### Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION



### PC Code: 122101

Date: February 7, 2011

DP Barcodes : 383340, 383346

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Potential Impacts to Ecological Risk Assessment of Propiconazole as a Result of

the Proposed Label Change to Include the Spray Volume from Aerial

Applications to 0

. 5 Gallon s P er Acre on Soybeans and Wheat

TO: Shaja Joyner , Risk Manager

Shaunta Hill , Risk Manager Reviewer

Registration Division (7505P)

FROM: Reuben Baris, Environmental Scientist

Stephen Carey, Biologist

Environmental Risk Branch VI

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (750 7P)

REVIEWED

BY: William P. Eckel, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor

Environmental Risk Branch VI

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

APPROVED

BY : Mark Corbin, Branch Chief

Environmental Risk Branch V I

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed its review of the impact of

the proposed label change to allow ultra

- low volume (ULV) applications of propiconazole to

soybeans and wheat via aerial applications using the f ormulated products Quilt TM XCEL (EPA

Reg. No. 100

- 1324) and Quilt® (EPA Reg. No. 100

- 1178)

. QUILT TM 

### XCEL and QUILT ®



### fungicides contains two active ingredients (a.i.), azoxystrobin (CAS No. 131860

- 33

- 8) and

propiconazole (CAS No. 60207

- 90

- 1). This document ad dresses the ecological risks associated

with the addition of ULV to the label as proposed under the Section 3 new use of propiconazole

on soybean and wheat

. Azoxystrobin (PC 12 8810 ) will be addressed in a separate assessment.

The maximum single ULV app lication rate for soybean and wheat evaluated in this assessment is

0.08 to 0.17 lbs a.i./A for QUILT ® 

### and QUILT TM 

### Xcel, respectively (0.16 to 0.34 lbs

### Page 2 of 14 a.i./A/season), with a minimum spray volume of 0.5 gallons per acre, and minimum reapplication

interval o f 14 days. For the proposed label change, including the addition of 0.5 gallon per acre

spray volume application for soybeans and wheat, the estimated risk for listed aquatic non

vascular plants is higher than previously assessed by EFED in D375061 and D375062 for a corn

ULV use. In the previous assessment (ULV application to corn) , the Level of Concer n was

exceeded only for estuarine/marine invertebrates. T herefore, EFED assessed exposure to aquatic

organ isms and plants including terrestrial plants from propiconazole ULV applications to

soybeans and wheat to investigate the impact of the proposed action on the risk to terrestrial and

aquatic organisms and plants.

Previous EFED drinking water and ecological risk assessments used the default spray drift

assumption s of 16% and 5% (drift fraction , respectively) for aerial applications. Most recently

(August 2010, D375061 and D375062), EFED completed a combined drinking water and

ecological risk assess ment that investigated exposure from ULV sprays to corn ( maximum single

applic ation rate of 0.1125 lbs a.i./A ; D375061 and D375062 ). EFED employed AgDRIFT

(version 2.01) modeling to estimate potential changes in offsite deposition of propiconazole at

the e dge of field that may result from use of lower spray volume (0.5 GPA is consider to be an

ultra low volume (ULV) application), because the default spray drift assumptions tend to

underestimate off

- site movement of the chemical when applied at ultra low vol umes. To estimate

offsite deposition from use of ULV applications, the Aerosol to Very Fine droplet size

distribution (DSD) was modeled to capture the potential smaller dropl ets from ULV spray

applications. H owever, it is possible that the droplet size use d in this analysis could under

- or

over

- estimate the risk since the actual droplet size from the proposed use is unknown

. The

resulting spray drift fraction using the Aerosol to Very Fine DSD was input into PRZM/ EXAMS

and TerrPLANT to provide estimated env ironmental concentrations (EECs) for use in ecological

risk assessments and drinking water assessments. Risk Q uotients (RQs) for terrestrial and aquatic

organisms resulting from the maximum application for soybeans and wheat (0.1 7 lbs a.i./A, 0.34

lbs a.i. /A/yr, for soybeans) are presented below in Table 1 . RQs from the corn ULV uses

(D375061 and D375062 ) and peanut non

- ULV use s (D 313258 ) are provided as well for

comparison.

Conclusions

- Potential Risk to Non

- target Wildlife

Based on all available data, potential acute risk from the proposed new uses of propiconazole on

soybean and wheat are expected for estuarine/marine invertebrates and listed aquatic non

vascular plants

. Chronic risk is not anticipated for estuarine/marine invertebrates and aquatic

non

- vascular plants. The potential for risks to birds, terrestrial

- phase amphibians, reptiles,

mammals, insects, fish, freshwater invertebrates, terrestrial plants, aquatic vascular plants , and

non

- listed aquatic non

- vascular plan ts are anticipated to be minimal.

Table 1 presents the Risk Quotients (RQs) and use patterns used to determine the potential risks

to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and plants exposed to propiconazole

.

### Page 3 of 14 Table 1. Summary of Risk Quotient Calculation for Propiconazole Exposures to Terrestrial

and Aquatic Organisms and Plants.*

Species Propiconazole Use Pattern and RQs Summary for Soybean and Wheat

Use (Including Corn Use)

. Soybean and Wheat ULV Corn ULV

Aquatic Organisms and Plants

Fish (and aquatic

- phase

amphibians) Acute RQ: 0.02

Chronic RQ: 0.2 Highest Acute RQ : < 0.01

Highest Chronic RQ: 0.11

Freshwater Invertebrates Acute RQ: 0.01

Chronic RQ: 0.07 Highest Acute RQ : < 0.01

Highest Chronic RQ : 0. 05

Marine/estuarine Fish Acute RQ: <0.01

Chronic RQ: 0.4 Highest Acute RQ : < 0.0 1

Highest Chronic RQ: 0.3

Marine/estuarine

Invertebrates Acute RQ: 0.16

Chronic RQ: 0.33 Highest Acute RQ : 0. 12

Highest Chronic RQ: 0.23 A

Aquatic Vascular Plants Non

- target RQ: <0.01

Listed RQ: 0.05 Not assessed; RQs anticipated to be

below the LOC based on results of

corn ULV applications to aquatic

non

- vascular plants.

Aquatic Non

- Vascular

Plants Non

- target RQ: 0.9

Listed RQ: 1.2 Highest Non

- Listed Plant RQ: 0.63

Highest Listed Plant RQ : N.R. B



### Terrestrial Animals and Plants

Birds (and terrestrial

phase amphibians and

reptiles) Not assessed; RQs anticipated to be

below the LOC based on results of non

ULV applications to peanuts with

higher EECs. Highest Acute RQ : 0.06 C

Highest Chronic RQ: 0. 1 C

Mammals Highest Acute RQ: 0.06 C

Highest Chronic RQ : 0. 9 C

Terrestrial Plants Non

- target RQs: <0.1

– 0.4

Listed RQs: 0.1

– 0.6 Highest Non

- Listed Plant RQ: 0.19 C

Highest Listed Plant RQ: 0.5 C

* Bold entries indicate LOC exceedance or concern

A Not reported or not assessed; thus, for this assessment, the chronic toxicity value for marine/estuarine

mollusks (Eastern oyster) was e stimated via the acute

- to

- chronic ratio using mysid data. The crustacean

NOAEC was estimated to be 45 μg/L.

B Not reported o r not assessed at that time

C Peanut non

- ULV application risk quotients (current uses ; 2 applications @ 0.225 lb a.i./A ) for terrestrial

animals and plants were derived from D313258

. 3 N.R.

– not reported or not assessed at that time



### Conclusions

- Listed Species

Based on estimated maximum application rates, exposure levels and available effects data,

propiconazole used as a fungicide for prevention and control of certain diseases in soybean and

wheat indicates direct effects LO C exceedances for estuarine /marine invertebrates and aquatic

non

- vascular plants

. Such findings suggest a potential concern for indirect effects to listed animal

and plant species with both narrow (i.e., species that are obligates or have very specific habitat or

feeding requirement s) and general dependencies (i.e., cover type requirements) on

estuarine/marine invertebrates and aquatic non

- vascular plants as a resource or important habitat

component. Therefore, there is a potential for indirect effects to those animal and plant

taxon omic groups (i.e., mammal, bird, amphibian, reptile, fish, c rustacean, mollusks, and

gastropods ) that depend on those estuarine/marine invertebrates and aquatic non

- vascular plants

as food resources to survive, grow, and reproduce and are presented in Tabl e 2

.

### Page 4 of 14 Table 2. Potential L isted S pecies R isks A ssociated with D irect or I ndirect E ffects due to

the U se of Propiconazole on Soybean and Wheat

.

Listed Taxon Direct Effects from

Acute Exposures Direct Effects from

Chronic Exposures Indirect Effects

Aquatic

Aquatic non

- vascular plants Yes N/A Yes

Aquatic vascular plants No N/A No

Freshwater invertebrates No No Yes

Marine/estuarine invertebrates Yes No Yes

Freshwater fish No No Yes

Marine/estuarine fish No No Yes

Aquatic

- phase amphibians 1 No No Yes

Terrestrial

Semi

- aquatic plants

- monocots No N/A No

Semi

- aquatic plants

- dicots No N/A No

Terrestrial plants

– monocots No N/A No

Terrestrial plants

- dicots No N/A No

Insects No N/A No

Birds No No Yes

Terrestrial

- phase amphibians No No Yes

Reptiles No No Yes

Mammals No No Yes

N/A

- indicates that this exposure route is not assessed.

1 Freshwater fish acts as a surrogate for aquatic

- phase amphibians

2 Bird acts as a surrogate for terrestrial

- phase amphibians



### Modeling Approach for ULV Uses

Currently, EFED does not have approved methodology in place to assess the influence of ULV

on ecological exposure assessments. It is anticipated that due to finer drop size spectrum and

lower application volumes that the drift fraction will increase for ULV methods of application

compared to other methods of application. The proposed minimum spray volume is 0.5 gallons

per acre with an oil carrier. The following modeling approach was used to estimate aquatic

exposure concentrations from the addition of ULV applications using AgDRIFT

. To assess

exposure to aquatic organisms and plants, t wo propiconazole applications of 0.1 7 lbs a.i./A with

a 14

- day reapplication interval were run with PRZM/EXAMS using the Missouri soybean

scenario ( MSsoybeanSTD.txt ) and t he AgDRIFT drift fraction input to obtain aquatic EECs for

the proposed ULV use for soybeans and wheat ( Table 6 )

. For terrestrial exposure , one

propiconazole application of 0.17 lbs a.i./A was run with TerrPLANT using the AgDRIFT drift

fraction input to ob tain EECs to assess exposure specifically to terrestrial plants. For terrestrial

animals, risk conclusions are not ULV dependant; thus, results from the previous assessments

apply to this proposed action. However

, the distance from the treated field to whe re terrestrial

animals may be exposed to the chemical may increase (i.e., risk may extend farther from the

### Page 5 of 14 treated area).

Estimate of ULV Drift Fraction

AgDrift Model (Version 2.01) with ASAE aerosol to very fine drop size and Tier 2 aerial

agricultural drift option was used to estimate drift. All parameters were default for the AgDrift

ASAE aerosol to very fine drop size template with the exception of spray material. Spray

material values were determined ( in Table 3 ) and the calculation option implemented. The

aquatic and terrestrial assessment s w ere run for Tier 2 aerial application with the user selected

water body option (EPA defined pond)

.

Table 3. Estimates of Spray Drift Fraction for ULV using AgDrif t (Version 2.01)

Spray material: Maximum

(fl.oz. / A) Quilt ®

( 11. 7% ai) Quilt TM Xcel

( 11.7 % ai) Drift Fraction

[fraction of applied]

Non

- Volatile Rate (lb/A) 1 : 21 Max. fl.oz./A 0.328 0.328

Active Rate (lb/A) 2 : 0.0 384 2 0.0 384

Spray Volume Rate (gal/A) 0.5 0.5

Carrier Oil Oil

Aquatic 0.503 (or 50%)

Terrestrial 0.789 (or 79 % )

1 Non

- volatile rate = ( 21 fl oz / A ÷ 128 fl oz / gal) ÷ 0.5 gallons / A [lbs/A]

2 Active rate = 0. 328 lb / A * fraction a.i. (0.1 17 ) = 0.0 384



### The drift fraction in this assessment is higher than previously estimated for ULV applications to

corn (50% vs. 37%, respectively). This is due in large part to the selection of the droplet size

distribution (DSD); the corn ULV assessment used “very fine to fine” DSD, while thi s

assessment selected “aerosol to very fine” DSD. The aerosol to very fine DSD better represents

the spray volume for the ULV applications.

PRZM/EXAMS Model Inputs

Input parameters for aquatic exposure modeling (PRZM

- EXAMS) were derived from previous

ris k assessments Model input parameters are shown in Table 4

.

The chemical application method (CAM) used for PRZM modeling is 2, which is interception

based upon canopy and default soil incorporation depth of 4 cm ( Table 4 ). The spray drift

fraction estima ted for the aquatic assessment is 0. 503

, calculated using AgDrift 2.01 consider ing

the application as ULV.

### Page 6 of 14 Table 4 . Summary of E nvironmental F ate P arameters for Propiconazole and V alues

U sed for PRZM/EXAMS M odeling.

Parameter Input Value and Unit Comment Source

Solubility in water (20 oC) 100 mg/L D375061+

Vapor Pressure (20oC) 1.0 x 10

- 6 torr D375061+

Hydrolysis t 1⁄2 (at 25 **°** C) 0 days Stable D375061+

Aquatic Photolysis, t 1⁄2 (half

- life) 0 days Stable MRID 41811901

Aerobic Soil

Metabolism, t 1⁄2 69.2 days Upper 90 th percentile on

the mean half

- lives (43,

47, and 70 days) MRID 00129912

MRID 00129914

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism, t 1⁄2 138.4 days 2x aerobic soil

metabolism half

- life USEPA, 2009

Anaerobic Aquatic

Metabolism, t 1⁄2 0 da y s Stable MRID 42347902

Organic Carbon

Partitioning Coefficient

( Koc ) 648 ml/g oc Mean Koc (685, 436,

382, 604, and 1134) MRID 41811901

Application Rate

(single maximum for

soybeans) 0.167 lbs a.i./A

(0.187 kg a.i./ha) 2 applications, 14 day

interval. Label Directions

Application Efficiency 0.95

-- USEPA, 2009

Spray Drift Fraction 0.5 1 AgDRIFT v 2.01

-- CAM (chemical

application method) 2

-- USEPA, 2009

Application Date

(day/month) 01/05 Applied before R3

growth stage (label

directions) MSU, 2003

1 Drift fraction estimated with AgD RIFT , Tier II Aquatic Assessment (oil carrier

, 10 mph wind speed )

.



### Scenario Selection

The MS soybean scenario was used for the ULV assessment because it provides conservative

estimates of runoff resulting from applications to soybeans and wheat ( Tables 5 and 6 ).

Table 5 . Use (crop), Modeling S cenario, M eteorological F ile, C rop E mergence,

M aturity and H arvest D ates, and D ate of F irst A pplication.

Crop Scenario Met file Dates(m m

- d d ):

Emergence/Maturity/Harvest Application

date(m m

- d d )

Soybean

and Wheat MS soybean W03940.dvf 04

- 16/09

- 01/10

- 10 05

- 01



### Tier II PRZM/EXAMS Modeling

Tier II PRZM/EXAM modeling was conducted using the MS soybean scenario to estimate

aquatic exposure resulting from applications to soybeans and wheat. PRZM/EXAMS results are

summarized in Table 6

.

### Page 7 of 14 Table 6 . Surface Water EECs for Aquatic Exposure using PRZM/EXAMS Resulting

from the ULV Application of Propiconazole to Soybean and Wheat.

Scenario Method Spray Drift

(Fraction) Minimum

Reapplication

Interval

(days) Number and

Application

Rate

(lb a.i./A) 1 in 10 yr

Peak

(μg/L) 21

- day

mean

(μg/L) 60

- day

mean

(μg/L)

MS soybean ULV 1 

### 0. 5 2 

### 14 2 3 

### @ 0.1 7 4 

### 18. 2 1 6 .9 14.9

1 ULV

– Ultra

- low volume application

2 ULV spray drift fraction estimated with AgDrift (Version 2.01)

3 Maximum number of applications at maximum rate proposed for application to wheat and soybean by ULV ( 42 fl oz

product/ A /season)

4 Maximum single propiconazole application rate for soybean and wheat by ULV



### Measures of Terrestrial Plant Exposure

TerrP LANT is used to calculate EECs for non

- target plant species inhabiting dry and semi

aquatic areas ( Table 7 ). The active ingredient EECs are based o n the application rate, soil

incorporation, runoff fraction, drift fraction and solubility of the pesticide in water and drift

characteristics, which depend on application methods. EECs were calculated using one ULV

application at the rate of 0.1 7 lb a.i. / A with 79 percent spray drift. However, TerrP LANT does

not consider exposures to plants from multiple pesticide applications, thus, results are based on

single pesticide applications

.

Table 7 . EECs for Terrestrial Plants Located Adjacent to Propiconazole Treated Sites.

Application Rate Application

Method Concentration (lbs a.i./A)

Total Loading to

Areas Adjacent to

Treated Areas 1 

### Total Loading to Semi

Aquatic Areas Adjacent

to Treated Areas 2 

### Drift to

Adjacent

Areas 3

0.1 7 lb a.i./ A ULV 0.1428 0.2193 0.1343

1 EEC = Sheet Runoff + Drift ( 79 % for ULV)

2 EEC = Channelized Runoff + Drift ( 79 % for ULV)

3 EEC for drift (appl. rate x 79 % drift for ULV)



### Risk Characterization

There is no new ecological toxicity or environmental fate data that may affect risk conclusions.

However, aquatic exposure estimates depend on the crop treated. Tier II EECs were modeled for

the proposed new uses. EECs and RQs based on ULV drift assumpti ons using the 50% drift

fraction were 1.4

- fold higher than EECs estimated using the 37 % drift fraction for corn ULV

uses (D375061+)

. RQ calculations for aquatic organisms and plants from ULV applications to

soybeans and wheat are presented below ( Table s 8, 9 , and 10 ).

For terrestrial animals, risk conclusions are not crop or ULV dependant; thus, results from

previous assessment s based on the single maximum application rate of 0.225 lbs a.i./A (for

peanut uses) apply to this proposed new uses (D313258)

. On the other hand, risk conclusions for

dicots and monocots are ULV dependant; therefore, terrestrial plants EECs (drift fraction of 79%

### Page 8 of 14 for ULV applications ) were modeled using TerrPLANT and AgDRIFT

. RQ calculations for

terrestrial plants from ULV applic ations to soybeans and wheat are presented below in Table 1 1

.

The proposed addition of ULV application s for soybeans and wheat for the Quilt TM XCEL (EPA

Reg. No. 100

- 1324) and Quilt® (EPA Reg. No. 100

- 1178) formulated products will result in

higher estimated risk for certain taxa than previously assessed by EFED in D3 75061 and

D375062 for corn ULV use

. T he RQs for the proposed action are higher than the RQs for corn

use; therefore, this assessment focuses on those taxonomic groups that are ULV depe ndent,

which are aquatic organisms and plants including terrestrial plants. Tables 8

, 9 , and 10 compare

the proposed action EECs and associated RQs with the previously assessed ULV applications to

corn. Results of the comparison indicate higher RQs for the proposed action; thus , it is noted that

additional risk is anticipated for aquatic non

- vascular plants when exposed to propiconazole

ULV applications in wheat and soybean fields

.

Table 8 . Tier II Risk Quotients for Freshwater Organisms for Proposed Pro piconazole ULV

uses on Soybeans and Wheat

Application,

# apps, @ lb

a.i./A

(spray drift

fraction) PRZM

Scenario Peak

EEC 21D

EEC 60D

EEC Freshwater Fish

(LC 50 

### = 850 μ g a.i./L ;

NOAEC = 95 μ g a.i./L) Freshwater Invertebrate

(EC 50 

### = 1300 μ g a.i./L ;

NOAEC = 260 μ g a.i./L)

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

ULV Applications on Soybeans and Wheat (proposed action)

2 @ 0.1 7

(0.50) MS

Soybean 18. 2 1 6 .9 14.9 0.02 0.2 0.01 0.07

ULV Applications on Corn (D375061 and D375062)

2 @ 0.1 125

(0.37) TX Corn 13.3 12.0 10.4 <0.01 0.1 <0.01 0. 05



### Table 9 . Tier II Risk Quotients for Estuarine/marine Organisms for Proposed Propiconazole

ULV Uses on Soybeans and Wheat

Application,

# apps, @ lb

a.i./A

(spray drift

fraction) PRZM

Scenario Peak

EEC 21D

EEC 60D

EEC Marine/Estuarine Fish

(LC 50 

### = 2244 μ g a.i./L

NOAEC = 36 μg a.i./L ) Marine/Estuarine

Invertebrate 1



### (EC 50 

### = 113 μ g a.i./L;

NOAEC = 45 μ g a.i./L 2 

### )

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

ULV Applications on Soybeans and Wheat (proposed action)

2 @ 0.1 7

(0.50) MS

Soybean 18. 2 1 6 .9 14.9 <0.01 0.4 0.16 0.33

ULV Applications on Corn (D375061 and D375062)

2 @ 0.1 125

(0.37) TX Corn 13.3 12.0 10.4 <0.01 0.3 0.12 N.R.

1 Based on Easter oysters

2 NOAEC estimated via Acute

- to

- Chronic ratio

N.R.

– not reported or not assessed at that time

### Page 9 of 14 Table 10 . Tier II Risk Quotients for Aquatic Plants for Proposed Propiconazole ULV Uses on

Soybeans and Wheat

Application,

# apps, @ lb

a.i./A

(spray drift

fraction) PRZM

Scenario Peak EEC

(μg a.i./L) Vascular Aquatic Plant

(EC 50 

### = 4828 μ g a.i./L

EC 05 

### = 380 μ g a.i./L) Non

- Vascular Aquatic Plant

(EC 50 

### = 21 μ g a.i./L;

EC 05 

### = 15 μg a.i./L)

Non

- target Listed Non

- target Listed

ULV Applications on Soybean (Proposed Action)

2 @ 0.1 7

(0.50) MS Soybean 18. 2 <0.01 0.05 0.9 1.2

ULV Applications on Corn (D375061 and D375062)

2 @ 0.1 125

(0.37) TX Corn 13.3 Not assessed; RQs anticipated to

be below the LOC based on

results of corn ULV applications

to the more sensitive aquatic

non

- vascular plants. 

### 0.6 N.R.

N.R.

– Not reported or not assessed at that time.



### Table 1 1

. Risk Quotients for Dry and Semi

- Aquatic Area Non

- Target and Listed Plants for

Propiconazole ULV Uses on Soybeans and Wheat

Soybeans and Wheat,

maximum application rate

(lb a.i./A) Plants inhabiting

terrestrial habitats exposed

to surface water runoff and

spray drift Plants inhabiting semi

aquatic habitats exposed

to surface water runoff

and spray drift Plants adjacent treated

areas exposed to spray

drift

Non

- target Listed Non

- target Listed Non

- target Listed

Monocot

ULV

– 0.1 7 lb a.i./ A <0.1 0.1 <0. 2 0. 2 <0.1 0.1

Dicot

ULV

– 0.1 7 lb a.i./ A 0. 2 0. 4 0. 4 0. 6 0.2 0.4



### Input data and model run information for PRZM/EXAMS

, AgDRIFT , and T err PLANT are

presented in Appendi ces A

, B , and C

, respectively . Specific information on the effects

endpoints can be found in D3 75061/D375062

.

### Page 10 of 14 References

MSU. 2003. Soybean Growth Model. Mississippi State University Extension Service

(MSUcares), Available online at: (http://msucares.com/deltasoy/gsModelFrame.htm).

USEPA. 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and

Transport of Pesticides. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides

and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division,

Version 2.1, October 22, 2009. Available online at:

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm

### Page 11 of 14 Appendix A. PRZM/EXAMs Model input and Output Data

stored as MSsoy.out

Chemical: propiconazole

PRZM enviro nment: MSsoybeanSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 12:58:06

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 05:14:08

Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 05:14:14

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 9.015 8.751 7.809 6.772 6.225 3.179

1962 11.38 11.1 10.14 8.654 8.001 5.19

1963 12.44 12.16 11.14 9.85 9.422 6.555

1964 13.35 13.07 12.13 10.64 10.03 7.192

1965 13.56 13.28 12.27 10.74 10.04 7.316

1966 17.37 17.12 16.11 14. 01 12.81 8.822

1967 18.13 17.79 16.96 15.09 14.19 10.16

1968 17.02 16.82 16.11 14.23 13.35 9.995

1969 15.56 15.27 14.23 12.63 11.82 8.994

1970 15.08 14.79 13.75 12.2 11.41 8.413

1971 16.03 15.72 14.57 12.73 11.87 8.456

1972 15.36 15.05 13.95 12.3 11.47 8.2 06

1973 14.81 14.51 13.68 11.96 11.12 7.958

1974 13.92 13.63 12.63 11.65 10.93 7.938

1975 15.78 15.45 14.26 12.61 11.85 8.511

1976 16.5 16.18 15.71 14.15 13.18 9.401

1977 15.37 15.07 13.98 12.55 11.84 9.041

1978 17.04 16.7 15.68 13.66 12.72 9.056

1979 16.6 16.29 15.13 14.24 13.64 9.93

1980 18.56 18.2 17.11 14.86 13.85 10.03

1981 17.7 17.45 16.52 14.72 13.66 9.918

1982 15.44 15.14 14.07 13.34 12.76 9.713

1983 20.9 20.58 19.23 16.87 15.42 10.76

1984 17.27 16.96 16.08 14.41 13.58 10.25

1985 15.48 15.19 14.15 1 2.59 11.88 9.12

1986 16.7 16.38 15.54 14.16 13.09 9.306

1987 15.51 15.2 14.08 12.91 12.26 9.108

1988 14.98 14.7 13.67 12.06 11.3 8.524

1989 18.21 17.83 16.58 14.94 13.9 9.613

1990 16.66 16.34 15.36 13.52 12.66 9.35

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 6 0 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 20.9 20.58 19.23 16.87 15.42 10.76

0.0645161290322581 18.56 18.2 17.11 15.09 14.19 10.25

0.0967741935483871 18.21 17.83 16.96 14.94 13.9 10.16

0.129032258064516 18.13 17.79 16.58 14.86 13.85 10.03

0.161290322580645 17. 7 17.45 16.52 14.72 13.66 9.995

0.193548387096774 17.37 17.12 16.11 14.41 13.64 9.93

0.225806451612903 17.27 16.96 16.11 14.24 13.58 9.918

0.258064516129032 17.04 16.82 16.08 14.23 13.35 9.713

0.290322580645161 17.02 16.7 15.71 14.16 13.18 9.613

0.32258064 516129 16.7 16.38 15.68 14.15 13.09 9.401

0.354838709677419 16.66 16.34 15.54 14.01 12.81 9.35

0.387096774193548 16.6 16.29 15.36 13.66 12.76 9.306

0.419354838709677 16.5 16.18 15.13 13.52 12.72 9.12

0.451612903225806 16.03 15.72 14.57 13.34 12.66 9.108

### Page 12 of 14 0.483870967741936 15.78 15.45 14.26 12.91 12.26 9.056

0.516129032258065 15.56 15.27 14.23 12.73 11.88 9.041

0.548387096774194 15.51 15.2 14.15 12.63 11.87 8.994

0.580645161290323 15.48 15.19 14.08 12.61 11.85 8.822

0.612903225806452 15.44 15.14 14.07 12.59 11.84 8.524

0.645161290322581 15.37 15.07 13.98 12.55 11.82 8.511

0.67741935483871 15.36 15.05 13.95 12.3 11.47 8.456

0.709677419354839 15.08 14.79 13.75 12.2 11.41 8.413

0.741935483870968 14.98 14.7 13.68 12.06 11.3 8.206

0.774193548387097 14.81 14.51 13 .67 11.96 11.12 7.958

0.806451612903226 13.92 13.63 12.63 11.65 10.93 7.938

0.838709677419355 13.56 13.28 12.27 10.74 10.04 7.316

0.870967741935484 13.35 13.07 12.13 10.64 10.03 7.192

0.903225806451613 12.44 12.16 11.14 9.85 9.422 6.555

0.935483870967742 1 1.38 11.1 10.14 8.654 8.001 5.19

0.967741935483871 9.015 8.751 7.809 6.772 6.225 3.179

0.1 18.202 17.826 16.922 14.932 13.895 10.147

Average of yearly averages: 8.66683333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Ou tput File: MSsoy

Metfile: w03940.dvf

PRZM scenario: MSsoybeanSTD.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: propiconazole

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 342.33 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1e

- 6 torr

Solubility sol 100 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 648 mg/L

Photolysis half

- life kdp 0 days Half

- life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 138.4 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 69 .2 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.187 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.5 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 01

- 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 0.187 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag fo r Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

### Page 13 of 14 Appendix B. AgDRIFT Model Inputs and Outputs

AgDRIFT® Input Data Summary

-- General

--

Tier: II

Title: Untitled

Notes:

Calculations Done: Yes

Run ID: AgDRIFT® soy50.agd 2.01 01

- 13

- 2011 10:36:58

Default values appear when they differ from the Current values.

-- Aircraft

-- ---------- Current

----------- ---------- Default

-----------

Name Air Tractor AT

- 401

T ype Slow Fixed

- wing

Boom Length (%) 76.3

Boom Height (ft) 10

Flight Lines 20

-- Drop Size Distribution

-- ----- ----- Current

----------- ---------- Default

----------- Name Aerosol to Very Fine ASAE Fine to Medium

Type Basic

Drop Categories # Diam (um) Frac Diam (um) Frac

1 10.77 0.0280 10.77 0.0010

2 16.73 0.0350 16.73 0.0003

3 19.39 0.0300 19.39 0.0007

4 22.49 0.0200 22.49 0.0003

5 26.05 0.0210 26.05 0.0007

6 30.21 0.0460 30.21 0.0010

7 35.01 0.0780 35.01 0.0010

8 40.57 0.1060 40.57 0.0020

9 47.03 0.1250 47.03 0.0033

10 54.50 0.1240 54.50 0.0053

11 63.16 0.0860 63.16 0.0067

12 73.23 0.0610 73.23 0.0090

13 84.85 0.0700 84.85 0.0133

14 98.12 0.0710 98.12 0.0223

15 113.71 0.0540 113.71 0.0330

16 131.73 0.0270 131.73 0.0393

17 152.79 0.0060 152.79 0.0480

18 177.84 0.0020 177.84 0.0647

19 205.84 0.0100 205.84 0.0830

-- Swath

-- ---------- Current

----------- ---------- Default

-----------

Swat h Width 60 ft

Swath Displacement 0.6506 x Swath Width 0.3702 x Swath Width

-- Spray Material

-- ---------- Current

----------- ---------- Default

----------- Nonvolatile Rate (lb/ac) 0.328 0.501

Active Rate (lb/ac) 0.0 384 0.2505

Spray Volume

Rate (gal/ac) 0.5 2

Carrier Type Oil Water

-- Meteorology

-- ---------- Current

----------- ---------- Default

----------- Wind Speed (mph) 10

Temperature (deg F) 86

Relative Humidity (%) 50

-- Transport

-- ---------- Current

----------- ---------- Default

-----------

Flux Plane (ft) 0

### Page 14 of 14 Appendix C. TERRPLANT Model Inputs and Outputs

TerrPlant v. 1.2.2

Green values signify user inputs (Tables 1, 2 and 4).

Input and output guidance is in popups indicated by red arrows.

Table 1. Chemical Identity.

Chemical Name propiconazole

PC code 122101

Use Soybean and Wheat

Application Method aerial

Application Form liquid

Solubility in Water (ppm) 100

Table 2. Input parameters used to derive EECs.

Input Parameter Symbol Value Units

Application Rate A 0.17 lb a.i./A

Incorporation I 1 none

Runoff Fraction R 0.05 none

Drift Fraction D 0.79 none

Table 3. EECs for propiconazole. Units in lb a.i./A.

Description Equation EEC

Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.0085

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.085

Spray drift A*D 0.1343

Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.1428

Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.2193

Table 4. Plant survival and growth data used for RQ derivation. Units are in lb a.i./A.

Seedling Emergence Vegetative Vigor

Plant type EC 25 NOAEC EC 25 NOAEC

Monocot > 1 1 > 1 1

Dicot 0.59 0.37 > 1 1

Table 5. RQ values for plants in dry and semi

- aquatic areas exposed to propiconazole through runoff and/or spray

drift.*

Plant Type Listed Status Dry Semi

- Aquatic Spray Drift

Monocot non

- listed < 0.14 < 0.22 < 0.13

Monocot listed 0.14 0.22 0.13

Dicot non

- listed < 0.24 < 0.37 < 0.23

Dicot listed 0.39 0.59 0.36

*If RQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resulting in potential for risk to that plant group.