Atrazine: Potential MOA Revisions Discussion with Technical Registrants

October 26, 2009 2:30 – 4:30 p.m. EDT

Conference Call Requested By: EPA Office of Pesticide Programs

Participants:

Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA – Richard Keigwin , Robert McNally, Eric Olson, Melanie Biscoe, Catherine Eiden

Atrazine Technical Registrants –

SYNGENTA

Janis McFarland Dan Campbell

AGAN CHEM MFG, LTD

MAKHTESHIM-AGAN OF NORTH AMERICA INC Ephi Gur

Leanne Pruett

DREXEL CHEMICAL COMPANY Roy Olson

OXON ITALIA S.P.A. SIPCAM AGRO USA, INC Joe Burley

Meeting Notes

Introductions

Meeting participants introduced themselves. EPA in dicated that the meeting notes would be placed in the atrazine Special Review docket within 10 days of the call.

General Comments and Questions from Registrants

Registrants indicated that they are troubled about the atrazine re-evaluation being rolled out over the next year, primarily because they believe this process deviates from the process that had already been established and is based on the [“Pois oning the Well”] NRDC report and subsequent media coverage on atrazine. Registrants indicated that they looked forward to hearing the Agency’s rationale for proposed changes to the MOA. Registrants felt that this meeting was forced, and felt rushed in attending.2

EPA indicated that it understood the registrants co ncerns, and then recapped the previous call with registrants on October 7, 2009, which was an i nformational call to alert the registrants to the SAPs scheduled for FY 2010 (during which the Agency proposed a future meeting with registrants to discuss potential changes to the MOA ). The Agency indicated that it felt that the proposed changes to the MOA were pragmatic and easy to do, and would help address public

concern over atrazine.

Registrants asked if the Agency was also going to d iscuss these negotiations with the public more broadly. EPA indicated that the Agency has no t discussed these negotiations with other parties, as the MOA involves an agreement between E PA and the atrazine registrants exclusively.

Discussion of Potential MOA Modifications:

1. Providing drinking water monitoring data to the public more quickly.

EPA indicated that members of the public are intere sted in knowing what is in their drinking water as soon as is reasonably possible. The Agenc y asked registrants how long it would take to provide data to the Agency or the public, given the time it takes to analyze the samples.

Registrants then described each step of the monitor ing process:

1. Sample taken at the CWS

2. Sample shipped directly to lab for analysis

3. Results of analysis provided on a secure computer w ebpage to Syngenta and the CWS

itself

4. Syngenta sends fax to CWS when data are available o n the secure webpage Registrants indicated that, on average, it takes ab out 10 days to receive sample results after the sample is taken.

Registrants are concerned, however, that (similar t o a situation that happened with Alachlor) some CWS will refuse to collect samples for the FIF RA-required monitoring program because of the fear it may cause within the community if the d ata is misinterpreted by interest groups.

Registrants said that, prior to 2009, only summary data were provided on the EPA website and not raw data (although, as the Agency noted, anyone could FOIA the raw data) and that the data were identifiable only by county, and not by water system. Registrants indicated that making the database public would compromise the ability of the registrants to have an effective monitoring program. Syngenta has talked with all the CWS in t he FIFRA-required monitoring program since the August 22, 2009 New York Times article in cluding those CWS mentioned by name in

the New York Times article.

Registrants indicated that, at the time of this mee ting, they were not in a position to say what they could or could not live with in terms of an ag reement on the frequency with which the monitoring data is shared with the public.3

Registrants indicated that the Agency’s knee-jerk r eaction to the recent reports and articles (before it even reviews the NRDC report) would just raise the public’s concerns about atrazine.

2. Monitoring to capture peak, single-day exposure s in Community Water Systems. EPA indicated that the public is concerned that the re may be high single-day spikes of public health consequence that currently are not being cap tured through the existing monitoring program. EPA would like to know if registrants hav e any monitoring data that demonstrates how current monitoring may be capturing highs and lows; this information would also be useful for the 2010 atrazine SAPs. The Agency suggested that if the registrants do not have these data, that additional daily samples could be gathered in some CWS.

Syngenta said that it has 400,000 atrazine samples in its databases, and that none of them have ever exceeded the 298 ppb acute drinking water leve l of concern or the 37.5 ppb 90-day rolling average level of concern. Syngenta indicated that most of those samples were taken during the season of highest atrazine use. Additionally, Syng enta indicated that some of their studies include daily monitoring (however, daily monitoring is not currently conducted in any CWS). Syngenta has initiated a statistical examination of its sample databases and will inform the Agency on any mathematical modeling they do that in dicates peaks are adequately captured.

3. Establishing a performance standard for the 298 ppb one-day drinking water level of concern
established in the Atrazine RED.

EPA explained how the public may believe that the A gency is not protecting against one-day spikes of atrazine. Given that drinking water moni toring data have not exceeded the 298 ppb acute drinking water level of concern, the Agency e xpressed its belief that establishing this standard in the MOA would be relatively innocuous.

Registrants stated that establishment of a one-day regulatory parameter is out of step with what EPA requires for other chemicals, especially when i t is known that the chronic MCL is protective of acute exposures. Registrants indicated that the y will bring more information on this to the next MOA meeting on November 3, 2009.

The Agency noted that the Office of Water sets one- to ten-day health advisories.

Registrants expressed concern that the Agency would set a precedent of establishing a one-day regulatory standard when there is no scientific rea son for this standard to be established (since Syngenta’s extensive monitoring database shows that none of the samples exceeded 298 ppb). The registrants were concerned that setting this st andard would send a message to the public that current atrazine monitoring misses peaks when that is not the case.

The Agency responded that it wants to provide the p ublic with a sense that the Agency is being responsible and watchful.

Registrants discuss how the Canadian acute level of concern for atrazine is 1200 ppb.4

4. Prohibiting atrazine use in the watershed after one exceedence of the 37.5 ppb 90-day rolling

average.

EPA indicated that the public may believe that the Agency is not protective enough by allowing two exceedences of the 37.5 ppb 90-day rolling aver age in raw water used by CWS. The Agency said it would like to revise this standard s uch that atrazine could not be used in a watershed after one exceedence of the 37.5 ppb 90-d ay rolling average in raw water used by

CWS.

Registrants said that 90-day rolling averages above 37.5 ppb are safe, given the safety margins included in the level of concern. Registrants were concerned that there is no scientific basis for this regulatory change and that this type of regula tion would be unprecedented in any type of monitoring and mitigation program. The registrants also indicated that it would be acceptable to have two exceedences of this level in raw water, be cause raw water is not consumed by the public. The registrants indicated that the underly ing toxicological study in rats was appropriately conservative and was a 6 month exposure study. As a result it would be unlikely to see the

intermediate-term health effect in humans after a 9 0-day exposure.

EPA explained that there is uncertainty surrounding the amount of time required to elicit the

intermediate-term human health effect. Effects in the 6 month study were seen after 4-5 months of exposure and the Agency has no reason to believe that a human response to dosing would be any longer than the 4-5 month period. EPA indicate d that this is why the Agency believes that mitigation measures should be implemented after 1 e xceedence and not 2, as is currently required in the MOA.

The registrants indicated that they would gather ad ditional information, look into other studies that they have so we can discuss this issue further on the November 3, 2009 MOA meeting.

Next Steps & Wrap-Up

EPA opened the discussion to any additional general comments, but none of the meeting participants had additional comments.

EPA discussed the plan to meet on November 3, 2009, and indicated that this would be the last meeting on the topic of drinking water in the MOA. Registrants asked why this would be the final meeting on this topic; EPA indicated that thi s is a fairly straight-forward issue, and that these meetings are not to debate the levels of conc ern already established in the Agency’s risk assessments, but to change the MOA based on already -established levels of concern. The Agency expressed a willingness to consider future m eetings, but only if there was a reason to do

so.

Next Meeting : November 3, 2009 2-4 PM

Meeting Notes Prepared by: Robert McNally