and does not have a single pre dominant route of dissipation . Based on the field and laboratory studies, tetraconazole is

### Page 5 of 13

expected to have low volatility from soil and water surfaces and possesses slight mobility in soils. Successive applications are expected to result in year-to - ye ar soil accumulation . Tetraconazole is likely

to reach surface sources of drinking water via spray drift and runoff but its tendency

to reach ground water is expected to be attenuated due to its lack of mobility in soil. The chemical has low potential to reach groundwater, except in soils of high sand and low organic matter content. Detailed description of fate and transport properties of tetraconazole can be obtained from the comprehensive drinking water assessment (D321622, D321742 and D331420 ) dated 27 November 2006. **Monitoring Data** A ty pical drinking water treatment operation begins with course filtration of particulate matter from a lake or reservoir water intake pipe . Secondary filtration often involves the addition of alum or ferric sulfate in order to cause suspended particulate matter to coagulate for easier removal of smaller particles in the water column . In addition, lime is also added for pH adjustment, softening, and corrosion control . After the raw water has been treated with these compounds, it is gently

mixed by large mechanical paddles in flocculation basins where the suspended particles gather into larger particles and settle to the bottom of settling basins . The settled particles form a sludge layer on the bottom of each primary settl ing basin and the sludge is pushed into sumps by

traveling mechanical rakes, and is eventually removed from the basins through a series of valves and pumps . The clarified water then exits the settling basins, and is disinfected b y the addition of free chl orine or some other process . Fluorosilicic acid is often used to add fluoride to the drinking water to aid in the prevention of dental cavities . The final step in the purification process is filtration through a series of sand filters . These filters consist of graded gravel topped first with a layer of sand and then with a layer of anthracite . After filtration, the purification process is complete, and drinking water is pumped out to customers. No data were located regarding the fate of tetraconazole d uring the drinking water process . However, since tetraconazole is expected to adsorb to suspended solids and sediment in the water column, it may

be subject to removal during the filtration process . Furthermore, some disinfection processes also employ UV irradiation of the finished water, which may also result in the direct photolysis of tetraconazole. Tetraconazole is not included as one of the analytes monitored in U.S. surface and groundwater under the USGS’s National Water Quality A ssessment (NAWQA) program. H owever, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture has conducted a surface water monitoring program in counties where sugar beets are ty pically grown to monitor for the presence of various pesticides (MRID 46614320) . Tetraconazole was not detecte d (n = 4) in the Buffalo, Chippewa, or Upper Minnesota River water sheds, however, it was identified in three out of four samples in the Grand Marais Creek watershed at levels below the quantification limit of 0.015 ppb during monitoring conducted in 2004 . Tetraconazole was not detected in 17 samples obtained in 2003 or 21 samples obtained in 2004 from the Lower Minnesota River basin . Data from the 2005 monitoring program indicated that tetraconazole was detected in 7 out of 10 monitored watersheds, although only one sample from the Grand Marais Creek watershed had a concentration (0.17 ppb) above quantifiable limits (MRID 46890601). Monitoring data for tetraconazole is infrequent and only available from the Minnesota area where it has been applied on sugar beets. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture monitoring

### Page 6 of 13

was not designed to target tetraconazole high use areas. Hence, the data are not representative of worst- case drinking water concentrations and the monitoring data are not recommended to be use d in the risk assessment. **Drinking Water Exposure Modeling** Estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) were generated using EF ED’s standard suite of models. Two specialty scenarios were employed to properly assess the low growing berry subgroup. CA Strawberry is a Red- Legged Frog (RLF) scenario. OR Berries is an organophosphate (OP) scenario. In addition, among the 10 possible scenarios for corn, the Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Illinois, Kansas and North Carolina corn scenarios were selected to be geographically

representative in this assessment. The proposed use s from the provided label were assessed. **Models** Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v3.12 .2, May 12, 2005 ) and Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS v2.98.04.06, April 25, 2005 ) are simulation models coupled with the input PE5.pl shell (PE5, PE Version 5.0, November 15, 2006) to generate EDWCs of tetraconazole residues that may

occur in surface water used as drinking water. The PRZM model simulates pesticide movement and transformation on and across the agricultural field resulting from crop application s . The EXAMS model simulates pesticide loading via runoff, erosion, and spray drift assuming a standard watershed of 172.8 ha that drains into an adjacent standard drinking water index res ervoir of 5.26 ha, an average depth of 2.74 m. A more detailed description of the index reservoir watershed can be found in Jones et al . , 1998. The coupled PRZM/EXAMS model and users manuals may

be downloaded from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Models web -page (USEPA, 2010 ). Percent Crop Areas (PCA) that account for the maximum area within a watershed that may be planted with the modeled crop are applied to concentrations predicted by PRZM/EXAMS . Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI - GROW v2.3, Jul. 29, 2003) is a regression model used as a screening tool to estimate pesticide concentrations found in ground water used as drinking water. SCI - GROW was developed by fitting a linear model to ground water concentrations with the Relative Index of Leaching Potential (RILP) as the independent variable. Ground water concentrations were taken from 90 - day average high concentrations from Prospective Ground Water studies. The RILP is a function of aerobic soil metabolism and the soil -water partition coefficient. The output of SCI - GROW represents the concentrations of residue s that might be expected in shallow unconfined aquifers under sandy soils, which is representative of the ground water most vulnerable to pesticide contamination and likely to serve as a drinking water source. The SCI - GROW user’s manual is currently under development; however, information concerning the model can be found on the EPA Water Models web -page (USEPA, 2010 ). **Input Parameters** Input parameters for the PRZM/EXAMS and SC I - GROW model s are listed in **Table 2**  and **Table 3**  . Explanations of various model input parameters are discussed below.

### Page 7 of 13 **Table 2. PRZM/EXAMS Input P arameters for**  **Tetraconazole Input Parameter**  **: Value**  **: Comment:**  **Source :**  Scenario (s): Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup 13 - 07 F : CA Grapes , NY Grapes Low Growing Berry Subgroup 13 - 07G : CA Strawberry, FL Strawberry, OR Berry Corn: PA Corn, MS Corn, IL Corn, KS Corn, NC Corn representative scenarios for each use N/A

Maximum Single Application Rate lbs a.i./acre (kg a.i./ha) Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup 13 - 07 F : 0.04 (0.045) Low Growing Berry Subgroup 13 - 07G : 0.04 (0.045) Corn: 0. 090 (0.101) 1 application 0.045 (0.051) 2 applications proposed rates proposed label

Applications per Year Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup 13 - 07 F : 2 Low Growing Berry Subgroup 13 - 07G: 4 Corn: 1, 2 l abel directions. Label specifies rates per season. If crops are ro tated with those on which tetraconazole is used, yearly rates may be higher. proposed label

Application Interval (days ) Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup 13 - 07 F : 14 Low Growing Berry Subgroup 13 - 07G: 14 Corn: 7 (2 applications) proposed application intervals proposed label Date of Initial Application (scenario/day/month) Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup 13 - 07 F : CA Grapes: 03 - 08 NY Grapes : 17 - 09 Low Growing Berry Subgroup 13 - 07G : CA Strawberry : 20 - 05 FL Strawberry: 04 - 01 OR Berry : 18 - 06 Corn: PA Corn: 08 - 07 (1 app.) and 01 - 07 (2 app.) MS Corn: 02 - 07 (1 app.) and 25 - 06 (2 app.) IL Corn: 23 - 07 (1 app.) and 16 - 07 (2 app.) KS Corn: 01 - 08 (1 app.) and 25 - 07 (2 app.) NC Corn : 07 - 07 (1 app.) and 30 - 06 (2 app.) Date of initial application was calculated from the Pre Harvest Interval (PHI) and application interval as written on the proposed labels. 1 For corn, 90 days after emergence was selected to define corn growth stage R3 (brown silk/milk). Crop Scenarios

Application Method Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup 13 - 07 F : Foliar: aerial and ground Airblast Chemigation Low Growing Berry Subgroup 13 - 07G : Foliar: aerial and ground Airblast Chemigation Corn: Foliar: aerial and ground Chemigation l abel directions proposed label

### Page 8 of 13 **Table 2. PRZM/EXAMS Input P arameters for**  **Tetraconazole Input Parameter**  **: Value**  **: Comment:**  **Source :**  CAM Input 2 l inear foliar based on crop canopy proposed label Incorporation Depth (cm . ) N/A -- proposed label IPSCND Input 3 (berries) 1 (corn) 3 = remaining pesticide on foliage is retained as surface residue and continues to undergo decay. 1 = remaining pesticide on foliage is converted to surface application to the top soil layer US EP A, 2005

Spray Drift Fraction 0 .16 (aerial) 0.064 (ground) 0.063 (airblast) 0 (chemigation) See footnote 2 for chemigation reference Input parameter guidance (USEPA, 2009 ) Application Efficiency 0.95 (aerial) 0.99 (ground) 0.99 (airblast) 1. 0 (chemigation) -- Input parameter guidance (USEPA, 2009 ) Molecular Mass (g/mol) 372.1 -- To mlin, 2003 Vapor Pressure at 25°C (torr) 9.901 x 10 - 7

-- MRID 45851801 Henry’s Law Constant (atm- m3 /mol) 3.5 x 10 - 9

-- To mlin, 2003 Solubility in Water (mg/L) 156 pH 7 at 20 o C To mlin, 2003 Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (KOC) (L/kg OC) 4424 3 represents the average KOC from 5 values MRID 4 7023201 Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half - life (days) 0 (stable) -- MRID 44367005 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half

- life ( days) 447 represents the 90 th % - ile confidence bound on the mean half - life using half

lives of 382 and 320 days. MRID 44751319 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half

- life (days) 0 (stable) -- MRID 45840001 Hydrolysis Half

- lives (days) 0 (stable) pH 7 MRID 44367002 Aqueous Photolysis Half - life (days) 215 -- MRID 44367003 N/A = Not Applicable 1 = http://www.dekalb - asia.com/pdf/CG5_DifferentStages.pdf 2 = Chemigation (< 1% spray drift as described in http://www.agdrift.com/PDF_FILES/Chem.pdf - modeled as 0%) 3 = The reviewer- calculated coefficients of determination (R2) for the relationships Kads vs . organic matter = 0.94 ; therefore, the average Koc obtained from five values (11491, 2896, 5841, 670, and 1220) was used for this parameter. 

### Table **3 . SCI** **- GROW Input P**  **arameters for Tetraconazole.**  **Input Parameter Value**  **Comment Source**  Maximum Application Rate per growing season (lbs a.i./A) Low Growing Berry Subgroup 13 - 07G : 0.04 Corn: 0.09 maximum rates from proposed labels proposed label

### Page 9 of 13 **Table 3**  **. SCI -**  **GROW Input P arameters for**  **Tetraconazole. Input Parameter**  **Value Comment**  **Source** Applications per Year 4 (berry) 1 (corn) l abel directions proposed label Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (KOC) (L/kgOC) 670 lowest KOC value because there was greater than a three - fold variation among five values MRID 47023201 Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half - life (days) 1000 1000 days was used since tetraconazole was stable over the course of 52 weeks in an aerobic so il metabolism st udy MRID 44367005 

### Application methods and rates were obtained from the proposed label s for MettleTM 

### 125 ME Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 80289 - 8) and Domark® 

### 230 ME Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 80289 - 7 ). Considering c orn, 90 days after emergence was selected to define corn growth stage R3 (brown silk/milk) as described in the following corn growth and development reference http://www.dekalb - asia.com/pdf/CG5_DifferentStages.pdf . Standard percent cropped areas (PCA) were used for all uses as estimates of the extent of watershed on which crops are grown (Effland et al. , 1999). The default agricultural PCA of 0.87 was used for the proposed uses because they are not confined to specific regions of the United States. Actual fractions of cropped areas could be less in some areas of the country . A representative PRZM/EXAM model input and output data for CA Strawberry ( aerial application) is attached in **Appendix A.**  Representative SCI - GROW model input and output data for berries and corn are attached in **Appendix B.** 

### Page 10 of 13

**REFERENCES** Effland, W. R., N. C. Thurman, I. Kennedy. 1999. Proposed Methods for Determining Watershed- derived Percent Crop Areas and Considerations for Applying Crop Area Adjustments to Surface Water Screening Models. Presentation to the FIFRA Science Advisory Panel, May

27, 199 9. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/scipoly /sap/1999/index.htm Jones, R. D., S. Abel, W. R. Effland, R. Matzner, R. Parker. 1998. An Index Reservoir for Use in Assessing Drinking Water Exposure. Proposed Methods for Basin- scale Estimation of Pesticide Concentrations in Flowing Water and Reservoirs for Tolerance Reassessment. Presentation to FIFRA Science Advisory Panel, June 29 - 30, 1998. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/scipoly /sap/1998/index.htm Tomlin, C.D.S. 2003. Tetraconazole (CAS No. 112281 - 77 - 3). In: The e - Pesticide Manual, 13th Edition Version 3.0. Surrey U.K., British Crop Protection Council. US EPA. 200 5 . PRZM - 3, A Model for Predicting Pesticide and Nitrogen Fate in the Crop Root and Unsaturated Soil Zones: Users Manual for Release 3.0. May 2005 . USEPA. 2009 . Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides , Version 2.1 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, October 22, 2009 . USEPA. 2010 . Water Models. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Scienc e and Policy . Online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/

### Page 11 of 13

**Appendix A. Representative**  **PRZM/EXAMS Output: CA Strawbe**  **rry –**  **Aerial Application** stored as CAstrawberryA.out Chemical: Tetraconazole PRZM environment: CAStrawberry-noplasticRLF_V2.txt modified Wedday, 26 March 2008 at 10:39:14 EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:07 Metfile: w23234.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:38 Water segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 2.42 2.26 1.73 0.95 0.69 0.26 1962 7.46 6.88 5.24 3.60 3.17 1.66 1963 4.29 4.10 3.64 3.12 2.98 2.60 1964 4.01 3.89 3.41 2.90 2.75 2.52 1965 4.20 4.06 3.33 2.96 2.80 2.60 1966 4.57 4.45 4.06 3.37 3.05 2.79 1967 6.07 5.86 5.45 4.43 4.16 3.43 1968 4.38 4.24 3.87 3.56 3.47 3.11 1969 4.54 4.45 4.28 4.00 3.80 3.29 1970 5.18 5.02 4.62 3.90 3.72 3.31 1971 3.96 3.88 3.65 3.36 3.29 2.96 1972 4.86 4.70 4.11 3.85 3.54 2.72 1973 4.62 4.45 3.95 3.71 3.53 3.20 1974 4.08 3.98 3.72 3.39 3.31 2.97 1975 3.55 3.51 3.35 3.12 3.04 2.71 1976 4.08 2.96 2.68 2.44 2.37 2.23 1977 4.94 4.67 3.90 3.11 2.92 2.50 1978 4.58 4.43 3.96 3.65 3.49 2.88 1979 4.68 4.48 3.88 3.61 3.44 2.95 1980 4.63 4.48 4.02 3.79 3.70 3.09 1981 4.94 4.74 4.14 3.62 3.27 2.98 1982 7.42 7.01 5.80 4.77 4.45 3.86 1983 5.29 5.16 4.86 4.54 4.45 3.95 1984 4.92 4.74 4.36 3.95 3.81 3.53 1985 3.82 3.75 3.55 3.38 3.36 3.11 1986 4.75 4.57 4.10 3.80 3.59 3.09 1987 3.70 3.60 3.29 3.01 2.95 2.68 1988 3.49 3.37 2.96 2.78 2.66 2.46 1989 3.06 2.98 2.75 2.53 2.47 2.28 1990 2.49 2.45 2.31 2.26 2.20 2.03 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.03 7.46 7.01 5.80 4.77 4.45 3.95 0.06 7.42 6.88 5.45 4.54 4.45 3.86 0.10 6.07 5.86 5.24 4.43 4.16 3.53 0.13 5.29 5.16 4.86 4.00 3.81 3.43 0.16 5.18 5.02 4.62 3.95 3.80 3.31 0.19 4.94 4.74 4.36 3.90 3.72 3.29 0.23 4.94 4.74 4.28 3.85 3.70 3.20 0.26 4.92 4.70 4.14 3.80 3.59 3.11 0.29 4.86 4.67 4.11 3.79 3.54 3.11 0.32 4.75 4.57 4.10 3.71 3.53 3.09 0.35 4.68 4.48 4.06 3.65 3.49 3.09 0.39 4.63 4.48 4.02 3.62 3.47 2.98 0.42 4.62 4.45 3.96 3.61 3.44 2.97 0.45 4.58 4.45 3.95 3.60 3.36 2.96 0.48 4.57 4.45 3.90 3.56 3.31 2.95 0.52 4.54 4.43 3.88 3.39 3.29 2.88 0.55 4.38 4.24 3.87 3.38 3.27 2.79 0.58 4.29 4.10 3.72 3.37 3.17 2.72 0.61 4.20 4.06 3.65 3.36 3.05 2.71 0.65 4.08 3.98 3.64 3.12 3.04 2.68 0.68 4.08 3.89 3.55 3.12 2.98 2.60 0.71 4.01 3.88 3.41 3.11 2.95 2.60 0.74 3.96 3.75 3.35 3.01 2.92 2.52 0.77 3.82 3.60 3.33 2.96 2.80 2.50 0.81 3.70 3.51 3.29 2.90 2.75 2.46 0.84 3.55 3.37 2.96 2.78 2.66 2.28 0.87 3.49 2.98 2.75 2.53 2.47 2.23 0.90 3.06 2.96 2.68 2.44 2.37 2.03 0.94 2.49 2.45 2.31 2.26 2.20 1.66 0.97 2.42 2.26 1.73 0.95 0.69 0.26 0.10 5.99 5.79 5.21 4.39 4.12 3.52 3.06 Italics define PCA adjusted values 5.21 Average of yearly averages: 2.79 2.43 Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006 Data used for this run: Output File: CAstrawberryA Metfile: w23234.dvf PRZM scenario: CAStrawberry-noplasticRLF_V2.txt EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv Chemical Name: Tetraconazole Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 372.1 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 3.50E-09 atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 9.90E-07 torr Solubility sol 156 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 4424 mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 215 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 447 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 0 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.045 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.16 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 20-05 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 1 apprate 0.045 kg/ha Interval 2 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 2 apprate 0.045 kg/ha Interval 3 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 3 apprate 0.045 kg/ha Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 3 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

### Page 12 of 13

**A ppendix B. SCI** **- GROW Output File**  **s :**  SCIGROW VERSION 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS DIVISION OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SCREENI

NG MODEL FOR AQUATIC PESTICIDE EXPOSURE **Low Growing Berri es:**  SciGrow version 2.3 C hemical:Tetraconazole on Low Growing Berries time is 9/27/2010 17:25:37

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (ml/g) metabolism (days)

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0.040 4.0 0.160 6.70E+02 1000.0

----------------------------------------------- ------------------------- groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 1.27E - 01 or 0.127 ************************************************************************ 

### Corn: SciGrow version 2.3 chemical:Tetraconazole time is 9/27/2010 17:29:17

--------------- --------------------------------------------------------- Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (ml/g) metabolism (days)

----------------------------------------------------- ------------------- 0.090 1.0 0.090 6.70E+02 1000.0

------------------------------------------------------------------------ groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 7.15E - 02 or 0.0715 ************************************* ***********************************



### Appendix C. Letter of Withdrawal for Cranberry

### Page 13 of 13