UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM Date: November 5, 2014 SUBJECT: Chlorpropham: Amended and Updated Tier I Review ofHuman Incidents

PC Code: 018301 DP Barcode: 0422116 Decision No.: 494058 Petition No.: NA Registration No.: NA Regulatory Action: NA Case No.: NA Risk Assessment Type: NA TXRNo.: NA CAS No.: 101-21-3 40CFR: NA MRIDNo.: NA
FROM:

THROUGH:

TO: Shanna Recore, Industr ial Hygienist Elizabeth Evans, Environmental Protection Specialist Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch Health Ef fects Division (7509P) 

# fJ ',- 'tf.& ctftlJ/-**~o** I/.( David Miller, Acting Branch Chief 1/v' · Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch Health Effects Division (7509P) Anwar Dunbar, Risk Assessor Risk Assessment Branch I Health Effects Division (7509P) and Mar ianne Mannix, Chemical Review Manager Risk Management & Implementation Branch 3 Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)

Page 1 of4 Ver.Apr.08Summary and Conclusions Chlorpropham was previously reviewed in 2010 (S. Recore and K. Oo, 08/20/2010, D378702). It was concluded that "based on the low frequency and severity ofincident cases, there does not appear to be a concern at thls time that would warrant further investigation." However, the SENSOR-Pesticide data presented in that memorandum was incorrect since the seven incidents described were for a different chemica l. This incident analysis was conducted to correct and update the previous analysis. The current analysis shows no incidents in IDS and few incidents in SENSOR-Pesticides. Therefore, based on the low frequency and severity ofincident cases reported for chlorpropham in both IDS and NIOSH SENSOR-Pesticides, there does not appear to be a concern at this time that would warrant further investigation. The Agency will continue to monitor the incident information and ifa concern is triggered, additional analysis will be included in the risk assessment.
I. ACTION REQUESTED Chlorpropham was previously reviewed in 2010 (S. Recore and K. Oo, 08/20/2010, D378702). It was concluded that "based on the low frequency and severity ofincident cases, there does not appear to be a concern at this time that would warrant further investigat ion." However, the SENSOR-Pesticide data presented was incorrect. An updated incident report was requested to correct and update the previous analysis since the seven SENSOR-Pesticide incidents described were for a different chemical. II. BACKGROUND Chlorpropham is a herbicide and plant growth inhibitor used to control mouseear chickweed in spinach and fruiting in ginkgo trees, reduce Botrytis infection in Easter lilies as well as assist in their floral bud removal, and inhibit sprouting 

### in stored potatoes
. Chlorpropham is not currently registered for residential use. For this evaluation, both the OPP Incident Data System (IDS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Nationa l Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH) Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk-Pesticides (SENSOR) database were consulted for pesticide incident data on the active ingredient chlorpropham (PC Code 018301)

. The purpose ofthe database search is to identify potential patterns in the frequency and severity ofthe health effects attributed to chlorpropham exposure. In addition, we sought information from the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). The AHS is a high quality prospective epidemiology study evaluating the link between pesticide use and various health outcomes, including cancer. Chlorpropham is not included in the AHS, and therefore this study does not provide information for this report. III. RESULTS/DISCUSSION Page 2 

### of4

### a. IDS (Incident Data System) OPP's IDS includes reports ofalleged human health incidents from various sources, including mandatory Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 6(a)(2) reports from registrants, other federal and state health and environmen tal agencies, and individual consumers . Since 1992, OPP has compiled these reports in IDS. IDS contains reports from across the U.S. and most incidents have all relevant product information recorded. Reports submitted to the IDS represent anecdotal report s or allegations only, unless otherwise stated in the report. IDS records incidents in one oftwo modules: Main IDS and Aggregate IDS:

o Main IDS contains incidents resulting in higher severity outcomes and provides more detail with regard to case specifics. This system stores incident data for death, major and moderate incidents, and it includes information about the location, date and nature ofthe incident. Main IDS incidents involving only one active ingredient (as opposed to pesticide products with multiple active ingredients) are considered to provide more certain information about the potential effects of exposure from the pesticide.

o Aggregate IDS contains incidents resulting in less severe human incidents (minor, unknown, or no effects outcomes). These are reported by registrants only as counts in what are aggregate summaries. From January 1, 2009 to October 23, 2014, there were no incidents reported involving chlorpropham in either Main or Aggregate IDS database. 

### b. SENSOR-Pesticides The SENSOR-Pesticides database covers 11 states from 1998-2010, although reporting varies from state to state. Cases ofpesticide

-related illnesses are ascertained from a variety of sources, including: reports from local Poison Control Centers, state Department ofLabor workers' compensation claims when reported by physicians, reports from State Departments of Agriculture, and physician reports to state Departments ofHealth. Although both occupational and non-occupational incidents are included in the database, SENSOR-Pesticides focuses on occupational pesticide incidents, and is ofparticular value in providing that information. The state coordinator at each ofthe ll respective state Departments of Health conducts case followup activities such as obtaining medical records to verify symptoms and severity. Using standardized protocol and case definitions derived from poison center reporting, the state SENSOR-Pesticide coordinator enters the incident information into the state-based system which is sent to NIOSH annually to be aggregated. A query of SENSOR-Pesticides from 1998-2010 identifies one case involving chlorpropham (PC Code 01830 l) which occurred in Washington State in 200 I. This case involved two active ingredients chlorpropham and chlorine dioxide and two pesticide products (CIPC 2 EC and OxiClor 2). This case was low in severity and the case experienced dermal symptoms. The case
Page 3 of4narrative states, "A 21-year-old female potato sorter/cleaner sought medical care after developing a pruritic rash. She was wearing rubber gloves while sorting potatoes."

c. Agricultural Health Study (AHS) The AHS is a high quality, prospective epidemiology study evaluating the link between pesticide use and various health outcomes including cancer. The AHS includes private and commercial pesticide applicators and their spouses. Ifthere are AHS findings relevant to a particular pesticide going through registration review, the Agency will ensure they are considered in the problem forrnulation/scoping phase ofthe process and, ifappropriate, fully reviewed in the risk assessment phase ofthe process. The AHS includes information on use of 80 different pesticide active ingredients commonly used in agriculture. Chlorpropham is not included in the AHS , and therefore this study does not provide information for this report. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the low frequency and severity ofincident cases reported for chlorpropham in both IDS and NIOSH SENSOR-Pesticides, there does not appear to be a concern at this time that would warrant further investigation. The Agency will continue to monitor the incident information and ifa concern is triggered, additional analysis will be included in the risk assessment.

Page 4 

### of4