2 I NTRODUCTION

This is the Environm ental Protection Agency’s (EPA or the Agency ) Final Work Plan (FWP) for the registration review of atrazine . This work plan addresses public comments received concerning the Preliminary Work Plan (PWP) , which was posted in the atrazine registration review docket (EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2013

- 0266 ). Atrazine is a triazine herbicide registered for use on various agricultural crops with the largest use on corn, sorghum, and sugarcane. Additionally, it is registered for use on wheat, guava, macadamia nuts, and range grasses and for several non

agricultural use sites such as ornamentals, Christmas trees, and sod. There are als o registered residential and recreational uses on turf such as on parks, gold courses, schools, or home lawns and for some commercial and industrial use sites. For human health risk assessment, atrazine is part of the trazine common mechanism group based on a common toxicity end

- point and known mechanism of toxicity. The trazine common mechanism group consists of the pesticide active ingredients of atrazine, simazine, propazine, and the metabolites desethyl

- s

- atrazine (DEA), desisopropyl

- s

- atrazine (DIA), and diaminochlorotriazine (DACT). 1

The Agency is implementing the registration review program pursuant to Section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and will review each registered pesticide every 15 years to dete rmine whether it continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. Changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use practices occur over time. The registration review program is intended to make sure that, as the ability to assess risk evolves an d as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard. The public phase of registration review begins when the initial docket is opened for each case.
Informatio n on this program is provided on the Agency’s w ebsite

. 2

The FWP begins with any updates since the PWP was issued. Next is a summary of substantive

comments received during the public comment period for the PWP concerning anticipated data
needs

, expected risk assessments, or the estimated timeline identified in the PWP

, and a summary of the Agency’s response s to th o se comments

. This section is followed by registration
review risk assessments expected to be conducted , and the projected registration review timeline
for atrazine

. Lastly, there is a discussion of next steps.

UPDATES SINCE THE PWP WAS ISSUED

On July 25, 2013

, EPA held a focus meeting with the atrazine technical registrants (Syngenta Crop Protection LLC , Drexel Chemical Company

, Agan Chem. Mfg. Ltd. , and Oxon Italia

S.P.A. ). Topics d iscusse d during the meeting included: the timeline for the registration review of atrazine; clarifying labeled agricultural and non

- agricultural use sites; atrazine usage on some

non

- ag ricultural sites such as forestry, turf, fallow, conservation reserve p rogram; label uncertainties that could lead to conservative assumptions in the registration review preliminary risk assessments; existing stewardship programs in several vulnerable watersheds; and voluntary atrazine data the registrants expect to submit fo r registration review. More information on the
atrazine focus meeting can be found in the Atrazine Registration Review Focus Meeting

1 There are other trazine pesticides, such as ametryn, prometryn, and prometon, but they are excluded from the trazine common mechanism group because they do not share the same toxicity profile. ( Triazine Cumulative Risk

Assessmen t. J. Morales. March 28, 2 006.)

2 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/3 Summary , available in the atrazine registration review docket, EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2013

- 0266, at www.regulations.gov

.

On October 3 1, 2013, EPA met with Syngenta to discuss the Atrazine Ecological Exposure Monitoring Program (AEEMP). This water monitoring program of small streams in vulnerable watersheds was required by the 2003 Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED) for Atrazine and subsequent Memorandum of Agreement. More information on the AEEMP can be found in the Atrazine (IRED) docket, EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2003

- 0367

.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES

During the 60

- day public comment period on the Atrazine Preliminary Work Plan , which opened

on June 26, 2013

, and closed on August 26, 2013 , the Agency received over 55,000 public

comments opposing and supporting the continued registration of atra zine

. These comments were submitted by individual citizens, a r egistrant (Syngenta)

, trade organizations (grower and industry groups), the Federal Endangered Species Task Force (FESTF), not

- for

- profit organizations, and a state representative. The comments do not address th e timeline described in
the PWP or the planne d ecological and human health risk assessments

. I n the PWP, EPA also solicited comments on the specific topics of environmental justice, water quality concerns, and trade irritants, no comments or information were received on environmental justice or trad e irritants. Comments on water quality concerns were received and will be considered as part of the formulation of the atrazine preliminary risk assessments. In addition, the drinking water assessment will incorporate atrazine water monitoring data.

Com ments from the following groups represent a large number of comments received which oppose the continued use of atrazine: Center for Biological Diversity (42,481 signatories); Pesticide Action Network (6, 674 signatories and 5,609 signatories in two submiss ions ); Save the Frogs (104 signatories ) ; Beyond Pesticides; Frog Safe, Inc. ; and concerned citizens

.

The EPA has generally grouped the content s of these comments into concerns for t he following

areas :

• Ecotoxicity of atrazine to aquatic and terrestrial organisms

• Concentration s of atrazine in surface and drinking water

• Potentially underestimated endocrine effects and carcinogenicity

Comments from the following groups support the continued use of atrazine: South Dakota Corn Growers Association; Chemic al Industry Council of Illinois; Iowa Farm Bureau Federation; Illinois Farm Bureau; Maryl and Grain Producers Association; Missouri Corn

Growers Association ; American Farm Bureau Federation; Kansas Grai n Sorghum Producers Association; Kansas Corn Growers Assoc iation ; Kentucky Corn and Sm all Grain Growers Associations; Hawaii Agriculture Research Center; National Farmers Union; Texas Seed Trade Association; Il linois Corn Growers Association; Ohio Cor n and Wheat Growers Association;

Ne braska Corn Growers Association; Illinois Soybean Association; Michigan Farm Bureau;
National C orn Growers Association; Oregonians for Food and Shelter; Oregon Farm Bureau;

Na tional Corn Growers Association; HC&S Sugarcane Plantation; and in dustry groups ( Triazine
Network ) Ohio State Representative Andy Thompson (95 th District), and individual growers.

The EPA has generally grouped the contents of these comments into support for the following areas:4 • Cost

- effective, broadleaf weed control at lower applica tion rates

• Increased crop yield

• Control for herbicide resistant weeds and limited available alternatives

Syngenta , the Center for Biological Diversity , and the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness also submitted comments regarding the planned endangered species assessment, which are addressed
in the Environmental Fate and Effects Division’s Response to Public Comments on the Registration Review Preliminary Problem Formulation for Atrazine . FESTF commented that Syngenta is a member of FESTF and is entitle d to rely on FESTF data to help address species proximity to atrazine use sites for the planned endangered species assessment

.

Public comments and EPA responses in their entirety are located in the docket, EPA

- HQ

- OPP

2013

- 0266 . Summarized public comments and Agency responses related to the anticipated ecological risk assessment or data needs are in the Environmental Fate and Effects Division’s Response to Public Comments on the Registration Review Preliminary Problem Formulation for
Atrazine

, while those relevant to the anticipated human health risk assessment or data needs are in the Atrazine. Response to Comments on the Human Health Risk Scoping Document in Support of Registration Review. C omments and responses on atrazine use and usage information
descr ibed in the PWP and BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) are in the BEAD Response to Atrazine
Public Comments

.

This section does not capture every comment made about the PWP nor all of the Agency’s responses. Summarized below are public comments not addressed in the Agency’s response to
comments documents and/or are of a broader regulatory nature. No comments resulted in changes to the risk assessments, data needs, or time frame of registration review activities.

Comments submitted by Syngenta in EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 20 13

- 0266

- 0 299

.

1. Comment: Syngenta is coordinating with other atrazine technical registrants to develop a comprehensive use table for all atrazine products and formulation types. The table will include various use clarifications discussed in the July 2 013 Atrazine Focus Meeting as well as address several discrepancies in the use and usage information listed in the PWP and the Atrazine Label Data Report: Food/Feed & Non

- Feed uses Considered in Registration

Review Work Planning.

Response: E PA would appreciate this detailed and comprehensive use information to be submitted as soon as possible and w ill consider this information prior to conducting the human health and ecological preliminary risk assessments for registration review

.

Comments submitted by Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE) in EPA

- HQ

- OPP

2013

- 0266

- 0076

.

2

. Comment: CRE stated that the registration review of atrazine should include documentation of the Agency’s compliance with EPA’s Information Quality Act (IQA) Guidelines and EPA’s Council for Regulatory Environmental Models (CREM) Guidance. Additionally, CRE expressed concerns regarding the reproducibility of data from peer

- reviewed journal articles. CRE requested that EPA ensure that any data relied on for r isk assessments or5 Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultations as part of the registration review of atrazine meet IQA reproducibility guidelines.

Response: EPA considers numerous sources for information during registration review, including open literat ure and public comment submissions. All open literature studies
considered are reviewed consistent with EPA Office of Pesticide Program’s (OPP) publically available guidance for identifying, selecting, and evaluating open literature studies to ensure

tran sparency and consistency

. 3 The principles articulated in these guidance documents are consistent with the Agency’s policy and procedural guidance for ensuring and maximizing the quality of information as stated in EPA 2002

- Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Agency Risk Characterization Policy

, which describes a philosophy of transparency, clarity, consistency, and reasonablene ss. Additionally, models and standard operating procedures used in risk assessment formulation are reviewed by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), w hich is c omposed of biologists, statisticians, toxicologists and other experts who provide independen t scientific
advice to the EPA on a wide

- range of health and safety issues related to pesticides.

Comments submitted by Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) in EPA

- HQ

- OPP

2013

- 0266

- 0301.

3

. Comment: The ELPC moved to unseal numerous documents filed under seal in City of Greenville, Illinois, et. Al. v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC et. Al (S.D. Ill. Case No. 10

- cv

188), and requested to the opportunity to submit to EPA any documents relate d to public health effects of atrazine use if and when they become available after the atrazine PWP public comment period closes. Additionally, the ELPC noted concerns regarding the impartiality and comprehensiveness of information Syngenta has submitted to EPA.

Re sponse: The Agency appreciates ELPC’s notification of potential docu ments that could provide EPA with additional information on atrazine. The Agency has planned two additional comment periods during the registration review of atrazine. The next comment period is anticipated to begin in April 2015 in conjunction with the publication of atrazine preliminary risk assessments. EPA encourages the ELPC to provide any new information at that time. Regarding the ELPC’s concern on the impartiality of Syngenta’s submission s, EPA intends to conduct a thorough review of data submitted from all sources before including it in preliminary risk assessments. Data review is conducted based on the abovementioned guidance documents for open literature a s well as Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OSCPP) harmonized test guidelines

. 4

PLANNED DATA NEEDS

As indicated in the PWP, t here are no planned data needs for the registration review of atrazine. An extensive amount of atrazine toxicity and effects data have been submitted to and reviewed by the Agency. No public comments resulted in changes to the lack of data needs. For further discussion of existing atrazine data, see Addendum to the Problem Formulation for the

3 OPP guidance for identifying, selecting, and evaluating open literature studies is available at: http://www.epa. gov/pesticides/science/literature

- studies.html#eval

4 OSCPP test guidelines are available at: http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/home/guidelin.htm6 Ecological Risk Assessment to be Cond ucted for the Registration Review of Atrazine and

Atra zine, Propazine, and Simazine. Human Health Risk Scoping Document in Support of Registration Review.

RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR REGISTRATION REVIEW

During registration review, t he Agency will conduct a comprehensive ecological risk assessment, including an endangered species assessment, for all uses of atrazine

. For human health, EPA
will conduct revised dietary, residential

, occupational , and cumulative risk assessment s during registration review

. If toxicological endpoints or points of departure are revised, they will be
considered in the new assessment s , as well as any changes to the standard operating p rocedures or default exposure assumptions

.

Table 2 below summarizes the planned registration review risk assessments based on the EFED
Problem Formulation and HED Scoping Document a and the planned assessments have not changed from what was included in the PWP

.

Table 2: Planned Risk Assessments for the Atrazine Registration Review

Type of Risk Assessment Conduct ? Notes

Eco logical and Environmental Fate Comprehensive ecological (species to be assessed include terrestrial and aquatic organisms ), including endangered species Y The parent atrazine will be considered the stressor of concern because it is expected to be protective for

any non

- target organisms that may be exposed to the parent and any of its degradates.

Incidents Will check for updates A search of the ecological incident databases will be conducted and analyzed for the upcoming registration review risk assessment. S ee page 93 of
the Problem Formulation for additional details.

Human Health Dietary

Food Y Drinking water Y The drinking water assessment will incorporate atrazine water monitoring data. Occupational Handlers (mixers, loaders, applicators) Y As discussed further in the Scoping Document, the durations of exposure are expected to be short

- and
intermediate

- term. Long

- term exposures are not anticipated. Post

- application Y

Residential

Handlers Y As discussed further in the Scoping Document, the
duration o f exposure are expected to be
short

- term only. Intermediate

- and long

- term exposures are not anticipated based on the residential use patterns of atrazine. Post

- application Y7 Table 2: Planned Risk Assessments for the Atrazine Registration Review

Type of Risk Assessment Type of Risk
Assessment Type of Risk Assessment

Other Aggregate Y E valuates the combined risk from dietary and residential exposures.

Cumulative Y An assessment of the trazine cumulative group is expected as part of registration review.

Tolerances Y Tolerances for atrazine will be assessed and revised, as needed, during registration review.

Incidents Will check for updates For a discussion of reported human incidents for
atrazine , see the Atrazine, Propazine, and Simazine: Review of Human Incidents

.

TIMELINE

EPA has created the following estimated timeline for the completion of the atrazine registration
review in Table 3 below

. The projected timeline has not changed since the PWP.

Table 3: Registration Review for Atrazine

– Projected Registration Review Timeline

Activities Estimated Date Opening the D ocket Open Docket and 60

- day Public Comment Period June 2013

– Completed

Close Public Comment August 2013

– Completed Case Development

Final Work Plan December 2013

– Completed

6 0

- day Public Comment Period for Draft Risk Assessments 5

, 6 2015

– April

- June Registration Review Decision

60

- day Public Comment Period for Proposed Registration Review

D ecision 2015

– Oct.

– Dec.

Registration Review D ecision and Begin P ost

- D ecision F ollow

- up 2016 Total ( years ) 3

NEXT STEPS

As noted previously, the Agency will conduct comprehen sive ecological and human health risk assessments during registration review, which are anticipated to be available for public comment
between April

– June 2015.

5 The regulations governing Registration Re view generally require the Agency to provide a public comment period

of at least 30 calendar days for draft risk assessments; see 40 CFR Part 155.53(c). For conventional pesticides, the Agency plans to provide a 60 calendar day public comment period gener ally for draft risk assessments.

6 The registration review schedule for most conventional pesticides includes a 6 month period after the Final Work
Plan to issue a data call

- in and then an appropriate time period for the required data to be submitted to E PA. However, because there are no anticipated human health or environmental fate and effects data needs for the atrazine registration review, the schedule has been modified as appropriate.