### 1 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

October 6, 2015

PC Code: 098301

MEMORANDUM DP Barcode: D424563

SUBJECT: Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment for Registration Review of Aldicarb

FROM: N.E. Federoff, Wildlife Biologist Edmund Wong, Environmental Chemist

Environmental Risk Branch 2 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

REVIEWED

BY: Greg Orrick, Environmental Scientist Christina Wendel, Biologist

Environmental Risk Branch 2 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

THROUGH: Brian Anderson, Chief

Environmental Risk Branch 2 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

TO: Susan Bartow, Chemical Review Manager Kevin Costello, Acting Branch Chief Risk Management and Implementation Branch 4 Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P)

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed the Preliminary Risk Assessment (attached) conducted as part of th e registration review of aldicarb. The problem

formulation for aldicarb was conducted in 2012. Base d on currently registered uses and labeled rates, this preliminary assessment identifies po tential risks to aquatic a nd terrestrial non-target organisms, particularly birds and mammals. This assessment draws on information from both open literature and studies submitted by the regi strants in response to data requirements in order to provide an overview of the environmental fate and ecological effects associated with the use

of aldicarb as well as outline s uncertainties regarding residues and taxa of concern. Also, aldicarb has been the subject of recent refined risk assessments, which remain valid. Therefore, this assessment takes from previous assessments wh ere possible and did not re-assess risks to all taxonomic groups. Also, this assessment is focused on species that are not Federally listed as

threatened or endangered (referred to as “listed”) . For taxa where there may be risk, specific 2015.10.06

10:04:20 -04'00' 

### 2015.10.06 11:18:40 -04'00'

### 2 determinations for listed species are considered uncertain at this time. Currently labeled rates of aldicarb pose a potential for adverse effects, i.e ., risk, to non-target terrestrial and aquatic

animals.

Label Clarification :

There are some uncertainties in this assessment due to label ambiguities. The vague application instructions on the MEYMIK 15G product label are listed in the following table. There would be less uncertainty in the exposure assessment if the label application instructions were clarified or clearly worded to eliminate confusion regarding the incorporation or depth of cover after application.

Instruction Issues Description Crop Uses Pages “Apply granules in the seed furrow and immediately cover with soil by mechanical means” No specification of the depth

of soil needed to cover the granules or the depth of the application Cotton, Dry Beans, Peanuts, Soybeans At Planting (Aphids, Fleahoppers, Nematodes,

Seedcorn

maggot, Thrips) 7, 9, 10, 12

“Apply granules in a 4 to 6 -inch band (T

- Band) over open seed furrow and immediately cover with soil by mechanical means” No specification of the depth

of

soil needed to cover the granules and no specification on the time of application Cotton Nematodes 7

“Apply in seed furrow and

cover with soil” No specification of the depth

of

soil needed to cover the granules and no specification on the time of application Cotton Aphids 7

“Side dress granules in a furrow

that is 6 to 10 inches to one or both sides of plant row to a depth of 2 to 3 inches. Adjust applications to minimize root pruning” No instruction on whether to cover the granules with a given depth of soil Cotton Side Dress (except California) 7

“Apply granules in a 4 to 6 -inch band and immediately cover with soil by mechanical means.

Plant into treated zone” No specification of how

much soil is needed to cover the granules or the depth of the application Dry Beans, Peanuts, Soybeans, Sugar Beets At Planting / Split Application 9, 10, 12, 13

“Where furrow irrigation is used, apply granules 3 to 4 inches deep and 3 inches from

seed row on the water furrow

side” The depth of soil or irrigation needed to incorporate the granules is not provided

. Dry Beans At Planting 9

“Apply granules in a 2 to 3 inch

band over seed row and immediately cover with soil by

mechanical means” No specification of the depth

of soil needed to cover the granules or the depth of the application Sugar Beets At Planting (Sugar beet root maggot) 13

“Where furrow irrigation is employed side-dress granules 4 Instructions indicated no soil cover and thus expose Sugar Beets Post Emergence 14

### 3 to 8 inches to water furrow side of plant row at furrow depth. Irrigate soon after application. Apply within 60 days after planting” granules to terrestrial

animals or surface runoff after irrigation or precipitation event

### 4 

# Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment in Support of the Registration Review of Aldicarb

CAS Registry Number: 116-06-3

PC Code: 098301

DP Barcode: D424563

Prepared by: N.E. Federoff, Wildlife Biologist Edmund Wong , Environmental Chemist U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Environmental Risk Branch I I 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P Washington, DC 20460 Reviewed by: Greg Orrick, Environmental Scientist Christina Wendel, Biologist Brian Anderson, Branch Chief 

# N C H 3



# H O O

N C H CH 3



# S CH 3



# CH 3

### 5 

## T ABLE OF 

## C ONTENTS



### 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & CHARACTERIZATION of RISK CONCLUSIONS ............... 7

2. PROBLEM FORMULATION ................................................................................................... 8

2.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. ....... 8

2.2. Pesticidal Mechanism of Action ......................................................................................... 9

2.3. Overview of Pesticide Use and Usage ................................................................................ 9

2.4. Description of Regulatory Action ..................................................................................... 13

2.5. Previous Risk Assessments ............................................................................................... 14

2.6. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk ......................................................................................... 14

3. ANALYSIS: ENVIRONMENTAL FATE & EFFECTS ......................................................... 14

3.1. Environmental Fate ........................................................................................................... 14

3.1.1. Aldicarb & Residues of Concern ................................................................................ 16

3.2. Aquatic Exposure .............................................................................................................. 19

3.3. Bioaccumulation ............................................................................................................... 23

3.4. Monitoring Data ............................................................................................................... . 23

3.4.1. USEPA STORET Data Warehouse Surface Water Data ............................................ 23

3.4.2. USGS NAWQA Surface Water Data ......................................................................... 24

3.4.2.1. Aldicarb ........................................................................................................... 24

3.4.2.2. Aldicarb Sulfoxide ........................................................................................... 24

3.4.2.3. Aldicarb Sulfone .............................................................................................. 25

3.4.2.4. USGS NAWQA Monitoring Data Summary .................................................. 25

3.4.3. California Department of Pesticide Re gulation (CDPR) Surface Water Database .... 25

3.4.4. Monitoring Data Summary ......................................................................................... 26

3.5. Ecological Effects Characterization .................................................................................. 26

3.5.1. Toxicity to Birds and Mammals ................................................................................. 28

3.5.2. Toxicity to Terrestrial Invertebrates ........................................................................... 28

3.5.3. Toxicity to Plants ........................................................................................................ 29

3.5.4. Fish .......................................................................................................................... .... 29

3.5.5. Aquatic Invertebrates .................................................................................................. 29

3.5.6. Aquatic Plants ............................................................................................................. 30

3.6. Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................... 30

3.7. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)............................................................. 31

3.8. Degradate Toxicity............................................................................................................ 32

3.9. Incident Database Review ................................................................................................. 32

4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION and RISK DESCRIPTION .................................................... 46

4.1. Terrestrial Animals ........................................................................................................... 46

4.1.1. Additional Terrestrial Animal RQ Refinements ......................................................... 47

4.1.2. Risk Conclusions for Terrestrial Organisms ............................................................... 50

4.2. Aquatic Species ............................................................................................................... .. 50

4.2.1. Revised RQs resulting from EECs from currently supported (2015) uses ................. 51

4.2.2. Risk Conclusions for A quatic Organisms ................................................................... 52

5. IDENTIFICATION of CURRENT DATA GAPS ................................................................... 53

5.1. Fate .......................................................................................................................... .......... 53

5.2. Effects ....................................................................................................................... ........ 53

6. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... ..... 54

### 6 Appendix A. Ecological Effects Data ........................................................................................... 74 Appendix B. Aquatic Model File ................................................................................................ .. 88 Appendix C. Domestic Animal and Aggregate Incident Summary for Aldicarb ......................... 90

### 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & CHARACTERIZATION of RISK CONCLUSIONS

The over-riding concern in this assessment is the high risk of mortality to birds and mammals. Aldicarb is very highly toxic to avian and mammalian specie s. It is a systemic pesticide and a potent cholinesterase (ChE) inhibitor. Acute and chronic RQs for aldicarb can be misleading since it can take the ingestion of only 1 granule for mortality to occur (Balcomb et al. , 1984). Supplemental open literature suggests acute oral LD 50 

### s of 0.75 mg/kg for passerine specie s (see Section 3). The mammalian

LD 50 

### is similar to birds at 0.9 mg/kg. Exposure to aldicarb caused lower survivability and pup weights in offspring of all litters in testing (reproductiv e LOAEL = 1.4 - 1.7 mg/kg-bw; NOAEL = 0.7 - 0.9 mg/kgbw). These toxicity values suggest that even if mammals survive acute aldicarb exposure they may suffer adverse reproductive effects from chronic expos ure. In addition, since there are risks to birds, risks to reptiles are also possible.

Aldicarb is soluble in water, poorly sorbed on soil particles and could expose birds and mammals to dissolved granules after application in drinking water puddles after a rain or an irrigation event occurs. If that occurs, wildlife species are likely to be killed from drinking contaminated water from treated fields after rain. Soil incorporation does not materially reduce exposure from drinking water. Drinking water exposure alone was determined to be a potential acute and chronic pathway of concern for avian and mammalian species.

There have been numerous mortality incidents to birds and mammals where aldicarb was determined to be a likely cause. However, most of the reported incide nts were either from the intentional or accidental misuse of aldicarb. Very few incidents that occur are reported to the EPA.

Aldicarb is considered highly toxic by acute contact to honeybees with an LD 50 

### of 0.285 μ g/bee. Because of its granular formulation, it is unlikely that there is a direct contact exposure scenario for honeybees. However, other soil dwelling beneficial insects and invertebrates could be exposed to aldicarb and aldicarb residues through contact with th e granules. Contact with dissolved residues in puddles and/or with plants (via pollen and nectar ) due to its systemic nature is possible.

Parent aldicarb and its degradates are highly mobile and are known to move to ground water in sandy acidic soils. Furthermore, these residues may move to surface water via runoff, drain discharge, and/or baseflow from groundwater. Aldicarb re sidues in baseflow are most likely to create concern for fish and aquatic invertebrates in low-order streams because th ese streams are dominated by base flow conditions (where up to 100% of stream flow consists of discharged ground water). Higher-order streams are sustained by much larger contributing land areas, so there is often a greater dilution effect. Higher incorporation efficiencies could reduce risks to aquatic organisms as a result of reduced runoff. However, although data are limited, there is no disc erning trend of lower aldicarb and residues of

concern concentrations from surface water monitori ng data since the implementation of mitigation in 2009. Surface water exposure from runoff was modeled in this assessment rather than from baseflow because runoff is expected to produce higher concen trations in most surface water bodies. Under the current label scenarios modeled for EECs, most aqua tic organism acute and all chronic RQs exceeded all LOCs for all registered labeled uses of aldicarb. Since there were risks to fish, there may also be risks to amphibians.

### 8 Uncertainties/Data Gaps

Honeybee toxicity (non-guideline):

I n keeping with the Agency’s proposed new paradigm for determining potential adverse effects to insect pollinators from conventional pesticides (USEPA et al. , 2014), additional studies are being requested in addition to the already submitted adult acute contact study. Although the adult acute contact study using

aldicarb resulted in an LD 50 

### of 0.285 μ g/bee and the compound was classified as highly toxic (MRID 00036935), there is considerable uncertainty regarding the potential effects of the compound on honeybee larval development and survival as well as potential for chronic effects. Because of its granular formulation, it is unlikely that there is a direct contact exposure scenario for honeybees. Other soil dwelling beneficial insects and invertebrates could be exposed to aldicarb and aldicarb residues through contact with the granules and/or with plants (via pollen and/or nectar) due to its systemic nature. However, because the chemical is systemic in nature exposure via pollen and/or nectar is possible; therefore, additional data on pollinators is needed to fully characterize the risk associated with aldicarb use to all developmental stages of honeybees, as sensitivity may vary according to life-stage and length of exposure (adult vs. larval and acute vs. chronic, respectively). Additional information is needed, but uncertainty associated with risks to honey bees needs to be evaluated with more data for different life stages. Since this is a systemic chemical that is transported throughout the plant, residues may be available to pollinators via pollen and/or nectar; ther efore, residues of pollen and nectar of crops are a data need. Adult and larvae acute oral toxicity stud ies (following OECD 213) and larval and adult chronic toxicity studies (following OECD 237 and non-g uideline study) are necessary to evaluate the potential for aldicarb to adversely affect bees and other pollinators through other routes of exposure. Open literature data is needed to help better char acterize some uncertainties regarding potential effects to bees and other non-target terrestrial invertebrates. In addition, higher tier toxicity tests ( i.e., semi-field

and/or field studies

– Tier II and Tier III, respectively) may be needed, based on the results of the larval and chronic adult toxicity studies. Higher tier studies are recommended if the ratio of the EEC and larval

or adult bee acute LD 50 

### >0.4 or the ratio of the EEC and the chronic NOAEC>1. Incident data and/or compelling open literature studies can also be used to support the need for higher tier studies. Should the screening level risk assessment identify that there are risk concerns to bees, mitigation measures may need to be considered or the registrant may need to conduct Tier II or Tier III effects studies ( e.g. OECD Guideline 75 and/or 850.3040 guideline studies) that reduce uncertainty by characterizing aldicarb ’s effects at the whole-colony level.

2. PROBLEM FORMULATION

2.1. Introduction

The purpose of this assessment is to provide an unde rstanding of the environmental risks of the labeled uses of aldicarb. Aldicarb is a systemic insecticid e, acaricide and nematicide in the carbamate group of cholinesterase inhibitors. Aldicarb has been the subject of refined risk assessments in the past, particularly risk characterization for birds and ma mmals. These assessments remain valid and serve as the basis for the current risk assessment as well. Also, a formal problem formulation conducted as part of Registration Review was conducted in 2012. Th e problem formulation presented in this document presents a summary and an update of what was pres ented in the 2012 problem formulation. Reference the 2012 problem formulation for additional information (Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0161).

### 9 2.2. Pesticidal Mechanism of Action

Aldicarb (2-methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde O- (methylcarbamoyl)oxime) (PC code 098301) is a potent cholinesterase (ChE) inhibitor causing inhibiti on of erythrocyte acetylcholinesterase as well as plasma butyryl ChE by binding to the active site of the enzyme. Acetylcholinesterase is an enzyme necessary for the degradation of the neurotransmitt er acetylcholine (ACh) and subsequent cessation of synaptic transmission. Inhibition of these enzymes in animals ( i.e . terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals) results in the accumulation of ACh at cholinergic nerve endings and continual nerve stimulation leading to a dverse effects including death. One uncertainty in the risk assessment, particularly for chronic effects, is that the toxic mode of action of aldicarb of AChE inhibition is a reversible process when exposure stops. Therefore, repeated, intermittent exposures may allow for some recovery.

2.3. Overview of Pesticide Use and Usage

Aldicarb is a granular pesticide that was first regi stered for use on cotton in 1970. There is currently only one end use product label for aldicarb, Meymik 15G (Reg. No. 87895-1) which was registered in December, 2011. There are 6 crops listed for use of aldicarb on the Meymik label: cotton, dry beans, peanuts, soybeans, sugar beets, and sweet potatoes. Table 1.1 lists the use pattern of maximum exposure

for each labeled uses of aldicarb.

Table 1.1 Labeled Aldicarb Use Pattern of Maximum Exposure

Use Max. Single App.

Rate (lbs a.i./A) Max. Annual App. Rate (lbs a.i./A) App.

Interval (d) App. Method Labeled Use

States

Cotton C 1.05 (At Planting) 0.75 (Side Dress) 2.1 (Side Dress)* 1.8 A

3.15* A 21 at-plant: in furrow and Tband post-emergent: in furrow U.S. *[CA only ]

Dry Beans 2.1 2.1 A 0 at-plant: in furrow CO, ID, MI, OR, WA only

Peanuts B 1.05 (At Planting) 1.5 (Post

- Emergence) 2.55 A 14 at-plant: in furrow,incorporated band or Tband

post-emergent: banded over foliage U.S. [Split application only in AL, FL, GA, NC, OK, TX, VA]

Soybeans 1.05 1.05 A 0 at-plant: in furrow or Tband GA, NC, SC, VA only

Sugar Beets D 4.95 (At Planting)

3.0 (Post- Emergence)

4.05 (Post- Emergence)

2.1 (At Planting)*

2.1 (Side Dress)* 4.95 A

4.2* A 14 at-plant: in furrow, incorporated band or Tband

post -emergent: in furrow, incorporated side band or

side dress [CO, ID, MT, NE, OR, WA, WY only] *[CA only ]

Sweet Potatoes E 3.0 3.0 A 0 pre-plant or at-plant: band covered by hilling LA, MS only

A

Label directions provide a seasonal application rate limit that approximates an annual limit.

B Post-emergent applications must be irrigated immediately after application. Post-emergent applications must be made to dry foliage.

### 10 C Second application is restricted to 0.75 lb and must be p laced in furrow at least 2 inches deep. Applications must be between March 1 and September 1 in California.

D Applications must be made within 60 days of planting.

E Application must be made with positive displacement applicators.



### Aldicarb cannot be applied in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, or Wisconsin. In addition, it is restricted from use in Del

Norte and Humboldt Counties in California and C urry County, Oregon. Aldicarb can only be applied between March 1 and September 1 in California. There are also restrictions on the use of aldicarb around drinking water wells. In all cases, application cannot be made within 50 ft of a drinking water well, but more stringent conditions often apply. In most case s, these restrictions are based on the presence of a

‘vulnerable soil’ and the nature of the well. A vulnerab le soil is defined on the label as having a loamy

sand or sand texture and a subsoil with less than 2% organic matter on average in the upper 12 inches. Restrictions around the well are necessary if the water table is less than 25 ft deep, unless the well is cased to less than 100 ft or to 30 feet below the top of the water table. If the user does not know that the water table is greater than 25 feet, the applicator should assume a water table less than 25 feet deep.

The following state and use restrictions depend upon the vulnerable soil and well descriptions. In Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina, if a ‘split application’ is made (that is, one application at planting and a second side dress application is made after emergence), then there must be a 1100 ft buffer in place around drinking water wells. In these same states, a split application made to cotton with vulnerable soil and wells requires a 1000 ft buffer. If only a single application is made either at-plant or post-emergent then the wellhead buffer is 700 ft. For all uses in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wyoming, a 500 ft buffer is required around vulnerable wells in vulnerable soils. In these states, vulnerable soils are defined to include sandy loams, loamy sands and sands. In Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tenne ssee, Virginia, and West Virginia, a 300 ft buffer is required around vulnerable we lls in vulnerable soils. For all other uses in Florida (other than peanuts and cotton) a 300 ft buffer is required around all drinking water wells. For all uses, applications cannot be made within 50 ft of any drinking water well.

The Meymik label has a number of precautionary label statements for the prot ection of wildlife and water resources. The statements for the protection of wildlife are:

“This pesticide is extremely toxic to birds and other wildlife. Birds feeding on exposed granules may be killed. Cover or immediatel y soil incorporate granules spilled during loading, at row ends, or elsewhere to ensure the granules are completely covered with soil.

“ This pesticide is toxic to fi sh and aquatic invertebrates. Run-off from treated areas may be hazardous to fish in neighboring areas. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal area below the mean high water mark. Do not contaminate water when disposing equipment washwaters ”

.

“ This product is potentially toxic to honey bees through translocated residues in pollen and nectar if application is made during bloom.”

There is also additional language regarding the Endangered Species Act:

### 11 “Under the E ndangered Species Act, it is a Federal Offense to use any pesticide in a manner that results in the death of a member of an endangered species.”

“This Act protects Attwater’s Prairie Chicken in the Texas counties of Aransas, Austin,
Brazoria, Colorado, Ga lveston, Goliad, Harris, Refugio, and Victoria.” (Note that this statement lists specific species; however, additiona l listed species may be at risk in Texas).

“Prior to making applications in these counties, the user must determine that this species is not located in or immediately adjacent to the area to be treated. If the user is in doubt whether or not the above named endangered sp ecies may be affected, he should contact either the regional U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Office (Endangered Species Specialist) or personnel of the State Fish and Game O ffice.”

Precautionary language for the protection of groundwater is:

“Aldicarb is known to leach through soil in to ground water under certain conditions. Use of this chemical in areas where soils are pe rmeable, particularly where the water table is shallow, may result in ground water contami nation. Apply this product only as specified on this label. Read the use directions and the appended Environmental Precautions and Soil Type Restrictions Tables prior to making applications.”

“This product is readily decomposed to harmless residues under most use conditions. However, a combination of permeable and ac idic soil conditions, moderate to heavy irrigation and/or rainfall, use of 20 or more pounds per acre, and so il temperatures below 50o F (10o C) at application time tend to reduce degradation and promote movement of residues into ground water.”

However, the label does not have a surface water a dvisory statement. EFED recommends surface water precautionary language in the following:

“Aldicarb may impact surface water quality due to runoff of rain water. This is especially true for poorly draining soils and soils with shallow ground water.

Aldicarb is classified as having K d 

### less than 15 and a t 1/2 

### between 8 and 30 days. A level, well-maintained vegetative buffe r strip between areas to which this product is applied and surface water features such as ponds, streams, and springs will reduce the potential loading of aldicarb and its degradates from runoff water and sediment. Runoff of this product will be reduced by avoiding applications wh en rainfall or irrigation is expected to

occur within 48 hours.”

Cotton. There is a special local needs registration (24c) for aldicarb use on cotton in the state of

Califor nia that allows up to 2.1 lb

∙ acre -1 

### for a second side dress application and 3.15 lb

∙ acre -1 

### total to be applied per year. For other states, the side dress application is limited to 0.75 lb

∙ acre -1 

### and the maximum

seasonal rate is 1.8 lb

∙ acre -1 

### . In either case, two applications can be made per season to cotton with the first application made at-plant, in-furrow with the requirement that the granules in the furrow be immediately covered with soil by mechanical means. Side dress applications are to be made 3 weeks

### 12 after planting to first bloom (24c) or first squaring (Section 3 label). Side dress applications are to be to a depth of 2 to 3 inches in a furrow 6 to 10 inches on one or both sides of the the row. The label restrictions include a note to deep-disk any spills at row ends or elsewhere to ensure the granules are covered with a layer of soil. Applications in California are restricted to between March 1 and September 1. Specific restrictions for applications to cott on around drinking water wells are discussed above.

Dry Beans. While ‘dry beans’ can be used to describe a lar ge number of legumes, in most cases it refers

to the mature fruit of Phaseolus vulgaris , the common edible bean ( e.g., kidney bean, red bean, black bean, navy bean, etc. ). It does not include the use on the same crop when they are picked immature ( e.g., green beans, wax beans, pole beans, or snap beans). The use of aldicarb on dry beans is restricted to Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Michigan. Only one application can be made per year at up

to 2.1 lb

∙ acre -1 

### . Applications must be made at-plant either in the seed furrow or in a separate furrow 2 to 3 inches deep to the side of the seed furrow and covered with soil by mechanical means. The label restrictions include a note to immediately deep-disk any spills at row ends or elsewhere to ensure the granules are covered with a layer of soil.

Peanuts. Either one or two applications of aldicarb can be made to peanuts. However, two applications and applications not made at planting can only be made in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia. At-plant applications can be made either in-furrow or in a T-band over the open seed furrow. In either case the label states to cover immediately with soil by mechanical means. At-plant applications can also be made as a 6 to 12 inch band which is mechanically incorporated from 2 to 4 inches in depth into which the peanuts are subsequently planted. Post-emergent applications are to be made at or just prior to peg initiation (when the peanuts start to enter the ground) but no later than 40 days after emergence and prior to the last cultivati on. At-plant applications can be made at up to 1.05

lb

∙ acre -1 

### while the maximum post- emergent application rate is 1.5 lb

∙ acre -1 

### . The seasonal maximum application is 2.55 lb

∙ acre -1 

### . A second application cannot be made to Spanish peanuts and other shortseason varieties that do not have at least 90 days be tween pegging and harvest. The label restrictions include a note to immediately deep-disk any spills at row ends or elsewhere to ensure the granules are covered with a layer of soil.

Soybeans. Applications of aldicarb to soybeans can only be made in four states: Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Only one appl ication can be made per year at planting at 1.05

lb

∙ acre -1 

### for control of Mexican bean beetle, thrips, three-cornered alfalfa hopper and nematodes. Application can be made in-furrow or as a T-band 4 to 6 inches wide across the open seed furrow. In either case, the label says that the aldicarb must be immediately covered by mechanical means. The label restrictions include a note to immediately deep-disk any spills at row ends or elsewhere to ensure the granules are covered with a layer of soil.

Sugar Beets. Applications of aldicarb to sugar beets can only be made in California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. Applications in California can only be made between March 1 and September 1. The maximum annual application r ate is 4.2 lb

∙ acre -1 

### in California

and 4.95 lb

∙ acre -1 

### in all other states. No more than thre e applications can be made per year, one application at planting, and two post-emergent ap plications. The maximum single application rate atplant is 2.1 lb

∙ acre -1 

### in California and 4.95 lb

∙ acre -1 

### in other states. The maximum single application rate for post- emergence applications is 2.1 lb

∙ acre -1 

### in California and 3 lb

∙ acre -1 

### in other states. For control of nematodes, applications can be made up to a week befor e planting in a band 4 to 6 inches wide which is

### 13 immediately incorporated. Planting is then done into the incorporated band. Alternatively, the granules can be drilled in a row 3 to 4 inches deep and three inches to the side of the seed row if furrow irrigation is employed for seed germination. For aphid control, granules can be placed in the seedline if the application does not exceed 1.05 lb- ai

∙ acre -1 

### . Otherwise, the granules should be drilled 1 to 3 inches below the seedline. For sugar beet root maggot control, granules can be applied in a band 2 to 3 inches wide over the seed row and immediately incorporated, or, if furrow irrigation is employed for seedgermination, granules can be drilled in a row 2 inches deep 2 inches from the seed furrow. Postemergent applications are to be made on both side s of the plant row and immediately covered with soil or, if furrow irrigation is present, 4 to 8 inches on the water side of the plants at furrow depth. Postemergent applications must be made within 30 days of planting in California and within 60 days of planting elsewhere.

Sweet Potatoes. Applications of aldicarb to sweet potatoes can only be made in Louisiana and Mississippi. Only one applicati on can be made at planting. Applications are restricted to 3 lb- ai

∙ acre -1



### . Application are to be made in a 12 inch band ov er open furrow or on the soil surface and covered immediately during bed formation by mechanically hilling up to 8 to 10 inches. Transplants should be

made in the center of the treated zone.

The Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) completed a review of aldicarb usage (previously registered as Temik) in December 2011 (Brassard et al., 2011). This assessment did not include any data for the sweet potato use. In the period 1998 to 2010 BEAD found that the total usage of aldicarb had not changed substantially, though the use on citrus increased in the latter half of the 2000s. In the period of 2006 to 2010, the average use of aldicarb on all crops was 3.6 million pound on 3.7 million acres. In this period, the top crops we re cotton (47%), oranges (23%), peanuts (13%), and potatoes (6%). Under the current label, the use on oranges, other citruses and potatoes are no longer a registered use. In 1998-2010, the top states in terms of pounds applied were Florida (28%), Georgia (22%), and Texas (12%).

2.4. Description of Regulatory Action

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 mandated the EPA to implement a new program for assessing the risks of pesticides, i.e ., registration review 1 

### . All pesticides distributed or sold in the United States must be registered by the Agency. The decision to re gister a pesticide is based on the consideration of scientific data and other factors showing that it will not cause unreasonable risks to human health, workers, or the environment when used as directed on product labeling. The registration review program is intended to ensure that, as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment. Changes in science, publ ic policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time. Through the new registration review program, the Agency periodically reevaluates pesticides to ensure that as change occurs, products in the marketplace can be used safely.

As part of the implementation of the new registrati on review program pursuant to Section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (F IFRA), the Agency is conducting an evaluation of ecological risks to determine whether use of aldi carb meets the FIFRA standard for registration.

1 ( http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/ )

### 14 2.5. Previous Risk Assessments

The risk assessments available in the docket which serve as the basis for this preliminary risk assessment include the following:

x May 24, 2012 EFED Registration Review Problem Formulation for Aldicarb, DP D398519 (US EPA, 2012)

x March 28, 2012 EFED Risks of Aldicarb Use to the Federally Threatened Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle ( Desmocerus californicus dimorphus ) and the Federally Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox ( Vulpes macrotis mutica ), (US EPA, 2012)

x April 10, 2009 EFED Refinement to Tier 2 Drinking Water Assessment Tobacco Uses of Aldicarb and its Major Degradates Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone, D299881 (US EPA, 2009)

x August 26, 2008 EFED Drinking Water Ex posure Assessment for Proposed Expansion of Aldicarb Use on Potatoes Into 6 Additional States (CO, MI, MN, ND, SD, WY), DP D299881 (US EPA, 2008)

x July 17, 2007 EFED Risks of Aldicarb Use to Federally Listed Endangered California Red Legged Frog ( Rana aurora draytonii ), (US EPA, 2007)

x October 23, 2006 EFED Drinking Water Expos ure Assessment for Total Aldicarb Residues (Parent, Aldicarb Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb Sulfone) Based on the N-Methyl Carbamate Cumulative Risk Assessment, D333309 (US EPA 2006)

x September, 2006 EFED Aldicarb Ecological Risk Assessment (RED), (US EPA, 2006)

x April 4, 2005 EFED Tier 2 Drinking Water Assess ment for Aldicarb and its Major Degradates Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone, D316754 (US EPA, 2005)

2.6. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

The ecosystems at risk are often extensive in scope; therefore, it may not be possible to identify specific ecosystems during the development of a nation-wide ecological risk assessment. However, in general terms, terrestrial ecosystems potentially at risk could include the areas that are immediately adjacent to treated areas that may receive runoff during flooding. Areas adjacent to the treated areas could include cultivated fields, fencerows and hedgerows, meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian

habitats and other uncultivated areas.

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include water bodies adjacent to or downstream from, the treated areas and could include impounded bodies such as ponds, lakes and reservoirs, or flowing waterways

such as streams or rivers.

3. ANALYSIS: ENVIRONMENTAL FATE & EFFECTS

3.1. Environmental Fate

Aldicarb rapidly degrades to aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone

– both of which are nearly as toxic as, and are more persistent than, the parent compound. Other aldicarb degradates may form as well, but are substantially less toxic and/or produced only in small amounts (<5%) and so are not included in this

### 15 evaluation (See Appendix A). Aerobic soil metabolism is the primary dissipation route for aldicarb in unsaturated soil. Half-lives for aldicarb range from 1 to 17 days (MRIDs 00102051, 00093642, 00080820, 00093640, 00053366, 00101934, 00035365, and 00102071). There is currently insufficient data to accurately estimate the formation and dissipation rates of the sulfoxide and sulfone degradates. However, the rapid oxidation of aldicarb to these degra dates and their substantia lly greater persistence than aldicarb, have been well docu mented in the published literature ( e.g ., Bull et al ., 1970; Smelt et al.

, 1979).

Laboratory studies suggest that degradation of the sum of all three aldicarb forms ( i.e. , parent compound, sulfoxide, and sulfone) to relatively non-to xic, non-carbamate residues (oximes and nitriles) occurs slowly (t 1/2 

### up to 3 months) in aerobic soils, as a result of soil-catalyzed hydrolysis rather than aerobic metabolism (Lightfoot et al. , 1987; Bank and Tyrrell, 1984). Aldicarb is generally stable to hydrolysis, slowly hydrolyzing only at a pH of 9 (MRID 00102065). Aldicarb sulfoxide hydrolyzed more quickly (t 1/2 

### = 2.3 days) at pH 9 than at pH 7 or 5 (about 6% at 28 days at pH 7) (MRID 00102066). Aqueous photolysis rapidly degraded aldicarb to oxime and nitrile forms ( i.e . with a t 1/2 

### of four days: MRID 42498201). However, this process will only be dominant in clear, shallow waters, and

will not affect residues in the subsurface.

While there is limited information on aerobic me tabolism of aldicarb in aquatic environments, a published laboratory study (Vink et al. , 1997) reported half-lives ranging from 70 to 173 days in surface waters in the Netherlands. Aldicarb degradates ( i.e. , aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone) have been detected in ground water long after application of the parent chemical had ceased. Published studies have reported increased degradation rates under lo w redox conditions, perhaps due to catalysis by reduced metal species in these environments (Bromilow et al. , 1986). For example, Smelt et al. (1983) reported laboratory half-lives of aldicarb sulfone and sulfoxide ranging from 2 to 131 days in Dutch

subsoils under “anaerobic conditions” (310 mV), and fr om 84 to 1100 days under aerobic conditions. Given this information, it is likely that aldicarb sul foxide and aldicarb sulfone, which degrade relatively slowly in aerobic soil (MRID 44005001), can leach into ground water and continue to be detectable over long time periods.

In published field studies, dissipation half-lives for to tal carbamate residues in soil have ranged from approximately 0.3 to 5 months in the unsaturated zone, and 1 to 36 months in the saturated zone (Jones and Estes, 1995), in apparent contradiction to th e observation of faster degradation under anaerobic (saturated) conditions reported above (Smelt et al., 1983). The reasons for the extreme variability in reported transformation rates (3 hours to 36 months) for aldicarb residues under anaerobic/saturated conditions are uncertain, but may be related to temperature, pH, and the presence of soils surface catalysts (Lightfoot, et al. , 1987). Also, not all saturated zones are necessarily anoxic; if they are shallow, there can be sufficient interaction with th e unsaturated zone such that the ground water may be sub-oxic or even atmosphere-equilibrated (oxic). Monitoring data in areas with historical aldicarb contamination confirm the high persistence of total aldicarb residues in some ground water. For example, twenty years after cessation of aldicarb use on Long Island, New York, aldicarb sulfone and sulfoxide were the most frequently detected pe sticide compounds in ground water there in year 2000 (Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services, 2000).

A selection of environmental fate and transport pr operties of aldicarb are summarized below.

### 16 Table 3.1 General Physical/Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of Aldicarb

Parameter Value Reference

Physical/Chemical Parameters

Molecular mass 190.26 g/mol calculated

Vapor pressure (23°C) 6.25 x 10 -6 torr MRID 4822504

Henry’s Law constant (23°C) 3.0 x 10 -10 atm·m 3 /mol calculated

Water solubility (pH 7, 25°C) 6,000 mg/L MRID 4822504

Octanol-water partition coefficient ( K OW ) 11.48 MRID 4822504

Persistence in Water

Hydrolysis half-life 

### pH 5: no significant degradation @ 30 d pH 7: no significant degradation @ 30 d pH 9: < 10% degradation of parent @ 30 d

T 1/2 

### < 197 d MRID 00102065

Aqueous photolysis half-life 4 d MRID 42498201

Persistence in Soil

Aerobic soil metabolism half-life [25 °C] parent only : NJ sandy loam: 2.3 d Houston clay: 11 d Lakeland sandy loam: 17 d Norwood silty clay: 12 d unspecified: 1 d

Illinois silt: 6 d NC loamy sand: 10 d

total toxic residues: Houston clay: 28 d Lakeland sandy loam: 47 d

Norw ood silty clay: 136 d unspecified: 44 d MRID 44005001

MRID 00093642

MRID 45602904

MRID 457398 01

MRID 00093642

MRID 45602904

Mobility

Fruendlich Adsorption Coefficients (K f ) sandy loam: 0.18 6 L

∙ kg -1

silt: 0.36 L

∙ kg -1 clay: 0.6 L

∙ kg -1

sand: 0.2 L

∙ kg -1 MRID 42498202

MRID 43560301

MRID 43560302



### 3.1.1. Aldicarb & Residues of Concern

Aldicarb and its degradates are highly mobile and are known to move to ground water in sandy acidic soils. In poorly permeable soils, these residues will move with runoff. Following a rain event, aldicarb may reach aquatic environments as sheet and channel flow from areas of application, since aldicarb is moderately persistent in terrestrial environments and soluble in water. It is unlikely, though, that undissolved granules will reach surface water bodies as the granules themselves are not particularly

mobile and in most cases buried below the surface. The toxic degradates (aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone) are more prone to move vertically down through the soil profile, and potentially into ground

### 17 water, as these residues form primarily in the sh allow subsurface. Ground water that contains aldicarb residues may then be discharged into surface waters as baseflow or tile drain discharge. If the receiving ground water is cool, acidic, and oxic, the sulfoxide a nd sulfone degradates will be very persistent and capable of long-distance subsurface transport. Th e environmental fate and transport properties of aldicarb degradates, aldicarb sulfoxide a nd aldicarb sulfone are summarized in Table 3.1 and 3.2

.

Table 3.2. Environmental Fate Parameters of Degradates of Aldicarb

Fate Endpoint Aldicarb sulfoxide Aldicarb sulfone

Hydrolysis

– pH 5 495 d (MRID 45592104)

Hydrolysis

– pH 7 6% loss at 30 d (MRID 00102066) 63 d (MRID 45592104)

Hydrolysis

– pH 9 2.3 d (MRID 00102066) 1 da @ 25 o C; 32 d @ 5 o C (MRID

45592104 )

Hydrolysis in published literature: Lemley & Zhong, 1983 (45602901); Hansen & Sp iegel, 1983 (45602902 ); Lemley & Zhong, 1984 (45602903 ) Hydrolysis is sensitive to hydroxide concentration (base-catalyzed), with

sulfone most sensitive and aldicarb least (Lemley & Zhong, 1983).

Aldicarb hydrolysis rates increase at pH levels >7.5; sulfoxide and sulfone hydrolyze more readily and are affected by pH and temperature (results for 5, 15 o C) (Hansen & Spiegel, 1983).

Both pH and te mperature dependence seen in hydrolysis of all 3

chemicals. Rates for sulfone at 25 o C 60 d @ pH7, 6 d @ pH8 (Lemley & Zhong, 1984) Aqueous photolysis 123 d (12 hr light/dark) (MRID 45592105 )

Aerobic soil metabolism (MRID 44005001) Concentrations fluctuated

between 9

- 86% of applied from

7 -60 day post treatment Concentrations fluctuated between 3- 80% of applied from 7 -60 day post

treatment

Aerobic soil metabolism range (MRID 00101934) Total carbamate residues (parent, sulfoxide, sulfone) 11

– 110 d in 2 soils x 3 pH x 2 moisture contents; avg 34 d; 90% upper confidence bound 48

d

Aerobic soil metabolism 5 d (MRID 45592108) 3.33 d half-life (pH 6.7 soil) (MRID 00053370)

Aerobic soil metabolism

half -life Total carbamate residues (parent, sulfoxide, sulfone) 28, 47, 136 for 3 soils (MRIDs 00093642, 00080820, 00093640, 00053366)

Lab studies of all 3 forms (Lightfoot et al , 1987; Bank & Tyrrell, 1984) A Combined residues (aldicarb, sulfoxide, sulfone) degraded to oximes,

nitrile with half-lives up to 3 months; soil-catalyzed hydrolysis, not aerobic metabolism was driving factor.

Lightfoot et al , 1987 (MRID

45602904 ) Combined (parent+degradate): 44 (unsterilized)

– 10 (sterilized) d surface

soil 123 (unsterilized)

– 16 (sterilized) d subsurface soil

### 18 Aerobic soil metabolism, 2002 registrant submissions (MRID 45739802) 15.2 d in IL silt (pH 7.9); 91.2 d in NC loamy sand (pH 6.2).

Aerobic soil metabolism

literature (Smelt et al, 1983) sulfone & sulfoxide half-lives in Dutch subsoils from 2-131 d under anaerobic cond., 84 -1100 d under aerobic condition

Aerobic aquatic metabolism,

2002 -3 registrant

submissions 5 d (total system) in pH 7.0 water / pH 6.3 sediment (MRID

45592108 ) 3.5 d (total system) in pH 7.0 water / pH 6.3 sediment (MRID 45592109)

Anaerobic aquatic

metabolism 3.4 d (MRID 45592110) 3.5 d (MRID 45592111)

Published field studies (Jones & Estes, 1995) Summarized results of 32 field studies for aldicarb in 24 locations. Halflife of total carbamate residues (aldicarb, sulfoxide, sulfone) in surface soil ranged from 0.3 to 3.5 months; mean 1.3 mo (40 d) & 90% upper confidence bound on mean 1.5 mo (45 d). In 2 studies, estimated

subsurface half -life of 5 months.

Fruendlich Adsorption Coefficients (K f ) (MRID 42498202

, 43560301 , 43560302) aldicarb sulfoxide ( L

∙ kg -1 ): Tujunga loamy sand: 0.22 Wedowee sandy loam: 0.17 Huntington silt loam: 0.26 Huntington sandy clay loam: 0.26 aldicarb sulfone ( L

∙ kg -1 ): Tujunga loamy sand: 0.09 Wedowee sandy loam: 0.12 Huntington silt loam: 0.22 Huntington sandy clay loam: 0.22

A Study looks at degradation of aldicarb and total carbamates (par ent, sulfoxide & sulfone) in su rface soil, soil water, distille d water,

saturated zone soil in sterilized/unsterilized conditions



### The sulfoxide and sulfone degradates are nearly as mobile as the parent and are more persistent. For aquatic exposures the parent aldicarb may undergo some transformation to the sulfoxide and sulfone residues between the time of application to the soil and a runoff event. The transformation of aldicarb to

its sulfoxide and sulfone forms is shown in Figure 1

.

### 19 Figure 1. Chemical structure of aldicarb a nd its oxidative transformation products

Aldicarb and its oxidation products are all highly mobile in soil. Aldicarb itself has Freundlich K ads 

### values ranging between 0.19 ml/g (for sandy loam) and 0.60 ml/g (for clay) (MRID 42498202). Aldicarb

sulfoxide has Freundlich K ads 

### values between 0.17 ml/g (sandy loam soil) and 0.26 ml/g (sandy clay loam) (MRID 43560301). Aldicarb sulfone had slightly lower values, ranging between 0.09 ml/g and 0.22 ml/g for the same set of soils as the sulfoxide (MRID 43560302). Aldicarb is not expected to be mobile into or through the atmosphere because aldicarb is applied as a granule, and because its potential to enter the air from water is considered insignificant based on its He nry’s Law constant (3.0 x 10 -10



### atm·m 3 

### /mol). Aldicarb may volatize from dry soil under some conditions due to its intermediate to low vapor pressure (6.25 x 10 -6 

### torr). However, it’s half -life in air is estimated by EPISuite (v4.0) to be 28

hours.

Based on the use patterns, which are all granular, minimal off-site spray drift is expected to occur for aldicarb. While aldicarb and its degradates are known to contaminate ground water, it is possible that base flow from ground water into streams may contain aldicarb residues. Aldicarb residues in water from runoff are expected to be higher and assessmen t of concentrations from surface runoff will be used to be protective of risks due to base flow from ground water. Because aldicarb is highly soluble and poorly sorbed on soil particles, concentrations of aldi carb in puddles that may occur after rainfall or an irrigation event may be a significant route of exposure and will be assessed for risks to terrestrial

mammals and birds.

3.2. Aquatic Exposure

For the purposes of this assessment, parent aldicarb and the total toxic residue s (TTR: aldicarb and its sulfoxide and sulfone degradates) were modeled separately. A TTR approach was used to assess risk to aquatic invertebrates because the sulfoxide and sulfone degradates of aldicarb are assumed to be equal in toxicity to the parent; however, parent aldicarb was used to assess risk to fish because the transformation products were shown to be 1 to 2 orders of magnitude less toxic to fish. 

### Aldicarb

Aldicarb Sulfone Aldicarb Sulfoxide C H 3 S C C H N C H 3

O C N C H 3

H O H 3 C

C H 3 S C C H N C H 3

O C N C H 3

H O

O H 3 C

C H 3 S C C H N C H 3

O C N C H 3

H O H 3 C

O O

### 20 Exposure to aldicarb alone is estimated for fish. Th e soil mobility and chemical properties of aldicarb

are listed in Table 3.1 . The chemical input parameters for SWCC are listed in Table 3.3.

Using the Total Toxic Residues (TTR; Ruhman, M., draft document ) method, degradation rates have been estimated for the sum of the parent and the sul foxide and sulfone degradates. This method sums the residues of concern at each time point, and then estimates of degradation rate constant on these summed concentrations. The TTR modeling approach esti mates the aquatic exposure with the aldicarb + sulfoxide + sulfone half-lives (from Table 3.2 ) and the soil mobility and chemical properties of aldicarb (from Table 3.1 ). The TTR approach is appropriate because the degradates of concern (sulfoxide and sulfone) exhibit similar environmental fate character istics. Meanwhile, EFED recognized that the approach is conservative given the limited nature of the data.

Aquatic exposure for aldicarb alone and aldicarb TT R was estimated using the Tier II exposure model Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) (v1.21, February 19, 2015). Chemical input parameters for SWCC follow in Table 3.3

.

Table 3.3. SWCC Chemical Input Parameters for Aldicarb and Aldicarb TTR

Input Parameter Value Justification Source

K d (mL/g) 0.16 Mean value for aldicarb TTR MRID

42498202

43560301

43560302 0.34 Me an value for aldicarb

Aerobic aquatic metabolism

half -life (days) [T emp. (°C)] 12 [25] Single acceptable guideline study for aldicarb TTR (4 days) x 3 MRID

44592107

23 [25] No data for parent aldicarb; use 2X

aerobic soil half-life 2009 Guidance

Anaerobic aquatic

metabolism half

- life (days) 24 No data for aldicarb TTR; use 2X aerobic aquatic half-life Open Literature

0 Default value in the absence of data for parent aldicarb USEPA, 2012

Aqueous photolysis half-life (days) [Ref. Latitude ( 40°)] 4 Represents the single value for the

residues of concern MRID

42498201 Single acceptable guideline study for parent aldicarb

### 21 Input Parameter Value Justification Source

Hydrolysis half-life (days) [pH 7] 0 Represents the value for aldicarb TTR and parent aldicarb MRID

00102065

Aerobic soil metabolism

half -life (days) [T emp. (25°C)] 55 Represents the upper 90% confidence

bound mean for combined aldicarb

TTR half-life from 19 soils MRID

00102051

00093642

00080820

00093640

00053366

00101934

00035365

00102071

11.6 Represents the upper 90% confidence

bound mean for aldicarb half-li ves from 7 soils MRID

44005001

00093642

45602904

45739801

Foliar half-life (days) 0 Default value in the absence of data USEPA, 2012

Efficiency 0.99 Label stated exclusively for ground use only 

### Meymik 15G

labeled use Drift 0 Label stated that active ingredient and formulation are in granular form, thus no spray drift

Molecular mass (g/mol) 190.3 Molecular mass of aldicarb Calculated

Vapor pressure (torr) [temp. (25°C)] 6.3 × 10 -6 Study value for aldicarb MRID

00152095

Solubility in water (mg/L) (25°C) 6,000 Study value for aldicarb Acc 255979



### Chemical property and environmental fate input values were chosen in accordance with current input parameter guidance (USEPA, 2009). Based on analysis of the residues of concern (TTR) and parent aldicarb, the 90% confidence bounds on the mean half- lives for aerobic soil metabolism was selected. Meanwhile, the hydrolysis value of pH 7 and 9 were examined. Due to the fact that both pHs resulted in minor differences in output values for all crop scenarios, the environmentally relevant pH 7 was

selected.

SWCC use pattern inputs are listed in Table 3.4 . Modeled SWCC scenarios were those applicable to the labeled use sites that resulted in the highest exposure. Modeled application rates and numbers of applications per year include the maximum allowed on the label. Dates of initial application were selected within the scenario crop season and ch aracterized by vulnerability to runoff. Runoff vulnerability was explored by modeling various application rates, application methods, and the range within the crop season including application da tes, initial application dates falling on the 1 st 

### to 15 th 

### of months, an initial or follow-up post-emergence 14 to 21-day steps and selecting the date for which exposure estimates were highest. This was expected to produce high-end exposure estimates that are conservative but that may not represent the high est possible exposure. If exposure estimates resulting

### 22 from these high-end exposure scenarios do not result in risk concerns, then there are no risk concerns from less-high-end exposure scenarios either.

Aldicarb use on sweet potatoes was not modeled b ecause the application instruction requires the granules to be covered to a sufficient soil depth (8-10 inches hilling or bed forming process) limiting runoff, thus reducing the potential surface water exposure. 2 

### In addition, since drift is not expected from granular application of aldicarb, offsite exposure is expected to be minimal for this use.

Table 3.4. SWCC Scenarios and Input Parameters Describing Maximum Patterns of Aldicarb Use on Representative Use Sites A

Use Site (Labeled Use) SWCC Scenario Date of App. App. Rate in lbs

a.i./A (App. Time) App.

per
Year App.

Interval

(days) CAM Input Application Efficiency/ Spray

Drift

Cotton MS cotton Sep. 1 1.05 (At Planting) 0.75 (Side Dress) 2 21 1

0.99/0 Dry Beans MI beans Apr. 1 2.1 (At Planting) 1 NA 1

Peanuts NC peanuts Apr. 1 Apr. 15 1.05 (At Planting) 1.5 (Post Emergence) 2 14 7

2

Soybeans MS soybeans Apr. 1 1.05 (At Planting) 1 NA 1

Sugar B eets MN sugar beets Apr. 16 4.05 A (Post Emergence) 1 NA 1

*NA = Not Applicable

A The 4.05 lbs a.i./A rate was selected for modeling because it is the highest application rate that can be applied over irrigat ion furrow without soil cover, which increases potential surface water exposure. All uses were modeled using a 2 cm incorporation depth, the default value whe n no depth is specified.



### Surface water exposure estimate s per use site for aldicarb only are listed in Table 3.5 , while estimates for aldicarb residues of concern (TTR) are listed in Table 3.6 . Model input and output files are attached

in Appendix B . The maximum use pattern on sugar beets re sults in the highest environmental exposure concentrations (EEC).

Table 3.5. Aquatic Exposure Estimates from Aldicarb Use Sites (Aldicarb Only) A

Use Site SWC C Scenario 1-in-10-year Peak ( μ g/L) 1-in-10-year 21- day Mean ( μ g/L) 1-in-10-year 60- day Mean ( μ g/L)

Cotton MS cotton 28.9 25.7 19.9

Dry Beans MI beans 28.2 26.4 21.8

Peanuts NC peanuts 17.4 14.7 11.8

Soybeans MS soybeans 22.3 19 13.2

Sugar Beets MN sugar beets 53 47.7 36.8

A

Maximum values are in bold.

2 The SWCC only considers runoff in the top 4 cm for ground ap plications; therefore, no runoff would result from modeling

this scenario.

### 23 Table 3.6. Aquatic Exposure Estimates fr om Aldicarb Use Sites (Aldicarb TTR) A

Use Site SWCC Scenario 1-in-10-year Peak ( μ g/L) 1-in-10-year 21- day Mean ( μ g/L) 1-in-10-year 60- day Mean ( μ g/L)

Cotton MS cotton 35.1 28.3 17.7

Dry Beans MI beans 30.6 26.4 18.2

Peanuts NC peanuts 21.1 15.6 10

Soybeans MS soybeans 26.7 20.1 11.3

Sugar Beets MN sugar beets 78 59.7 38

A

Maximum values are in bold.



### 3.3. Bioaccumulation

Aldicarb and residues of concerns are not expected to appreciably bioaccumula te in aquatic or terrestrial organisms given the low log K OW 

### of 1.06.

3.4. Monitoring Data

Included in this assessment are available data on aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, and aldicarb sulfoxide (aldicarb residues of concern) from non-targeted monitoring conducted in the following water monitoring programs: the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) surface water database ( http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/surfcont.htm) , the USGS NAWQA surface and ground water database ( http://cida.usgs.gov/nawqa_queries_public/ ), the USEPA STORET Data Warehouse ( http://www.epa.gov/storet/ ).

3.4.1. USEPA STORET Data Warehouse Surface Water Data

STORET data indicate that all 50 states in the U.S. including the District of Columbia were monitored for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, and aldicarb sulfoxide at various times from February 1986 to December 2014. Samples were collected from 793 sites, with pa rent aldicarb, sulfoxide, and sulfone sample totals of 2229, 2215, and 2121, respectively. Aldicarb residues were detected in 222 samples with a detection percentage of 1.8% out of the total samples. The lowest range of detection level was 0.017 μ g/L and the highest detected concentration was 0.5 μ g/L.

Parent aldicarb and sulfone was detec ted simultaneously in one sample with a concentration of 0.5 and

0.4 μ g/L, respectively in San Miguel County, New Mexico on August 2001. Sulfoxide was detected in a total of five samples with the highest concentration at 0.3 μ g/L in San Miguel, New Mexico on August 2001. The other four samples were found within the range of 0.0173-0.111 μ g/L between May 2004 to April 2006 in Mohave, San Diego, and Alameda Count ies, California (U.S. Geological Survey 2015).

Monitoring data for USEPA STORET results indicated that the monitoring is non-targeted and while some sites were sampled twice to more than ten ti mes but the overwhelming majority were sampled only once. The timing of the monitoring was irregular as well. Some sites were monitored for several consecutive years, however, many sites with detec ted aldicarb and residues were only sampled once and no follow-up monitoring. Hence, the data cannot be correlated with aldicarb use.

### 24 3.4.2. USGS NAWQA Surface Water Data

NAWQA data indicate that 50 states in the U.S. and the District of Columbia except for Kentucky were monitored for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, and aldi carb sulfone at various times from May 1992 to December 2013. A total of 99 samples were collected from 34 sites. The total number of parent aldicarb, sulfoxide, and sulfone detections and percenta ge per total number sampled were 231 and 0.5%, respectively. Parent aldicarb, sulf oxide, and sulfone de tections in surface water monitoring data are summarized in their individual sections in the following:

3.4.2.1. Aldicarb

Criteria Data

Number of Surface Water Detections 54 (8,456 Total Samples)

Lowest Surface Water Detection 0.08 μ g/L (Weld County, CO; July 1994) Highest Surface Water Detection 2.21 μ g/L (Sumter County, GA; September 1993)

Earliest Detection 0.34 μ g/L (Beaufort County, NC; April 1993)

Latest Detection 0.1625 μ g/L (Washington County, MS; May 2005)



### State County Detection

Numbers Concentration ( μ g/L) Collection Date Range

AL Russell, Houston, Henry 4 0.28 - 0.37 June 1993

CA Merced 1 0.46 April 1993

CO Weld 1 0.08 July 1994

GA Baker, Carroll, etc. (21 Counties) 41 0.26 - 0.9 Jun

– Nov 1993

Cobb* 1 1.47 Nov 1993

Sumter* 1 2.21 Sep 1993

MS Washington 1 0.1625 May 2005

NJ Somerset 1 0.13 Jul 1997

NC Beaufort 1 0.34 Apr 1993

SC Orangeburg 1 0.48 May 1996

WY Big Horn 1 0.37 Apr 1999
*Location were listed specifically due to concentration over 1 μ g/L. Numbers are also bolded.



### 3.4.2.2. Aldicarb Sulfoxide

Criteria Data

Number of Surface Water Detections 33 (8,334 Total Samples)

Lowest Surface Water Detection 0.0009 μ g/L (Hancock County, IN; July 2010) Highest Surface Water Detection 1.91 μ g/L (Madison, LA; May 1997)

Earliest Detection 0.92 μ g/L (Sumter County, GA; April 1994)

Latest Detection 0.0024 μ g/L (St. Mary County, LA; May 2011)



### State County Detection

Numbers Concentration ( μ g/L) Collection Date Range

AL Madison 14 0.0033-0.1674 Apr 2000

– Apr 2010

CA San Joaquin 1 0.0047 Feb 2002

### 25 CO Weld 1 0.98 Aug 1994

GA Sumter 1 0.92 Apr 1994

IN Hancock 1 0.0009 Jul 2010

LA Madison 4 0.5

– 1.91 May 1997 St. Mary 1 0.0024 May 2011

MS Warren, Washington 6 0.004 - 0.1009 May 2005

– Jun 2010

OR Marion 2 0.0042 - 0.008 Jun

– Jul 2002

SC Orangeburg 1 1.2 May 1996

NY Suffolk 1 0.0183 Jul 2007

*Concentrations >1 μ g/L are bolded.



### 3.4.2.3. Aldicarb Sulfone

Criteria Data

Number of Surface Water Detections 12 (8,344 Total Samples)

Lowest Surface Water Detection 0.065 μ g/L (Madison County, AL; October 2000) Highest Surface Water Detection 0.1574 μ g/L (Denver, CO; April 2002)

Earliest Detection 0.07 μ g/L (Washoe County, NV; July 1994)

Latest Detection 0.0059 μ g/L (Sarpy County, NE; August 2010)



### State County Detection

Numbers Concentration ( μ g/L) Collection Date Range

AL Madison 8 0.065 - 0.1035 Apr 2000

– Apr 2010

CO Denver 1 0.1574 Apr 2002

NE Sarpy 1 0.0059 Aug 2010

NV Washoe 1 0.07 Jul 1994

NY Suffolk 1 0.0287 Jul 2007



### 3.4.2.4. USGS NAWQA Monitoring Data Summary

Monitoring data from USGS NAWQA was more ex tensive than that of USEPA STORET. Results shows that the detection frequencies for parent aldi carb were in the Southeastern U.S., where out of 54 samples, 43 were in Georgia. Except for 2 samples were from the same sites, all of them were from different sampling sites. The detection frequencie s for both aldicarb sulfone and sulfoxide were also mostly at different sampling points in the Southeastern U.S.

USGS NAWQA database follows similar trend to that of USEPA STORET where it is non-targeted monitoring and the timing of monitoring is irregular. Further, the sample collection was not targeted for

aldicarb use and the data cannot be co rrelated with aldicarb use as well.

3.4.3. California Department of Pesticide Regu lation (CDPR) Surface Water Database

The CDPR Surface Water Database indicates that al dicarb TTR was analyzed at 293 surface water sites in California at various times from February 1991 to October 2010. A total of 6795 samples were collected. While some sites were sampled for a tota l of 16 times over the span of 4 years, most of the sites were sampled at least 3 or more times at various times. Aldicarb and its residues were detected in a

### 26 total of eleven samples, where eight were of parent aldicarb. The earliest detection of aldicarb was in San Joaquin River, Stanislaus in July 1991 and the most recent was in two storm drain samples in Sacramento on August 2009 with the lowest range concentration of 0.084-0.086 μ g/L. Aldicarb was detected in the same sampling point twice (Miles Creek, Merced County) with the highest measured

concentration of 5.4 μ g/L on June 2007 but decreased 10-fold to 0.53 in June 2008. Other detections of aldicarb occurred in Colusa Basin drain, Yolo (0.7 μ g/L) on April 2000, Deadman Creek, Merced (1.2

μ g/L) on June 2007, and Logan Creek, Colusa (1.5 μ g/L) on May 2008.

Aldicarb sulfone was detected in two samples, 0.05 μ g/L on August 1991 in the San Joaquin River and

0.258 μ g/L on February 1992 in Turlock Irrigation District drain, both on Stanislaus County. Meanwhile, sulfoxide was measured in one sample at 0.28 μ g/L on July 1991 in the San Joaquin River.

3.4.4. Monitoring Data Summary

Aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, and aldicarb sulfone were monitored in non-targeted sites for surface water in all 50 states in the U.S. including the District of Columbia from February 1986 to December 2014. Note that much of this monitoring data was collec ted prior to mitigation and use reduction associated with reregistration of aldicarb. Th e mitigation was implemented in 2009. Overall, the highest detection

of aldicarb residues of concern in these databases is 5.4 μ g/L in surface water (parent aldicarb). This

concentration is within an order of ma gnitude of modeled chronic exposure estimates (10.7 μ g/L for surface water) for aldicarb residues of concern.

The 2009 mitigation implementation may have caused the decrease in the number of detections and concentrations of aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, and aldicarb sulfone in surface water. However, since the monitoring databases were non-targeted, especially for aldicarb use, and the sampling frequency was inconsistent, the observation cannot be verified by th e lack of detections of aldicarb and its residues in surface water samples post 2009.

3.5. Ecological Effects Characterization

Consistent with current procedures, the risk assessmen t for aldicarb will rely on a surrogate species approach. Toxicological data generated from surrogate test species, which are intended to be representative of broad taxonomic groups, are used to extrapolate to potential effects on a variety of species (receptors) included under these taxonomic groupings.

The Agency evaluates the potential for adverse effects as a result of aldicarb us age. The most sensitive endpoint for each taxon is used for RQ calculations . Assessment endpoints include direct toxic effects on the survival, reproduction, and growth of terrestrial a nd aquatic life, as well as indirect effects, such as reduction in prey base and/or modification of ha bitat. The evaluated taxa include fish, aquatic invertebrates, birds, small mammals, terrestrial invert ebrates, aquatic plants, and terrestrial plants.

Acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) toxicity information is characterized based on registrantsubmitted studies and a comprehensive review of the open literature on aldicarb. A summary of the available ecological toxicity data (including review classifications and associated deficiencies) for aldicarb and degradates is in Appendix A . The data is summarized briefly in Sections 3.5.1 to 3.5.8. The degradate information is presented throughout Sections 3.5.1 to 3.5.8 , as well as in Section 3.6

.

### 27 Other sources of information, including reviews of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS),

are conducted to further refine the characterizat ion of potential ecological effects associated with exposure to aldicarb. A summary of the available th e incident information for aldicarb is described in

Section 3.7

.

Overall, aldicarb is highly toxic to virtually all animal species tested.

Table 3.7 Measures of Ecological Effects for Aldicarb

Assessment Endpoint Selected Surrogate Species and Measure of Ecological Effect Comments

Birds

Survival Mallard duck oral LD 50 = 1 mg ai/kg-bw (very highly toxic)

Passerine oral LD 50 = 0.75 mg ai/kg-bw (very highly toxic) MRID 00107398

MRID 00148695

Survival Mallard duck subacute dietary LC 50 = 594 ppm (moderately toxic)

Bobwhite quail subacute dietary LC 50 = 71 ppm (highly toxic) MRID 01096727

MRID 00102132

Reproduction and growth Mallard duck NOAEC;LOAEC = no established

effects

Bobwhite quail NOAEC = 1.8 ppm; LOAEL = 8.3 ppm MRID 48198801

MRID 48156905

Mammals Survival Rat LD 50 = 0.9 mg ai/kg bw (very highly toxic) MRID 00057333

Reproduction and growth Rat NOAEL = 0.4 ppm; LOAEL = 0.7-0.9 ppm MRID 42148401

Freshwater fish

Survival Rainbow trout acute 96-hr LC 50 = 0.560 ppm ai (highly toxic)

Bluegill sunfish 96-hr LC 50 = 0.052 ppm ai (very highly toxic) MRID 40098001

MRID 40098001

Reproduction and growth Fathead minnow NOAEC = 0.078 ppm; LOAEC = 0.156 ppm

Effects MRID 44598601

Freshwater

invertebrates Survival Chironomus acute 48-hr EC 50 = 0.020 ppm ai (very highly toxic) Moore et al. 1998

Reproduction and growth Daphnia NOAEC = 0.020 ppm ai; LOAEC = 0.058 ppm ai MRID 45592112

Estuarine/marine

fish Survival Sheepshead minnow LC 50 = 0.041 ppm ai (very highly toxic) MRID 40228401

Reproduction and growth Sheepshead minnow NOAEC = 0.05 ppm; LOAEC = 0.088ppm MRID 00066341

Estuarine/marine

invertebrates Survival Pink shrimp LC 50 = 0.012 ppm ai (very highly toxic) Oyster 96-hr EC 50 = 8.8 ppm ai (moderately toxic) MRID 40228401

MRID 00066341

Reproduction and growth Mysid NOAEC = 0.0013 ppm; LOAEC = 0.0015 ppm MRID 00066341

Terrestrial plants Survival and growth Seedling Emergence : >25% effects observed in ryegrass (shoot weight) and tomato (shoot length and weight) in Tier I study

No effects to Ryegrass of Tomato in Tier II study using granular

TEMIK 15G.

Vegetative Vigor: No data but prior waiver was granted MRID 47904401

MRID 49477401

Insects Survival Acute contact LD 50 = 0.285 ug/bee (highly toxic) MRID 00036935

### 28 Assessment Endpoint Selected Surrogate Species and Measure of Ecological Effect Comments

Aquatic plants Biomass and

Growth Rate 7 day Duckweed EC 50 > 88.7 ppm ai; NOAEC = 5.50 ppm

5 day Marine Diatom EC 50 > 50 ppm ai MRID 47904402

MRID 40228401

LD 50 = Lethal dose to 50% of the test population; NOAEC = No observed adverse effect concentration; NOAEL = No observed adverse effect level; LC 50 = Lethal concentration to 50% of the test population; EC 50 = Effect concentration to 50% of the test population; IC 50 = concentration resulting in a 50% inhibition in the test population response ( e.g. , growth)



### 3.5.1. Toxicity to Birds and Mammals

The acute oral LD 50 

### is 1.0 mg/kg-bw for aldicarb and 33.5 mg/kg-bw for aldicarb sulfone. The most sensitive species tested for both chemicals is the mallard duck. Aldicarb and aldicarb sulfone are categorized as very highly toxic and highly toxic to avian species on an acute oral basis, respectively (MRID 00107398). An open literature study provides an acute oral LD 50 

### of 0.75 mg aldicarb/kg-bw for passerine species (MRID 00148695).

The most sensitive species tested on a subacute 5-d d ietary basis for both aldicarb and aldicarb sulfone is the bobwhite quail. The LC 50 

### is 71 ppm for aldicarb and 5706 ppm for aldicarb sulfone. Aldicarb and aldicarb sulfone are categorized as very highly toxic and practically non-toxic to avian species, respectively, based on the subacute dietary exposure data (MRID 00102132 & 01096727, respectively).

Avian reproduction data suggests that aldicarb has reproductive effects at 8.3 ppm with a NOAEC of 1.8 ppm (MRID 48198801). Although none of the endpoints in the treated groups displayed statistically significant differences compared to controls, severa l of the endpoints had 10-25% difference in the two highest treatments. These endpoints include: number of eggs laid/pen, number of eggs set/pen, number of viable embryos/pen, number of live embryos/pen, number of hatchlings/pen, hatchling survival/pen. In addition, adult body weight gain was also decreased in these treatments. These differences may be biologically significant. Therefore, the NOAEC was 1.8 ppm and the LOAEC was 8.3 ppm.

Acute oral LD 50 

### and reproduction data for laboratory rats submitted to the Health Effects Division (HED) for evaluation of human toxicity were used to assess the mammalian acute and chronic toxicity

of aldicarb. The LD 50 

### for rats is 0.9 mg ai/kg-bw (MRID 00057333). These results classify aldicarb as very highly toxic to mammals on an acute exposure basis. In a 2-generation reproduction study (MRID 42148401), rats were exposed to aldicarb in their diet at concentrations of 0, 2, 5, 10, and 20 ppm. Exposure consistently led to decreased dam body weight gain (parental LOAEL = 0.7 - 0.9 mg/kg-bw; NOAEL = 0.4 mg/kg-bw). Aldicarb treatment also caused lower survivability and pup weights in offspring of all litters (reproductive LOAEL = 1.4 - 1.7 mg/kg-bw; NOAEL = 0.7 - 0.9 mg/kg-bw). These toxicity values are similar to the acute oral LD 50 

### mammalian values and suggest that mammals that survive acute aldicarb exposure may suffer adve rse reproductive effects from chronic exposure.

3.5.2. Toxicity to Terrestrial Invertebrates

An acute contact study using aldicarb resulted in an LD 50 

### of 0.285 μ g/bee and the compound was classified as highly toxic (MRID 00036935). Because of its granular formulation, it is unlikely that there is a direct contact exposure scenario for hone ybees to granules. Other soil dwelling beneficial insects and invertebrates could be exposed to ald icarb and aldicarb residues through contact with the

### 29 granules and/or with plants due to its systemic nat ure. Honey bees and other terrestrial invertebrates could also be exposed to aldicarb via contaminated pollen and nectar given its systemic nature.

3.5.3. Toxicity to Plants

A seedling emergence study was submitted (MRID 47904401) but was classified as supplemental. The most sensitive monocot species was ryegrass, with a 12 and 44% difference in shoot length and weight, respectively, compared to the control. The most se nsitive dicot species was tomato, with a 28 and 25% difference in shoot length and weight, respectively, co mpared to the control. Phytotoxic effects, including stunting and necrosis, were observed in ryegrass and tomatoes. Based on the observance of >25% effects in ryegrass and tomato, a tier II study with these two species was necessary to fulfill the guideline requirement for 850.4100. A Tier II study (MRID 49477401) on these two species was submitted and

resulted in no effects to ryegrass or tomato using granular TEMIK 15G at approved application rates. A vegetative vigor study was not available since a waiver was previously granted for it because the only currently registered products containing aldicarb are granular.

3.5.4. Fish

Since the LC 50 

### for fish falls in the range of 52 to 8860 ppb, aldicarb is categorized as very highly to moderately toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis. The most sensitive freshwater fish species tested for aldicarb was the bluegill sunfish. The LC 50 

### for aldicarb was 52 ppb for the bluegill sunfish which is characterized as very highly toxic to freshwater fish [MRID 40098001 and MRID 3503 (Mayer and Ellersieck 1986)]. This same study found an LC 50 

### of 560 ppb for the rainbow trout. A supplemental acute toxicity test conducted under static conditions found an LC 50 

### for aldicarb of 110 ppb for juvenile bluegill sunfish. Because of the static conditions, it is likely this value reflects contribution of parent aldicarb and its degradates. This study characterized aldicarb as very highly toxic to juvenile bluegill sunfish. A supplemental study from the open literat ure also concluded that aldicarb was moderately

toxic to the fathead minnow Pimephales promelas with a reported 48-hour EC 50 

### of 8860 ppb (Moore. et
al . 1998). The LC 50 

### of 52 ppb for the bluegill sunfish was used to calculate risk quotients in prior assessments because it was the most sensitive endpoint.

A freshwater fish early life-stage test using aldi carb has been conducted with the fathead minnow. The NOAEC was 78 ppb, the LOAEC was 156 ppb. The most sensitive endpoint was the survival of juveniles after 30-days exposure. [MRID 44598601 also identified as BOWOAL07/4 (Q.H. Pickering and W.T. Gilliam 1982)].

A saltwater fish chronic study was conducted using the sheepshead minnow (MRID 00066341). The NOAEC was 50 ppb, the LOAEC was 88 ppb. The most se nsitive endpoint was growth (mean standard length).

3.5.5. Aquatic Invertebrates

An acceptable Daphnia magna study determined the EC 50 

### to be 410 ppb (Acc #096683, also identified as BOWOAL08, and MRID 00107395), categorizing aldicarb as highly toxic to aquatic freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. Because this test was conducted under static rather than flowthrough conditions, it is likely that this value reflects the contributions of a mixture of parent aldicarb

### 30 and various degradates. A supplemental st udy from the literature reported the LC 50 

### of aldicarb to Daphnia magna, Aedes aegypti, Atermia sp., and Aedes taeniorhynchus as 75, 290, 5460, and 150 ppb respectively, in 48-hour static tests (Song et al. , 1997). A supplemental study from open literature also concluded that aldicarb was very highly toxic to Daphnia magna with a reported 48-hour EC 50 

### was of 583 ppb (Moore et al . 1998). This same study reported a 48-hour EC 50 

### of 3990 ppb for Hyalella azteca (categorized as moderately toxic) and a reported 48-hour EC 50 

### of 20 ppb for Chironomus dilutus (formerly known as C. tentans )

. A supplemental study obtained from open literature (Foran et al. 1985)

determined the 48-hr EC 50 

### of juvenile Daphnia laevis to be 65 ppb and 51 ppb for adult Daphnia laevis categorizing aldicarb as very highly toxic.

Because Moore et al. (1998) is classified as a supplemental study of high quality, the 48 hr Chironomus

tentans EC 50 

### value of 20 ppb was used in prior risk character izations and will continued to be used for

this assessment.

A chronic estuarine/marine invertebrate full life-cycle test using aldicarb has been conducted with mysid shrimp. The NOAEC was 1.3 ppb and the LOAEC was 1.5 ppb. The most sensitive endpoint was average number of offspring (MRID 00066341).

3.5.6. Aquatic Plants

A 7-day acute toxicity study with duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) resulted in a LC50 of >88.7 mg ai/L (the highest test concentration). The NOAEC was 5.50 mg ai /L based on effects to frond number, biomass and dry weight at the LOAEC of 14.3 mg ai/L (MRID 47904402). A 5 day study with the diatom produced an

EC 50 

### of >50 ppm (MRID 40228401).

3.6. Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered Species

In November 2013, the EPA, along with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, th e Services), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a summary of their joint Interim Approaches for assessing risks to listed species from pesticides. The Interim Approaches were developed jo intly by the agencies in response to the National Academy of S ciences’ (NAS) recommendations and reflect a common approach to risk assessment shared by the agencies as a way of addressing scient ific differences between the EPA and the Services. The NAS report 3 

### outlines recommendations on specific scien tific and technical issues related to the development of pesticide risk assessments that EPA and the Services must conduct in connection with their obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and FIFRA.

The joint Interim Approaches were released prior to a stakeholder workshop held on November 15, 2013. In addition, the EPA presented the joint Inte rim Approaches at the December 2013 Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPD C) and State-FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG) meetings, and held a stakeholder works hop in April 2014, allowing additional opportunities for stakeholders to comment on the Interim Appro aches. As part of a phased, iterative process for developing the Interim Approaches, the agencies will also consider public comments on the Interim Approaches in connection with the development of upcoming Registration Review decisions. The

3 http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18344

### 31 details of the joint Interim Approaches are contained in the white paper “Interim Approaches for National-Level Pesticide Endange red Species Act Assessments Based on the Recommendations of the

National A cademy of Sciences April 2013 Report,” dated November 1, 2013. 4



### Given that the agencies are continuing to deve lop and work toward implementation of the Interim Approaches to assess the potential risks of pesticides to listed species and their designated critical habitat, this preliminary risk assessment for aldica rb does not contain a complete ESA analysis that includes effects determinations for specific listed species or designated critical habitat. Although EPA has not yet completed effects determinations for sp ecific species or habitats, for this preliminary assessment EPA conducted a screening-level assessment for all taxa of non-target wildlife and plants

that assumes for the sake of the assessment that listed species and designated critical habitats may be present in the vicinity of the application of aldicarb. This screening level assessment will allow EPA to focus its future evaluations on the types of species where the potential for effects exists once the scientific methods being developed by the agencies ha ve been fully vetted. This screening-level risk assessment for aldicarb indicates potential risks of direct effects to all listed taxa with the exception of aquatic plants on some of its registered use sites. Lis ted species of all taxa may also be affected through indirect effects because of the potential for direct effects on listed and non-listed species upon which such species may rely. Potential direct effects on li sted species from the use of aldicarb may be associated with modification of Primary Constituen t Elements (PCEs) of designated critical habitats, where such designations have been made. Once the agencies have fully developed and implemented the scientific methods necessary to complete risk assessmen ts for endangered and t hreatened (listed) species and their designated critical habitats, these methods will be applied to subsequent analyses for aldicarb as part of completing this registration review.

3.7. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)

As required by FIFRA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA reviews numerous studies to assess potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectively, these studies include acute, subchronic and chronic toxicity, including assessments of carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, developmental, reproductive, and gene ral or systemic toxicity. These studies include endpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine infl uence, including effects on endocrine target organ histopathology, organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual maturation, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, and sex ratios in offspring. For ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and chronic studies that assess growth, devel opmental and reproductive effects in different taxonomic groups. As part of the Preliminary Problem Formulation for Registration Review (USEPA, 2012, DP398519), EPA reviewed these data and selected th e most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment scenarios from the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), Aldicarb is subject to the endocrine screenin g part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whether ce rtain substances (including pesticide active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect produced by a “naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine ef fects as the Administrator may designate.” The EDSP employs a two-tiered approach to making the statutorily required determinations. Tier 1 consists of a

4 http://www.epa.gov/espp/2013/nas.html

### 32 battery of 11 screening assays to identify the poten tial of a chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to inte ract with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA will deter mine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2 testing is designe d to identify any adverse endocrine-related effects caused by the substance, and establish a dose-response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T

effect.

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call-ins for the first group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. A second list of chemicals identified for EDSP screening was published on June 14, 2013[1] and includes some pest icides scheduled for registration review and chemicals found in water

. Neither of these lists should be construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors. Aldicarb is not on List 1. For further information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the lists of chem icals, future lists, the test guidelines and Tier 1 screening battery, please visit http://www.epa.gov/endo/.

3.8. Degradate Toxicity

Aldicarb’s sulfone and sulfoxide degradates have been shown to be 1 to 2 orders of magnitude less toxic to fish compared with parent al dicarb to aquatic organi sms. Minimal difference in toxicity between the parent and degradates was seen for aquatic inve rtebrates. For more detailed information see the Appendix

A

.

3.9. Incident Database Review

The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) and the Incident Data System (IDS) were queried on April 30, 2015. A total of 46 plant and wildlife incidents were in EIIS, 68 domestic animal incidents were in IDS (EIIS does not currently contain information on most of the reported domestic animal incidents), and 283 aggregate incidents have been reported (very little information is reported in aggregate incidents). Many incidents reported in EIIS were associated with intentional poisoning of wildlife. Plant and wildlife incidents are summarized in Table 3.8. Very few incidents that occur are observed or reported to the Agency. Therefore, the number of incidents reported is considered to be a very small fraction of the number of incidents that actually occur. Also, incident reports for non-target organisms typically provide information only on mortality events and plant damage. Sublethal effects in organisms such as abnormal behavior, reduced growth and /or impaired reproduction are rarely reported, except for phytotoxic effects in terrestrial plants.

Uncertainties Related to the Use of Incident Info rmation from the Ecological Incident Information System

Incident data are used in risk assessments to provide evidence that the risk predictions from the screening level assessment are supported by actual effects in the field. Incident reports submitted to EPA since approximately 1994 have been tracked by assi gnment of incident numbers in an Incident Data

[1] See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0477-0074 for the final second list of

chemicals.

### 33 System (IDS), microfiched, and then the ecological incidents (those with enough detailed information) are entered into a second database, the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS). Additionally, there is an on-going effort to enter information to EIIS on incident reports received prior to

establishment of current databases. Incident re ports are not received in a consistent format ( e.g ., states and various labs usually have their own formats), ma y involve multiple incidents involving multiple chemicals in one report, and may report on only part of a given incident investigation ( e.g ., residues).

Incidents entered into EIIS are categorized into one of several certainty levels regarding the likelihood that a particular pesticide is associated with the incident: highly probable, probable, possible, unlikely,

or unrelated. In brief, “highly probable” incidents usually require carcass residues and/or clear circumstances regarding the exposure. “Probable” incidents include those where residues were not available and/or circumstances were less clear than for “highly probable.” “Possible” incidents include those where multiple chemicals may have been involved and it is not clear what the contribution was of a given chemical. The “unlikely” category is used, for exampl e, where a given chemical is practically nontoxic to the category of organism killed and/or the chemical was tested for but not detected in samples. “Unrelated” incidents are those that have been confirmed to be not pesticide -related.

Incidents entered into the EIIS are also categorized as to use/misuse (the legality of use classifications are registered use, misuse, or undetermined). Unless specifically confirmed by a state or federal agency to be misuse, or there was very clear misuse such as in tentional baiting to kill wildlife, incidents are not typically considered misuse.

The number of documented kills in EIIS is believed to be a small fraction of total mortality caused by pesticides. Mortality incidents must be seen, repor ted, and have reports submitted to EPA to have the potential for entry into the database. Incidents often ar e not seen, due to scave nger removal of carcasses, decay in the field, or simply because carcasses may be hard to see on many sites and/or few people are systematically looking. Poisoned animals may also move off-site to less conspicuous areas before dying. Incidents may not get reported to appropriate authorities capable of investigating the incident for a variety of reasons including the finder may not know of the importance of reporting incidents, may not know who to call, may not feel they have the time or de sire to call, or may hesitate to call because of their own involvement in the kill. Incidents reported may not get investigated if resources are limited or may not get investigated thoroughly, with residue anal yses, for example. Also, if kills are not reported and investigated promptly, there will be little chance of documenting the cause, since tissues and residues may deteriorate quickly. Reports of investiga ted incidents often do not get submitted to EPA, since reporting by states is voluntary.

Furthermore, the database relies heavily on regist rant-submitted incident reports, and registrants are currently only required to submit detailed information on ‘major’ ecological incidents, while ‘minor’ incidents are reported aggregately.

Based on the 40 CFR (§159.184 Toxic or adverse effect incident reports), an ecological incident is considered ‘major’ if any of the following criteria are met:

Fish or wildlife : (A) Involves any incident caused by a pesticide currently in Formal Review for ecological

concerns.

### 34 (B) Fish: Affected 1,000 or more individuals of a schooling species or 50 or more individuals of a non-schooling species.

(C) Birds: Affected 200 or more individuals of a flocking species, or 50 or more individuals of a songbird species, or 5 or more individuals of a predatory species.

(D) Mammals, reptiles, amphibians: Affected 50 or more individuals of a relatively common or herding species or 5 or more individuals of a rare or solitary species.

(E) Involves effects to, or illegal pesticide trea tment (misuse) of a substantial tract of habitat (greater than or equal to 10 acres, terrestrial or aquatic).

Plants : (A) The effect is alleged to have occurred on more than 45 percent of the acreage exposed to the pesticide.

All other ecological incidents are considered ‘minor’ and only need to be aggregately reported. ‘Minor’ incidents reported by the registrants are not included in the EIIS database. Therefore, for example, an incident could affect 900 fish, 150 birds, 45 mammals, and 40% of an exposed crop and not be included in the EIIS database [unless is it reported by a non-registrant ( e.g ., an incident submitted by a state

agency

– which are not systematically collected)]. Theref ore, because the number of documented kills in

EIIS is believed to be a small fraction of total mor tality caused by pesticides, absence of reports does not necessarily provide evidence of an absence of incidents.Table 3.8. Incidents Summary for Aldicarb from EIISIncident IDUse SiteLegalityCertaintyCountryYearTotalMagnitudeAppl.MethodProductSummary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports)Aquatic Incidents in EIISI000165-052Agricultural AreaRegistered UsePossibleUSA1992SMALLNUMBERSoilincorporationTEMIKAssumed application of several products onto corn and tobacco cropfields, followedby continuous heavy rains, allegedly resulted in runoff from the fields intosurrounded pond causing a fishkill. No other data was reported relative to thisincident withthe exception of naming the four products applied. Products wereFuradan 15G, Nitrogen, Counter Granules and Temik Granules. Due to lack of residuedata it is not possible to assign a greater degree of certainty to the cause of thisincident. Any of the above could possibly have been responsible for the observedmortalities.I003826-002N/RUndeterminedPossibleUSA1995UNKNOWNN/RTEMIKThe North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture investigated a complaint from the owner of afish pond in Four Oaks, NC,that pesticides had killed his fish. Dead fish were firstnoticed on June 8, 1995 but the Dept. of Ag. was not notified until the 12th, andsamples of water, soil, sediment, and vegetation were taken on June 13th. Analysesof each were made for pesticides known to have been applied to nearby fields,namely 2,4-D, dimethoate, aldicarb, and disulfoton. All of the water samples gavenegative results but one soil sample contained 0.2 ppm dimethoate, and onevegetation sample contained 0.60 ppm aldicarb and its metabolites and 2.5 ppmdisulfoton and metabolites.In its response to the complainant, the Dept. of Agri. stated that there had been noviolation of the North Carolina PesticideLaw and/or Regulations. It made nomention of the cause of the fish kill, nor did it conduct analyses of the dead fish.Plant Incidents in EIIS36Incident IDUse SiteLegalityCertaintyCountryYearTotalMagnitudeAppl.MethodProductSummary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports)I010837-012CottonUndeterminedPossibleUSA2000655 acresof 690TemikTo comply with 6(a)2 requirements, Novartis reported a complaint from Kingstree,SC, that Ridomil Gold Pc damaged 655 of a 690-acre crop of cotton. TEMIK wasanother product that was involved and the symptom noted was stand reduction.Here is the verbatim report of the Novartis representative: "This is a field the growerhas noticed the fields where RIDOMIL PCwas used are not germinating. The standcounts are 13-16 per 25' row. The area is dry, butthe seed was at the moisture level.The seed were planted about 1" deep.I011838-010PeanutUndeterminedPossibleUSA2000ALLN/RTEMIKTo comply with 6(a)2 requirements, Valent reported a complaint from Elko, GA, thatVALOR damaged all 141 acres of peanuts. Other products used were SonalanandTemik but no details were given about their use.I011838-059PeanutUndeterminedPossibleUSA200178 acresTemikTo comply with 6(a)2 requirements, Valent reported that a complaint had beenreceived from Lookeba, OK, that VALOR damaged two peanut crops, one being 60acres and the other 18. Other pesticides involved were TREFLAN PPI and TEMIK butno details of theiruse were given. The symptoms were "Burnt leaves, wiltedgrowth."I011838-061PeanutUndeterminedPossibleUSA2001217 and93 acresTemikTo comply with 6(a)2 requirements, Valent reported a complaint from Hydro, OK,that VALOR damaged two peanut sites, one of 124 acres and the other 93. PROWLand TEMIK were also applied but no detailswere given of their use. The symptomswere described as "Burnt terminals & foliage brown."I011838-085PeanutUndeterminedPossibleUSA106 acresTemikTo comply with 6(a)2 requirements, Valentreported a complaint from Carnegie, OK,that VALOR damaged two sites of peanuts, one of 48 acres and one of 58. Otherproducts used were PROWL and TEMIK but nodetails were given of their applicationrates. The symptom was described as "Phytotoxicity: Brown, dead peanuts."I012089-009PotatoREGISTERED USEPossibleUSA2001ALLPREBROADCASTTEMIK15GLOCK'NTo comply with 6(a)2 requirements, Aventis reported a complaint from Aberdeen, ID,that Temik 15G Lock 'n Load damaged all 1050 acres of a potato crop.Wildlife Incidents in EIISB0000-400-7PotatoMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA1991Broadcast,unincorporatedTEMIKA report of dead sea gulls being found in Hertford County resulted ultimately in afarmer paying a $400 fine for using Temik (aldicarb) in an unpermitted manner, i.e.on a potato field. Three soil samples weretaken and found to contain 1.4, 1.8, and2.5 ppm aldicarb. There were no analyses made of the birds.37Incident IDUse SiteLegalityCertaintyCountryYearTotalMagnitudeAppl.MethodProductSummary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports)B000178-001Bait,carcass/meatUndeterminedHighlyProbableUSA1988TemikA farmer was caught using Temik on sheep carcasses to rid alfalfa field andshelterbelt to kill coyotes. The Fish and Wildlife Service found one dead bald eagleand three dead magpie carcasses.Samples showed Aldicarb in the sheep carcassesat high levels. The farmer also admittedthat the sheep carcasses also killed his own2 dogs, a neighbor's two dogs and another neighbor's single dog after they hadgotten into the poisoned carcasses.I001267-001Agricultural AreaMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA1994UNKNOWNTEMIKFourteen coyotes and one hawk reported dead due toaninsecticide poisoning by arancher, who was trying to control coyotesthat were causing damage to his livestockI002352-001BaitMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA1992BaitTEMIKAn officer with South Carolina WMR Dept. contacted Special AgentGeorge Hines,U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (LAW ENFORCEMENT) about wildlife kill by suspectedpoisoning at the Savannah River Valley Beagle Club near the Edgefield area. Uponvisiting the area, they found ten meat patties containing a granular substance along afence line; also dead, an unspecified number of rabbits, 3 red-tailed hawks, 1raccoon, 1 grey fox and one opossum covered with granular material within 10 feetof a red-tailed hawk.The Club President and two members admitted placing meat laced with insecticideon the grounds, primarily to control the fox population around the Club.Special Agent Hines submitted specimensfor necropsy examination and pesticideanalysis to the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS). One redtailedhawk selected for analysis revealed significant depression of ChE activity.Stomach contents of the animals collected contained partially digested meat and tinywhite granules. In particular, an adult male raccoon, weighing 6 lbs 10 oz (Case # 52-92) wastoo autolyzed postmortemto evaluate, however thestomach had a partiallydigested meat-like substance with white granules incorporated into it.I005364-001COTTONMisuse(accidental)HighlyProbableUSASoilincorporationTEMIKAldicarb was applied to a cotton crop in Joiner, AK, through soil incorporation. But,because of leakage from the applicator tank, several dogs and a raccoon came intocontact with the pesticide and died.The owner of one of the dogs complained that EPA should not allow such a toxiccompound to be on the market.I007372-003WOODLANDSMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA1997N/RTEMIKThis incident involved intentional pesticide poisoning in the area around WillowGrove. Land there is used for hunting inwoodlands and normal winter weather prevailed. Animal species were targeted.38Incident IDUse SiteLegalityCertaintyCountryYearTotalMagnitudeAppl.MethodProductSummary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports)I010439-001Agricultural AreaMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA2000BaitTEMIKTo comply with 6(a)2 regulations, Aventis reported the death of a coyote and anopossum in the early part of June, 2000, inPearl River County, MS. Raw hamburgermeat had been laced with TEMIK and placed beside the carcass of a dead calf in apasture, presumably as a target for coyotes. An opossum and a coyote died as theresult of eating this bait. Aventis was cooperating with the MS Bureau of PlantIndustry in prosecuting the case.I011300-001N/RMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA2001BaitN/RThe Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study reported that a ranger of theGA Dept.of Natural Resources found a dead Cooper's hawk on the grounds of aprivate hunting club. The dead bird had a piece of meat in its mouth and was lyingnear a dead mouse and three other pieces of meat suspected to be bait. Analyses ofthe bird showed 14 ppm aldicarb in its liver, and 1227 ppm in the GI contents.Concentrations of aldicarb in the meat found in the mouth, and of the other baititems, ranged from 630 ppm to 2610 ppm.I013168-001Agricultural AreaMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA2002BaitAn e-mail was received from the American Bird Conservancy that told of the outcomeof the prosecution against a Tennessee man for illegally using TEMIK (aldicarb) to killbirds. He was charged with nine counts of violating the Migratory BirdTreaty Act andone count of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. This was thefirst indictment achieved by the Western Tennessee Environmental Task Force. Thevictims of this killing were seven red-tailed hawks and two black vulturesI013928-001Bait,carcass/meatMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA2003BaitA yellow-rumpedwarbler and a red fox were found dead. Aldicarb is identified as thecause of death of these animals death, as aldicarb-laces hamburger bait was presentnear where the dead bird and fox were found. A few granules found in thebirds’gastrointestinal tract were similar to the granules seen in the contaminated bait.Brain tissue of the warbler was negative for West Nile virus. Bait tested positive foraldicarb with a measured concentration of2,970 ppm. Aldicarb residues were alsodetected in the fox's gastrointestinal contents (20.8 ppm) and liver (10.0 ppm).39Incident IDUse SiteLegalityCertaintyCountryYearTotalMagnitudeAppl.MethodProductSummary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports)I013932-001BaitMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSABaitTwo living dogs at a residence within 200 yards of an area being used for grazing by awool grower in Imperial County becameill and required medical attention. Theveterinarian suspected that the animals had been poisoned based on the observedsymptoms. One of the dogs regurgitatedits stomach contents which appeared toconsist of at least one partially digested hotdog. It was suspected that illegal baitswere being placed in the area to tryand poison coyotes that may have beenpredating the sheep adjacent to the residence.The stomach contents were determined to contain residues of the carbamateinsecticide aldicarb at a concentration of 8,000 ppm. Consultation with University ofCalifornia veterinarians and toxicologists concluded that the concentration of thepoison was high enough to almost immediately trigger a regurgitation response inone of the dogs so that most of the pesticide was eliminated from the body before itcould be absorbed. Carbamate insecticidesact to depress cholinesterase and acetylcholinesterase activity. The symptoms observed in the two dogs are consistent withexposure to carbamate insecticides.It is highly likely that the concentration ofaldicarb present in the sample would provelethal to any non-target wildlife the might have consumed the bait.I016407-062BaitMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA2005BaitTemikTo comply with 6(a)2 requirements, Bayer reported an incident the subject of whichis contained in a report from the Fish and Wildlife Service which recounts the deathof a wolf that was caused by Temik, a Bayer product. The report states "USFWS founda dead wolf six miles into the Frank Church Wilderness of Idaho. Wolf was radiocollared. Had been dead for less than two weeks. A butterflied shrimp steak wascollected as evidence, with gray granules inside the split. Visual comparison withblank aldicarb sample previously provided by State Affairs appeared to confirmTemik. USFWS commented that there was 'lots of Temik' inside the split meat.USFWS lab analysis confirms aldicarb.Meat evidently was not spoiled, whichsupports belief that this is a fresh, 2005 case, and not carryover from previousexperiences."40Incident IDUse SiteLegalityCertaintyCountryYearTotalMagnitudeAppl.MethodProductSummary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports)I017085-001BaitMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA2006BaitThis incident begins with a man finding his dog severely sick on Jan. 3, 2006 in FloydCounty, GA. The following day, his other dog was found dead near his home. A rangerof the Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, the next day, found two opossumcarcasses in the same area where the dog had died. Necropsies were performed onthe two opossums; the GI contents of oneof them contained 96 ppm of aldicarb andthe other contained 185 ppm aldicarb. Further study led to the discovery of a deadwhite-tailed deer that had been dumped on the property.The ranger investigating the deathsfeels that the deer, too badly decomposed toanalyze for pesticideresidues, was the source of the aldicarb in the animals that werekilled. He said that Temik was not sold locally, and that the main crop grown in thearea was corn, for which Temik is not registered. He suspects that the deer carcasswas baited with aldicarb and placed to kill coyote.I017462-001N/RMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA2006One dog and two black vultures were found near a partially-consumed carcass of acottontail rabbit. The incident occurred on municipal property that was used by thetown of Hoinsville for disposal of wastewater from a sewage treatment plant.Analysis ofthe vulture and rabbit found that brain cholinesterase levels weresignificantly depressed in both animals, indicating that both had ingested ananticholinesterase chemical. Toxicological analysis found 43 ppm aldicarb in thestomach of the rabbit and "greater than 0.1 ppm" of aldicarb sulfoxide in the liver ofthe vulture. The testimony of a local GA DNR employee as well as GIS analysis doneby EFED indicated that very little or no land in the vicinity was planted in crops onwhich aldicarb is registeredfor use. Thus, while there is little doubt that the animalswere poisoned byaldicarb, the most likely scenario is that the animals were poisonedby illegal baiting or some other illegal use of aldicarb.I019647-014Bait,carcass/meatMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA2008BaitTemikTemikproductwith active ingredient Aldicarb used for illegal bait at a hunting club,causing mortality to approximately 10 hawks and an unspecified number of vultures.Additional animals may have been involved. Samples of the baited deer carcass weretaken by a state Lab and confirmed to contain aldicarb.I019647-015Bait,carcass/meatMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA200830-35BaitTemikS Fish and Wildlife service investigated the mortality incidents in woods inMontgomery County, AR involving 30-35 birds, including hawks, and otherunspecified species. Mortality of birds and other species occurred due to intentionalmisuse of Temik product by baiting. Samples have been taken to lab and in mostcases confirmed the presence of aldicarb.41Incident IDUse SiteLegalityCertaintyCountryYearTotalMagnitudeAppl.MethodProductSummary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports)I019647-016Bait,carcass/meatMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA200820-25BaitTemikIllegal baiting of eggs spiked with Temik (a.i. aldicarb) caused extensive wildlifemortality in McDuffie County, Georgia. A total of 20-25 dead animals were observed.Animals that were identified were 3 red tail hawks, 3 grey fox, 2 opossums, 1 coyote,and a beagle. Georgia Department of NaturalResources and Enforcement isinvestigating the incident. One individual has confessed. Two of the eggs placed forbait contained were analyzed and found to contain 1200 ppm and 22,000 ppm ofaldicarb. Aldicarb was also found in thestomach contents ofthe coyote (240 ppm)and the beagle (220 ppm).I019925-001BaitMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA2008BaitGeorgia Department of Natural Resources reported mortality of a coyote and over 25other wild animals Hancock County, Georgia.The cause was diagnosed as aldicarbtoxicosis based on detection of 240 ppm aldicarb in the stomach contents of thecoyote. Two broken eggs found at the site were also tested and found to contain1,200 and 22,000 ppm of aldicarb. This appears to be a case ofsomeone illegalbaiting with aldicarb to intentionally kill wildlife.I021411-012Bait,grain/seedMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA2008SeveralBaitTEMIKA peanut field in Eastland County, TX, was baited with corn soaked in the productTEMIK (a.i. aldicarb) most likely resulted in the death of an unspecified number ofdeer, opossum, skunks, feral hogs, various birds with possible hawk and turkeybuzzard.I022570-001RuralMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableUSA2010TemikSouth Carolinaauthorities said they are working to determine who and prosecutethose responsible for killing four hunting dogs and causing some dozen hunters to goto a Kershaw County hospital on Dec. 30,2010 after they were exposed to an illegalapplication of the product Temik (a.i. aldicarb) along hunting trails.I026114-001N/RUndeterminedHighlyProbableUSAThe carcass of a 2 1/2 year old male, adultgolden eagle collected near a power lineon December 11, 2013 was submitted to the Southeasterncooperative WildlifeDisease. The final diagnosis by the Southeastern cooperative Wildlife Disease Studywas aldicarb (carbamate) intoxication.Toxicology testing detected aldicarb, a carbamate insecticide, in the crop contents ofthis individual. Although this assay doesnot quantify the concentration of aldicarbpresent and does not confirm the chemical in the tissues of the bird itself, thecompound is highly toxic, which makes it likely that intoxication was the cause ofdeath.42Incident IDUse SiteLegalityCertaintyCountryYearTotalMagnitudeAppl.MethodProductSummary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports)I008694-001BaitMisuse(intentional)PossibleUSA1998BaitTEMIKRhone-Poulenc notified OPP of the intentional poisoning of a golden eagle inAlabama by TEMIK. According to ahandwrittennote at the bottom of a newspaperclipping concerning the event, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service called Rhone-Poulencto tell the company of the incident in question. A hunting-camp caretaker (MarengoCounty) allegedly tried to clear out the coyotes,presumably by lacing deer carcasseswith TEMIK. Here is a direct quote from a newspaper account: "On February 10,1998, hunters found a dead golden eagle lying near two deer carcasses which werelater tested for poisons. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service investigated the case." Atthe time of the newspaper publication(Feb.11, 199) the results were not yetavailable.According to the newspaper account theTEMIK had been in a Mason jar in a closetin the home of the accused, and his wife had thoughtthe contents were ant poison.The accused pleaded innocent to the misdemeanors. Rhome-Poulenc stated this wasan update to an earlier submission, I008381-001I017141-001Bait,carcass/meatMisuse(intentional)PossibleUSA2006TemikIn Georgia, adeer carcass laced with aldicarb most likely caused the death of twoopossums and two domestic dogs. The product used was most likely Temik, howeverit is not sold locally and was used illegally. The two possums were analyzed, andaldicarb was found at 96 ppm in one and 185 ppm in the other - with no otherorganic insecticides found at a concentration greater than detectable limits (0.1ppm).I000637-001RANGELANDMisuse(intentional)ProbableUSA1993N/RN/RTEMIKAccording to the report animal fat was laced with Aldicarb and used as bait in orderto control animals on a ranch.As a result it was alleged that dogs, and an unknownnumber of cats, chickens, cardinals and owls suffered mortality. No carcass analyseswere made. The precise event dates were not reported; they were estimated toextend from 01/01/93 through 03/31/93.43Incident IDUse SiteLegalityCertaintyCountryYearTotalMagnitudeAppl.MethodProductSummary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports)I000799-005PotatoMisuse(intentional)ProbableUSA1991N/RTEMIK15GAccording to the report the investigators alleged that a potato field was treated withaldicarb. The treatment allegedly resulted in abird kill. The farmer stated he hadused noaldicarb on his potato field, only on tobacco. He said he used metolachloronhis potatoes. He had dustedpotato seeds with captan before planting. Three soilsamples revealed the presence of aldicarb but no other pesticide, Rainfollowed theobservation of neighbors who observed the aldicarbapplication. Witnesses wantedtoremain anonymous; this handicapped the investigation. Stomach content of oneseagull revealed inconclusive results because the sample was too small. Three catsand one dog also suffered mortality during this event.It was emphasized that the applicator failedto follow packaging guidelines for safehandling of the pesticide. The NC Ag. Dept. ruled the event a misuse because thelabeling of aldicarb states: "No longer labelled for use on potatoes."I007595-001BaitMisuse(accidental)ProbableUSA1998UNKNOWNBaitTEMIK15GWhile cleaning out the pickup truck of a deceased father, the sons found a metal saltand pepper shaker which they passed around to season raw cabbage shared withfriends. About 15 persons became ill, but recovered. Dr. Katrin KOHL of LA Office ofPublic Health was informed by RP Environmental Affairs that the material involvedwas likely illegally obtained. She then confirmed that a son reported that his fatherroutinely baited fish heads to kill raccoons around their crawfish ponds, in thecity ofVille Platte, LA.I010439-002Bait,carcass/meatMisuse(intentional)ProbableUSA2000BaitTEMIKIt was reported an intentional misuse of TEMIK in Hancock County, MS, in July, 2000.Witnesses stated that a suspect from Louisianainjected FURADAN into eggs andmixed TEMIK into meat to serve as baitfor predators that eat quail eggs. Stateofficials collected samples from five baiting sites following the reported deaths of ahunting dog, a raccoon, and a buzzard.I011213-007BaitMisuse(intentional)ProbableUSA2001BaitTEMIK15GTo comply with 6(a)2 requirements, Aventis CropScience reported an intentionalmisuse of TEMIK 15G Brand Aldicarb Pesticide. Persons in southwestern Virginiawere illegally raising chickens for cock fighting, and baited a carcass with the productand placed it onto a fence for predator control. A great horned owl died as the resultof this act.I014343-001N/RUndeterminedProbableUSA2003Two dead black vultures were found dead near the old radio on Highway 17 inGuyton, GA. Brain tissue for both birds tested negative for West Nile virus. Tissue,brain and stomach contents were sent out for testing. Bird A had 12.2micromoles/gram/minutefor cholinesterase activity and Bird B had 5.1micromoles/gram/minute. Bird B showed 0.81 ppm of aldicarb, there was noanalysis given for Bird A.44Incident IDUse SiteLegalityCertaintyCountryYearTotalMagnitudeAppl.MethodProductSummary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports)I019363-003Bait,carcass/meatMisuse(intentional)ProbableUSA2008BaitTemik15GTemik product withactive ingredient aldicarb was applied to an animal carcass as anillegal bait in Pike county, Alabama. Thisresulted in unspecified adverse effects to 2dogs and 3 possums. The incident is being investigated by both the Houston CountySherriffDepartment and by Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries. Baitwas presented in two ways, granules applied to blocks of animal fat and as an oilymix applied to an animal carcass. Samples of the baited meat as well as the oilysubstance applied to thecarcasses has been taken and will be analyzed by theAlabama state Labs.I025850-002RuralMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableEngland2013N/RA red-kite hawk fell victim to illegal poisoning by a lethal pesticide, most probablylaced on baits left out in the countryside. The red-kite was discovered dead in OldLeake, Boston, Lincolnshire in May, 2013.Toxicology tests run by the government'sWildlife Incident Investigation Scheme confirmed that the banned pesticide, aldicarb,was used to poison the bird.I021543-001N/RMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableSevenspeciesBaitAldicarbNewsessentials.blogspot.com/2009 reports,Dec. 27, 2009, according to the groupEzemvelo Kwazulu-Natal Wildlife, seven of the nine species of Africa vulture areconsidered endangered. The scarceness is a belief in East coast and West Africa. Onecause is poison with the pesticide Aldicarb. The nyanga, medicine man of South Africaregion say that the blue meat shows that it is poisoned.I023173-002NRMisuse(intentional)Probable2011AnimaltreatmentScotsman.com News, on Aug. 25, 2011 reported thatone peregrine falcon was founddead during April at a quarry in Scotland.Police believe the actto be a deliberate,criminal poisoning probably caused by aldicarb.I025850-001N/RMisuse(intentional)HighlyProbableEngland20132 HarriersN/RA pair of marsh harriers have fallen victim to illegal poisoning by a lethal pesticide,most probably laced on baits left out in the countryside. The pair of marsh harrierswere discovered dead adjacent to the NeneWashes Nature Reserve, CambridgeshireinApril. Toxicology tests run by the government's Wildlife Incident InvestigationScheme confirmed that the banned pesticide, Aldicarb, was used to poison the birds.I023356-001N/RMisuse(intentional)ProbableEnglandAnimaltreatmentBBC Newsonline www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england reported on Oct,21, 2011 thatone female peregrine falcon was found dead in July at a quarry near Bucksfastleigh,England. Police and RSPB believe the act deliberate criminal poisoning using live baitpossibly using aldicarb and carbofuran pesticides.45Incident IDUse SiteLegalityCertaintyCountryYearTotalMagnitudeAppl.MethodProductSummary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports)I015916-001QuarryMisuse(intentional)ProbableGreatBritain1999BaitThere is a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in Great Britain whichpublishes a newsletter oriented toward instances of pesticide abuse. In its July, 2001issue it tells of peregrine falcons being killed at a quarry near Plymouth. Aldicarblaced pigeon carcasses were lowered onto a peregrine nest-ledge by means of afishing line, resulting in the deaths of at least one adult and two young peregrines.No analyses of the victims were mentioned, but the presumption is that their deathswere due to the carcasses laced with aldicarb.I024836-022UndeterminedPossibleScotland20111N/RIn April 2011 a buzzard was found dead of aldicarb and carbofuran abuse in Scotland,The laboratory investigation confirmed the presence of carbofuran residues of thecarbamate insecticides, aldicarb and carbofuran, in tissue samples analyzed from thisbird. However, no further police investigationhas been undertaken due to a lack ofevidence.I023173-001N/RMisuse(intentional)ProbableScotland2011N/RScotsman.com News, on Aug. 25, 2011 reported that one peregrine falcon was founddead in April, at a quarry in a Kirknewtown,Scotland. Police believe the act to bedeliberate act of criminal poisoning probably caused by aldicarb. State that one ofthe heads kept as trophy

### 46 4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION and RISK DESCRIPTION

4.1. Terrestrial Animals

In September 2007, the Agency issued a Reregi stration Eligibility Deci sion (RED) for aldicarb ( http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/aldicarb_red.pdf ). Key conclusions on exposure and risks to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife as we ll as relevant data gaps as they relate to these two assessments are listed below. RQs using alternative applic ation rates and incorporation efficiencies ( http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0163-0156 and http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA- HQ-OPP-2005-0163-0203) were calculated later under addenda to the RED document. These RQs took into account the 99% soil incorporation rates of the specialized application equipment that is used to apply aldicarb. The assessment was updated to reflect current maximum label rates, and the methodol ogy is considered to provide reasonable estimates of potential risks. Risk conclusions remain unchanged from previous assessments. The analysis remains an adequate refined description of the potential risks to terrestrial wildlife.

The following table reports the risk quotients for birds and mammals exposed to aldicarb applied at maximum application rates and 99 percent granule incorporation efficiency. This analysis was performed to better characterize risk in the aldicar b ecological risk assessment. The RQs are expressed

in terms of LD 50 

### /ft 2 

### , which is the current approved risk metric for granular formulations. Conceptually,

an LD 50 

### /ft 2 

### is the amount of a pesticide estimated to kill 50% of exposed animals in each square foot of applied area. Although a square foot does not have de fined ecological relevance, and any unit area could be used, risk presumably increases as the LD 50 

### /ft 2 

### value increases. The LD50/ft 2 

### value is used to estimate risk for granular formulations and row, banded, and in-furrow applications. For additional

information on the LD 50 

### /ft 2 

### risk index, please refer to USEPA, 1998.

Table 4.1. Refined RQs from the 2007 RED: Acute avian RQs for 99 percent incorporation efficiency at maximum application rates. (Note that changes in the maximum application rate since the 2007 Analysis are inco rporated into the assessment)

C rop Scenario Bird Type Rate (lbs ai/A) RQ (99% incorporated)

Cotton

Banded/Sidedress

4” band width 40” row spacing Small Bird

Medium Bird Large Bird 2.1 220

35

2.7

Dry Beans

Banded

6” band width 48” row spacing Small Bird

Medium Bird Large Bird 2.1 175.5

27.6

1.9

Peanuts

Banded

6” band width 36” row spacing Small Bird

Medium Bird Large Bird 3.0 160

25

1.8

Pecans

Broadcast Small Bird

Medium Bird Large Bird 1.05 104.9

16.5

1.2

Potatoes

Banded

6” band width 38” row spacing Small Bird

Medium Bird Large Bird 3.0 198.5

31.2

2.2

Soybeans

Banded Small Bird

Medium Bird 55

9

### 47 6” band width 30” row spacing Large Bird 3.0 0.6

Sugar Beets

Banded

6” band width 22” row spacing Small Bird

Medium Bird Large Bird 4.95 189.6

29.8

2.1

Sweet Potatoes

Banded

12” band width 48” row spacing Small Bird

Medium Bird Large Bird 3.0 124.8

19.6

1.4

Mallard duck LD 50 = 1 mg/kg- bw



### Table 4.2. Refined RQs from the 2007 RED: Acute mammalian RQs for 99 percent incorporation efficiency at maximum application rates. (Note that changes in the maximum application rate since the 2007 Analysis are incorporated into the Assessment)

Crop Scenario Mammal Type Rate (lbs ai/A) RQ (99% incorporated)

Cotton

Banded/Sidedress

4” band width 40” row spacing Small

Medium Large 2.1 73

40

4

Dry Beans

Banded

6” band width 48” row spacing Small

Medium Large 2.1 59.3

31.4

2.5

Peanuts

Banded

6” band width 36” row spacing Small

Medium Large 3.0 32

17

1

Soybeans

Banded

6” band width 30” row spacing Small

Medium Large 3.0 19

9.8

0.8

Sugar Beets

Banded

6” band width 22” row spacing Small

Medium Large 4.95 64

33.9

2.7

Sweet Potatoes

Banded

12” band width 48” row spacing Small

Medium Large 3.0 42.1

22.3

1.8

Rat LD 50 = 0.9 mg/kg-bw



### 4.1.1. Additional Terrestrial Animal RQ Refinements

Assumptions of incorporation efficiency (Bayer Crop S cience and EPA) did not reduce the level of risk to avian and mammalian species below the Level of Concern (LOC). EFED modeled 99% (for banded/sidedress), 99.5% (banded/si dedress and in-furrow) and 99.9% (banded/sidedress and in-furrow) incorporation efficiency at EPA typical application rates (as defined at the time of the RED) to investigate whether such assumptions, albeit unrealistic, would reduce the risk to below LOC for terrestrial wildlife. None of the modeling scenarios decreased the avian or the mammalian risk beyond Agency levels of concern for any of the crops. The tables below list the crops, application rates, application methods and RQs for avian and mammalian species.48Table 4.3. Recalculated acute avian RQs for different incorporation efficiencies at typicalapplication rates withdifferent incorporation efficienciesMallard duck LD50 = 1 mg/kg- bw; Rat LD50 = 0.9 mg/kg-bw199% incorporation efficiency is non-achievable for post-emergent applications and for treesItalicized numbers are RQs published in May 2006 RED; un-italicized representRQs from new modeling scenarios.Bold RQs= acute and chronic LOC exceedances for non-listed species; * = restricted use LOC exceedances; ** = listed LOC exceedancesCrop ScenarioBird TypeTypical ApplicationRate(lbs ai/A)RQ(85% incorporated)RQ(99% incorporated)RQ(99.5% incorporated)RQ(99.9% incorporated)Cotton1Banded/Sidedress4” band width40” row spacingSmall BirdMedium BirdLarge Bird0.60.60.6947.5148.910.560.29.50.730.14.70.3*6.01.10.7Dry BeansBanded6” band width48” row spacingSmall BirdMedium BirdLarge Bird1.01.01.01247.6196.013.480.212.60.940.16.30.58.01.30.09PeanutsBanded6” band width36” row spacingSmall BirdMedium BirdLarge Bird0.90.90.9842.1132.29.454.28.50.627.14.30.3*5.40.90.06SoybeansBanded6” band width30” row spacingSmall BirdMedium BirdLarge Bird0.70.70.7545.885.86.135.15.50.4*17.62.80.2*3.50.60.04Sugar BeetsBanded6” band width22” row spacingSmall BirdMedium BirdLarge Bird1.81.81.8972.1152.710.866.210.40.733.15.20.4*6.61.10.07Sweet PotatoesBanded12” band width48” row spacingSmall BirdMedium BirdLarge Bird1.41.41.4N/AN/AN/A58.29.20.728.14.40.3*5.60.90.1**49Table 4.4. Recalculated acute mammalian RQsfor different incorporation efficiencies attypical applicationrates with differentincorporation efficienciesCrop ScenarioMammalTypeTypical ApplicationRate(lbs ai/A)RQ(85% incorporated)RQ(99% incorporated)RQ(99.5% incorporated)RQ(99.9% incorporated)Cotton1Banded/Sidedress4” band width40” row spacingSmall BirdMedium BirdLargeBird0.60.60.6320.1169.613.721.111.20.910.55.60.52.11.10.09Dry BeansBanded6” band width48” row spacingSmall BirdMedium BirdLarge Bird1.01.01.0421.5223.318.128.114.91.214.07.40.62.81.50.1**PeanutsBanded6” bandwidth36” row spacingSmall BirdMedium BirdLarge Bird0.90.90.9284.5150.712.219.010.00.89.55.00.4*1.91.00.08SoybeansBanded6” band width30” row spacingSmall BirdMedium BirdLarge Bird0.70.70.7184.497.77.912.36.50.56.13.30.3*1.20.70.05Sugar BeetsBanded6” band width22” row spacingSmall BirdMedium BirdLarge Bird1.81.81.8328.4174.014.123.212.31.011.66.10.52.31.20.1**Sweet PotatoesBanded12” band width48” row spacingSmall BirdMedium BirdLargeBird1.41.41.4N/AN/AN/A19.710.40.89.85.20.4*2.01.00.08Mallard duck LD50 = 1 mg/kg- bwRat LD50 = 0.9 mg/kg-bwItalicized numbers are RQs published in May 2006 RED; un-italicized representRQs from new modeling scenarios.Bold RQs= acute and chronic LOC exceedances for non-listed species; * =restricted use LOC exceedances; ** = listed LOC exceedances199% incorporation efficiency is non-achievable for post-emergent applications and for trees

### 50 4.1.2. Risk Conclusions for Terrestrial Organisms

x 

### The weight of evidence suggests that there is consid erable risk to non-target wildlife from all uses of aldicarb. Bird and mammal RQs exceed levels of concern for all labeled uses; and additional

lines of evidence such as incidents and the inhere nt toxicity of the chemical suggest that aldicarb application does result in impact s to wildlife. Even assuming lower than the maximum application rate (typical rates) and availability of a fraction of the chemical is available for consumption due

to burial does not result in risk below concern leve ls. Ingestion of a single granule is sufficient to result in mortality to birds and mammals since LD 50s 

### for birds and mammals were basically the same with values of 0.9 mg ai/kg-bw for mammals and 0.75 to 1.0 mg ai/kg-bw for birds. In a study on the red-winged blackbird, technical and granular (Temik 15G) aldicarb yielded similar

LD 50 

### values. Balcomb et al. (1984) measured the acu te oral toxicity of aldicarb to two species of song bird (house sparrow and red-winged blackbird). When birds were dosed with varying numbers of aldicarb granules (Temik 15G), 40% of blackbirds (5 birds tested at each concentration) given a single granule died, and 80% of those given 5 granules died. In house sparrows, 40% died after ingesting 1 granule a nd 83% died after consuming 5 granules (6 birds tested at each concentration). Birds died within 15 to 18 minutes of granule ingestion. Since there were risks to birds, reptiles may also be at risk.

x 

### Granules left exposed on the surface appear to be the main source of exposure, but other sources such as residues of aldicarb taken up by plants and soil invertebrates ( e.g ., earthworms) may also serve as a means of exposure. Drinking water may also be an exposure route of concern. Bunyan et al. (1981) conducted an extensive field trial with sampling of invertebrates, birds, and small mammals around fields of sugar beet treated in furrow with aldicarb granules (10% ai) at 1.12 kg aldicarb per ha. High levels of residues in blackbirds and two small mammals trapped within the treated field, as well as a dead partridge, indicated to the authors that the most significant hazard of aldicarb was from direct ingestion of non-i ncorporated granules soon after application. A secondary hazard involved aldicarb-poisoned earthworms that came to the surface of the soil particularly in wet conditions. Worms containin g residues were found 2-6 days after drilling. Low residues of aldicarb were found in herbivores eating young plants that had systemically absorbed aldicarb. Residues and reduced esterase activity in brain were found in a number of bird species feeding on the ground, indicating that exposure to aldicarb can be widespread in the case of granular applications.

x Reduction in growth to non-target terrestrial plan ts from runoff could not be assessed because of the lack of toxicity data. However, Tier 1 seedli ng emergence studies and incident data suggest that aldicarb could affect some non-target plants.

x There are expected risks to bees; although aldi carb has granule applications, it is systemic and can be available to bees in plants via pollen and/or nectar. Also, bee incidents have been reported. Data gaps (see Section 5 ) prevent a full assessment of risks to bees.

4.2. Aquatic Species

Parent aldicarb and its degradates are highly mobile and are known to move to ground water in sandy acidic soils. In poorly permeable soils, it will move with runoff. Following a rain event, aldicarb may reach aquatic environments as sheet and channel fl ow from areas of application, since aldicarb is

### 51 moderately persistent in terrestrial environments and soluble in water. It is unlikely, though, that undissolved granules will reach surface water bodies as the granules themselves are not particularly

mobile and in most cases buried below the surface. Ald icarb residues are likely to create concern for fish and aquatic invertebrates (as well as amphibians) in low-order streams because these streams are dominated by base flow conditions (where 100% of stream flow consists of discharged ground water),

and most of the toxic residues are believed to form within the subsurface (especially within the saturated zone, where conditions are more like to be alk aline) and are conveyed by ground water. Higher-order streams are sustained by much larger contributing land areas, so there should be a greater dilution effect. Higher incorporation efficiencies would reduce risks to aquatic organisms. However, under the current label scenarios modeled for EECs, all aquatic orga nism acute and chronic RQs exceeded all LOCs for all current uses. However, there were no LOC exceedances for aquatic plants.

4.2.1. Revised RQs resulting from EECs from currently supported (2015) uses

Table 4.5. Aquatic Exposure Estimates for Fish from Aldicarb Use Sites (Aldicarb Only) A

Use Site SWCC Scenario 1-in-10-year Peak ( μ g/L) 1-in-10-year 21- day Mean ( μ g/L) 1-in-10-year 60- day Mean ( μ g/L)

Cotton MS cotton 28.9 25.7 19.9

Dry Beans MI beans 28.2 26.4 21.8

Peanuts NC peanuts 17.4 14.7 11.8

Soybeans MS soybeans 22.3 19 13.2

Sugar Beets MN sugar beets 53 47.7 36.8

A

Maximum values are in bold.



### Table 4.6. Aquatic Exposure Estimates for Aquati c Invertebrates from Aldicarb Use Sites (Aldicarb TTR) A

Use Site SWCC Scenario 1-in-10-year Peak ( μ g/L) 1-in-10-year 21- day Mean ( μ g/L) 1-in-10-year 60- day Mean ( μ g/L)

Cotton MS cotton 35.1 28.3 17.7

Dry Beans MI beans 30.6 26.4 18.2

Peanuts NC peanuts 21.1 15.6 10

Soybeans MS soybeans 26.7 20.1 11.3

Sugar Beets MN sugar beets 78 59.7 38

A

Maximum values are in bold.



### Table 4.7. Acute and chronic RQs for freshwater fish using maximum application rates with 99% incorporation efficiency

Crop Use LC50 (ppb) NOAEC (ppb) EEC

Initial/Peak (ppb) EEC 60 day average (ppb) Acute RQ (EEC/LC50) Chronic RQ (EEC/ENEC)

Cotton 52 0.46 28.9 19.9 0.55 43.26 Dry Beans 52 0.46 28.2 21.8 0.54 47.40

Peanuts 52 0.46 17.4 11.8 0.33 25.65 Soybeans 52 0.46 22.3 13.2 0.43 28.70 Sugar Beets 52 0.46 53 36.8 1.02 80.00 Bluegill sunfish LC50 = 52 ppb Bluegill sunfish ENEC = 0.46 ppb

### 52 Table 4.8. Acute and chronic RQs for freshwater inverts using maximum application rates with 99% incorporation efficiency

Crop Use LC50 (ppb) NOAEC (ppb) EEC

Initial/Peak (ppb) EEC 21 day average (ppb) Acute RQ (EEC/LC50) Chronic RQ (EEC/NOAEC)

Cotton 20 1 35.1 28.3 1.75 28.30 Dry Beans 20 1 30.6 26.4 1.53 26.40

Peanuts 20 1 21.1 15.6 1.05 15.60 Soybeans 20 1 26.7 20.1 1.33 20.10 Sugar Beets 20 1 78.0 59.7 3.90 59.70 Chironomus tetanus LC50 = 20 ppb Mysidopsis bahia NOAEC = 1.0 ppb



### Table 4.9. Acute and chronic RQs for estuarine/marine fish using maximum application rates with 99% incorporation efficiency

Crop Use LC50 (ppb) NOAEC (ppb) EEC

Initial/Peak (ppb) EEC 60 day average (ppb) Acute RQ (EEC/LC50) Chronic RQ (EEC/ENEC)

Cotton 41 0.36 28.9 19.9 0.70 55.27 Dry Beans 41 0.36 28.2 21.8 0.68 60.55

Peanuts 41 0.36 17.4 11.8 0.42 32.77 Soybeans 41 0.36 22.3 13.2 0.54 36.66
Sugar Beets 41 0.36 53.0 36.8 1.29 102.22 Sheepshead minnow LC50 = 41 ppb; Sheepshead minnow ENEC = 0.36 ppb



### Table 4.10. Acute and chronic RQs for estuarine/ma rine inverts using maximum application rates with 99% incorporation efficiency

Crop use LC50 (ppb) NOAEC (ppb) EEC

Initial/Peak (ppb) EEC 21 day average (ppb) Acute RQ (EEC/LC50) Chronic RQ (EEC/NOAEC)

Cotton 12 1 35.1 28.3 2.92 28.30 Dry Beans 12 1 30.6 26.4 2.55 26.40

Peanuts 12 1 21.1 15.6 1.76 15.60 Soybeans 12 1 26.7 20.1 2.22 20.10 Sugar Beets 12 1 78.0 59.7 6.50 59.70 Pink shrimp LC50 = 12 ppb; Mysidopsis bahia NOAEC = 1 ppb



### *Even with only 1% of the compound available (99% in corporated), most aquatic organism acute and all chronic RQs calculated exceed LOCs for current uses.

4.2.2. Risk Conclusions for Aquatic Organisms

Parent aldicarb and its degradates are highly mobile and are known to move to ground water in sandy acidic soils. In poorly permeable soils, it will move with runoff. Following a rain event, aldicarb may reach aquatic environments as sheet and channel fl ow from areas of application, since aldicarb is moderately persistent in terrestrial environments and soluble in water. It is unlikely, though, that undissolved granules will reach surface water bodies as the granules themselves are not particularly

mobile and in most cases buried below the surface. However, under the current label scenarios modeled for EECs, all aquatic organism, except aquatic plan ts, acute and chronic RQs exceeded all LOCs for all

current uses.

### 53 5. IDENTIFICATION of CURRENT DATA GAPS

The fate and toxicity database for aldicarb is subs tantially complete. Data gaps, uncertainties and potential paths forward for the assessment of aldicarb are described below.

5.1. Fate

Environmental Chemistry Method for soil (850.6100): the Environmental Chemistry Method for soil is currently under review. The study will be required if the current submitted study along with the independent laboratory va lidation are deemed unacceptable.

5.2. Effects

Honeybee toxicity (non-guideline): In keeping with the Agency’s proposed new paradigm for determining potential adverse effects to insect pollinators from c onventional pesticides (USEPA et al. , 2014), additional studies are being requested in addition to the already subm itted adult acute contact study. The adult acute contact study using aldicarb resulted in an LD 50 

### of 0.285 μ g/bee and the compound was classified as highly toxic (MRID 00036935), there is considerable uncertainty regarding the potential effects of the compound on honeybee larval development and survival as well as potential for chronic effects. Because of its granular formulati on, it is unlikely that there is a direct contact exposure scenario for honeybees. Other soil dwel ling beneficial insects and invertebrates could be exposed to aldicarb and aldicarb residues through contact with the granules and/or with plants (via pollen and/or nectar) due to its systemic nature . However, because the chemical is systemic in nature exposure via pollen and/or nectar is possi ble; therefore, additional data on pollinators is needed to fully characterize the risk associated with aldicarb use to all developmental stages of honeybees, as sensitivity may vary according to life-stage and length of exposure (adult vs. larval and acute vs. chronic, respectively). Additional inf ormation is needed, but uncertainty associated with risks to honey bees need to be evaluated with more data to different life stages. Since this may be a systemic chemical that is transported throughout the plant, residues may be available to pollinators via pollen and/or nectar; therefore, residues of pollen and nectar of crops are a data need. Adult and larvae acute oral toxicity stud ies (following OECD 213) and larval and adult chronic toxicity studies (following OECD 237and non-guideline study) are necessary to evaluate the potential for aldicarb to adversely affect bees and other pollinators through other routes of exposure. Open literature data is needed to help better characterize some uncertainties regarding potential effects to bees and other non-target terres trial invertebrates. In addition, higher tier effects toxicity tests ( i.e., semi-field and/or field studies

– Tier II and Tier III, respectively) may be needed, based on the results of the larval and chronic adult toxicity studies. Higher tier studies

are recommended if the ratio of the EEC and larval or adult bee acute LD50> 0.4 or the ratio of

the EEC and the chronic NOAEC> 1 . Incident data and/or compelling open literature studies can also be used to support the need for higher tier studies. Should the screening level risk assessment identify that there are risk concerns to bees, mitigation measures may need to be considered or the registrant may need to conduct Tier II or Tier III effects studies ( e.g. OECD Guideline 75 and/or 850.3040 guideline studies) that reduce uncertainty by characterizing

aldicarb ’s effects at the whole -colony level.

### 54 6. REFERENCES

Balcomb, R., Stevens, R., & Bowen, C. (1984) Toxicity of 16 granular insecticides to wildcaught songbirds. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 33:302-307.

Bank, S. and Tyrrell, R.J. 1984. Kinetics and Mechanism of Alkaline and Acidic Hydrolysis of

Aldicarb. J. Agric. Food Chem. 32(6), 1223-1232.

Brassard, David, Katherine Stebbins, and Derek Berwald. 2011. BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review: Aldicarb. Internal EPA Memorandum to Susan Bartow, Ann Overstreet, and Eric Olsen dated December 8, 2011.

Bromilow, R.H., Briggs, G.G., Williams, M.R., Smelt, J.H., Tuinistra, Th.L.G.M., and W.A. Traag. 1986. The role of ferrous ions in the rapid degradation of oxamyl, methomyl, and

aldicarb in anaerobic soils. Pesticide Science 17:535-547.

Bull, D.L., Stokes R.A, Coppedge, J.R. and Ridgway, R.L (1970) J. Econ. Entomol. 63, 1283-

1289.

Bunyan, P.J., Van Den Heuvel, M.J., Stanley, P. I., & Wright, E.N. 1981. An intensive field trial and a multi-site surveillance exercise on the use of aldicarb to investigate methods for the assessment of possible environmental haza rds presented by new pesticides. Agro Ecosyst. , 7:239-262.

Fellers, G.M, L.L. McConnell, D. Pratt, S. Da tta. 2004. Pesticides in Mountain Yellow-Legged Frogs (Rana Mucosa) from the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, USA. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry . 23 (9):2170-2177.

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleege r. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13 (9), 1383-1391.

Health Effects Division. 2005. Estimation of Cumulative Risk From N-Methyl Carbamate Pesticides: Preliminary Assessment. United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0360-0013.

Hansen, J.L., and M.H. Spiegel. 1983. Hydrolysis Studies of Aldicarb, Aldicarb Sulfoxide, and

Aldicarb Sulfone. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2(2): 147-153.

Hoerger, F., and E.E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide re sidues on plants: Correlation of representative data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. In F. Coulston and F. Korte, eds., Environmental Quality and Safety : Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology, Georg Thieme Publ, Stuttgart, West Germany, pp. 9-28.

### 55 Jones, R.L., and T. L. Estes. 1995. Summary of Aldicarb Monitoring and Research Programs in

the United States. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 18:107-140.

LeNoir, J.S., L.L. McConnell, G.M. Fellers, T.M. Cahill, J.N. Seiber. 1999. Summertime Transport of Current- use pesticides from California’s Ce ntral Valley to the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, USA. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 18(12): 2715-2722.

Lemley, A.T. and W.Z. Zhong. 1983. Kinetics of Aqueous Base and Acid Hydrolysis of Aldicarb, Aldicarb Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb Sulfone. J. Environ. Sci. Health B. 1983;18(2):189-206.

Lemley, A.T. and W.Z. Zhong. 1984. Hydrolysis of Aldicarb, Aldicarb Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb Sulfone at PPB Levels in Aqueous Media . J. Agric. Food Chem. 34(4):714-719.

Lightfoot, E.N., Thorne, P.S., Jones, R.L., Hansen, J.L., and R.R. Romine. 1987. Laboratory studies on mechanisms for the degradation of aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, and

aldicarb sulfone. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 6:377-394.

Mayer, F.L. and M.R. Ellersieck. 1986. Manual of acu te toxicity: Interpretation and data base for 410 chemicals and 66 species of freshwa ter animals. USDI, FWS Publication 160, Washington, DC. 506 pp. MRID 40098001.

McConnell, L.L., J.S. LeNoir, S. Datta, J. N. Seiber. 1998. Wet deposition of current-use pesticides in the Sierra Nevada mountain range, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 17(10):1908-1916.

Moore, M.T., Huggett, D.B., Gillespie, Jr., W.B., Rodgers, J.H., and C.M. Cooper. 1998. Comparative Toxicity of Chlordane, Chlorpyrifos, and Aldicarb to Four Aquatic Testing Organisms. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 34, pp. 152-157.

Office of Pesticide Programs. 2007 . Revised N-Methyl Carbamate Cumulative Assessment. United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/nmc_revised_cra.pdf

Pickering, Q.H., and W.T. Gilliam. 1982. Toxicity of Aldicarb and Fonofos to the Early Life Stage of the Fathead Minnow. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 11:699-702.

Smelt, J.H., Leistra, M., Houx, N.W.H. and De kkar, A. 1978a. Conversion Rates of Aldicarb and

Its Oxidation Products in Soils. I. Aldicarb Sulfone. Pestic. Sci. , 9, 279-285.

Smelt, J.H., Leistra, M., Houx, N.W.H. and Dekkar, A. 1978b. Conversion Rates of Aldicarb and

Its Oxidation Products in Soils. I. Aldicarb Sulfoxide. Pestic. Sci. , 9, 286-292.

Smelt, J.H., Leistra, M., Houx, N.W.H. and De kkar, A. 1978c. Conversion Rates of Aldicarb and

Its Oxidation Products in Soils. III. Aldicarb. Pestic. Sci. , 9, 293-300.

### 56 Smelt, J.H., Dekkar, A., Leistra, M., and Houx, N.W.H. 1983. Conversion of Four Carbamoyloximes in Soil Samples From Above and Below the Soil Water Table. Pestic.

Sci. , 14, 173-181.

Sparling, D.W., G.M. Fellers, L.L. McConne ll. 2001. Pesticides and amphibian population declines in California, USA. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 20(7): 1591-1595.

Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services. 1999. Water Quality Monitoring Program to Detect Pesticide Contamination in Groundwaters of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY, June, 1999.

Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services. 2000. Water Quality Monitoring Program to

Detect Pesticide Contamination in Groundwater s of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY, December, 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-95/002F, April 1998.

U.S. EPA. 2006. EFED Aldicarb Ecological Risk Assessment (RED). Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. Office of Pesticide Programs, EFED. Washington, D.C. September, 2006.

USFWS/NMFS. 2004. Memorandum to Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA conveying an evaluation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service of an approach to assessing the ecological risks of pesticide products.

U.S. EPA. 2007. Ecological Incident Information System. http://www.epa.gov/pesticid es/science/efed/policy_guidance/team_authors/endangered_s pecies_reregistration_workgroup/esa_incident_guidance.htm#eiis

U.S. EPA. 2007. ECOTOXicology Database. Offi ce of Research and Development National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory’s (NHEERL’s) Mid -Continent Ecology Division (MED). http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/

.

U.S. EPA, 2007. EFED Risks of Aldicarb Use to Federally Listed Endangered California Red Legged Frog ( Rana aurora draytonii ). July 17, 2007

U.S. EPA. 2009. EFED Refinement to Tier 2 Drinking Water Assessment Tobacco Uses of Aldicarb and its Major Degradates Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone, D299881. April 10, 2009

U.S. EPA. 2012. EFED Risks of Aldicarb Use to the Federally Threatened Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle ( Desmocerus californicus dimorphus ) and the Federally Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox ( Vulpes macrotis mutica ). March 28, 2012

### 57 U.S. EPA. 2012. EFED Registration Review Problem Formulation for Aldicarb, DP D398519. May 24, 2012

USEPA, PMRA, and CDPR. 2014. Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees. Office of Pesticide Programs, USEPA, Washington D.C. Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Ottawa, ON, Canada . California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA. June 23, 2014.

U.S. EPA. Ruhman, M., Hetrick, J., Jones, R. Guidance for Modeling Pesticide Total Toxic Residues. (Draft Document)

U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Service and Nati onal Marine Fisheries Service (USFWS/NMFS). 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Final Draft, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2015. 2002 Pesticide Use Maps. U.S. Geological Survey, National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) P rogram, Pesticide National Synthesis Program. Accessed on May 14, 2015. Online at: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/compound_listing.php?year=02

Vink, J.P.M. and S.E.A.T.M. Van der Zee. 1997. Pesticide biotransformati on in surface waters: multivariate analyses of environmental factors at field sites. Water Research 31(11):2858-2868.

Internal EPA Documents

Dutta, Subijoy. 1999. Drinking Water Memorandum for Aldicarb for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document (RED). Internal EPA Memorandum to Robert McNally dated April 4, 1999.

D247759. Dutta, Subijoy. 1999. Updated Drinking Water Assessment for Aldicarb (Temik ®


### 15G). Internal EPA Memorandum dated September 21, 1999. Same as D254590.

D246940. 2001. Carlton, James and Richard Feldhausen. 2003 RED.

D246901. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. EFED Chapter for the Reregistration Eligibility Document for Aldicarb. Dated May 15, 2001

.

D299881. Shanaman, Lucy. Refinement to Tier 2 Drinking Water Assessment Tobacco Uses of Aldicarb and its Major Degradates Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone . Internal EPA Memorandum to Christine Olinger dated April 10, 2009.

D316754. Angier, Jonathan. 2005. Tier 2 Drinking Wa ter Assessment for Aldicarb and its Major Degradates Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone. Internal EPA Memorandum to

### 58 Robert McNally dated April 4, 2005.

D332265. Angier, Jonathan, Diana Eignor, Michelle Embry, Jeannette Martinez, Donna Randall, Dana Spatz, and Nelson Thurman. 2006. Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Aldicarb Revised RED. Internal EPA Memorandum to Bob McNally, Ann Overstreet, and Sherri Kinard dated September 27, 2006.

D333309. Thurman, Nelson and Jonathan Angier. 2006. Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Total Aldicarb Residues (Parent, Aldicarb Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb Sulfone) Based on the N-Methyl Carbamate Cumulative Risk Assessment . Internal EPA Memorandum to Sherri Kinard and Felicia Fort dated October 23, 2006.

D348436. Thurman, Nelson and Jonathan Angier. 2008. Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Proposed Expansion of Aldicarb Use on Potatoes Into 6 Additional States (CO, MI, MN, ND, SD, WY). Internal EPA Memorandum to John Hebert and Christine Olinger dated August 26, 2008.

### 59 Appendix A . Submitted Environmental Fate & Ecological Effects Studies

Environmental Fate Studies

00035365. Bull, D.L., R. A. Stokes, J. R. Coppedge, .1970. Further studies of the fate of

Aldicarb in soil. Journal of Economic Entomology 63(4):1283-1289. Also in unpublished submission received Jul 26, 1971. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Washington, D.C.

00036313. Gunther, F.A., G. E. Carman, and R. C. Baines, 1975. Aldicarb (Temik ® 

### ) Residues in Oranges, Orange Leaves, and Soil after Soil Application in an Orange Grove

. Unpublished study received Oct 10, 1975 under 6G1689. Prepared in cooperation with Univ. of California - Riverside, Citrus Re search Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, Dept. of Entomology and others. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Washington, D.C.

00053364. Bull, D. L. 1968. Metabolism of UC-21149 (2-Methyl-2-(methythio)- propionaldehyde-O-(methylcarbamoyl)oxime) in cotton plants and soil in the field. Journal of Economic Entomology 61(6):1598- 1602. Also in unpublished submission received Jan 18, 1977 under 1016-Ex-37; Submit ted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington,

Va.

00053377. Andrawes, N.R., and G. C. Holsing. 1976. Hydrolysis of UC-21865 Sulfo-carb Pesticide in Aqueous Buffer Solutions . Project No. 111A14. (Unpublished study received Jan 18, 1977. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.

00053380. Richey, F.A., Jr., and W. J. Bartley, W.J. 1972. Temik Aldicarb Pesticide: Water Leaching of Aldicarb, Aldicarb Sulfoxide, Aldicarb Sulfone and Internal Standard Chloride Ion in Columns of Four Soil Types. Project No. 111A12. Unpublished study received Jan 18, 1977 under 1016-EX-37; submitte d by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington,

Va.

00053381. Richey, jr., F.A., H. H. Moorefield. 1972. Temik--Aldicarb Pesticide: Upward Movement of Aldicarb through Soil during Water Evaporation : Project No. 111A12. (Unpublished study received Jan 18, 1977. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington,

Va.

00053385. Romine, R.R., C. B. Halstead., and C. E. Gibson. 1968. Temik Insecticide: Leaching Characteristics of Temik 10G in Soils. Project No. 111A13. Unpublished study received Jan 18, 1977 under 1016-EX-37; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.

00068252. Romine, R. R. and R. L. Meeker. 1972. Temik Aldicarb Pesticide: Leaching of Aldicarb into Sandy Soil with Irrigation of a Temik Treated Sugar Beet Field . UCC Project Report No. 17079. Unpublished study received Aug 4, 1977 under 1016-79; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.

00096547. Spiegel, M.H. and R. A. Conway. 1982. Hydrolysis Studies of Aldicarb, Aldicarb

### 60 Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb Sulfon. Project III. (Unpublished study received Mar 9, 1982. Submitted by Union Carbide Agricult ural Products Co., Inc., Ambler, Pa.

00102011. Lykins, H. 1969. Temik Insecticide: The Effect of Temperature and pH on the Stability of Temik, Temik Sulfoxide and Temik Sulfone in Water . Project No. 111A13. (Unpublished study received Jun 25, 1973. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Washington, DC.

00101935. Andrawes, N., W. Bagley., and R. Herrett. 1968. Temik Metabolism: Fate of 14 

### CTemik in Cultivated Soil. File No. 9218. Unpublished study received Apr 18, 1969 under 9F0798. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp.

00101939. Clarkson, V., B. Rowe, and R. Romine. 1968. Temik Insecticide: Field Evaluation of the Persistence and Movement of Temik and Its Carbamate Metabolites in Soil . File No. 10485. (Unpublished study received Apr 18, 1969. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., New York, NY.

00101940. Clarkson, V., B. Rowe, an R. Romine. 1968. Temik Insecticide: Field Evaluation of the Persistence of Temik and Its Carbamate Metabolites in Pond Water and Their Effect

on Pond Fauna. File No. 10491. Unpublished study received Apr 18, 1969. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., New York, NY.

00101968. Union Carbide Corp. 1969. Soil Decline of Aldicarb . Unpublished study received Aug 20, 1970.

00102048. Lykins, H. and R. Meeker. 1971. Aldicarb Pesticide: Stability of Aldicarb in Water

. Project No. 111A13, File No. 16060. Unpublished study received Dec 6, 1977. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

00102057. Stephen, J. and J. Durden. 1969. A Study of the Decomposition of Temik, Temik Sulfoxide and Temik Sulfone in Water at 100 (degrees ). Project No. 111A28, File No. 11815. Unpublished study received Dec 6, 1977 under 1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

00102065. Andrawes, N. and R. Meeker. 1976. Hydrolysis of Temik Aldicarb Pesticide in Aqueous Buffer Solutions . Project No. 111A13, File No. 22263. Unpublished study received Dec 6, 1977 under 1016- 69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

00102067. Andrawes, N. and R. Meeker. 1976. Photochemical Transformation of Aldicarb. Project No. 111A13, File No. 22335. (Unpublished study received Dec 6, 1977 under 1016-69; submitted by Union Ca rbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

00102061. Woodham, D., R. Edwards, and R. Reeves. 1973. Total toxic aldicarb residues in soil, cottonseed, and cotton lint following a soil treatment with the insecticide on the Texas high plains. J. Agr. Food Chem

. 21 (2):303-307. Also in unpublished submission received Dec 9, 1977. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

### 61 00102064. Andrawes, N., W. Bagley, and R. Herrett. 1971. Fate and carryover properties of Temik aldicarb pesticide (2-methyl-2 -(methylthio)- propionaldehyde -O- (methylcarbamoyl)oxime| in soil. Agricultural and Food Chemistry 19 (4):727-730. Also in unpublished submission received Dec 6, 1977. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

00102068. Andrawes, N. and R. Meeker, R. 1976. Photostability of Aldicarb Sulfoxide . Project No. 111A13, File No. 22325. Unpublished study received Dec 6, 1977 under 1016- 69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

00102072. Bartley, W., and D. Heywood. 1965. Metabolism Studies: Hydrolytic Stability of UC

21149. Project No. 855-31101-7073. Unpublished study received Dec 6, 1977 under 1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

00102079. Leistra, M. and J. Smelt, and T. Lexmond. 1976. Conversion and leaching of aldicarb

in soil columns. Pestic. Sci. 7 :471-482. Also in unpublished submission received Dec 6, 1977 under 1016-69; submitted by Uni on Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

42498201. Das, Y. 1990. Photodegradation of (S-Methyl- 14 

### C)-Aldicarb in Aqueous Solution Buffered at pH 5 under Artificial Sunlight . Lab Project Number: 90021. Unpublished study prepared by Innovative Scientific Services, Inc. 91 p.

42498202. Dykes, J. 1990. Soil Adsorption/Desorption with 14 

### C-Aldicarb . Lab Project Number: 37352. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 326

p.

46793701. Jones, R.L., and T.S. Ramanarayanan. 2006. TEMIK® brand 15G Aldicarb Pesticida: Summary of Five Retrospective Ground Wa ter Monitoring Studies conducted for Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in the Pacific Northwest, California, Texas, Mississippi Delta and the Southeast Regions of the United States in 2005. Bayer CropScience Study

No. RAAVY010.

46793702 

### . Freeseman, P.I., R.L. Jones, R.E. Lee, U.B. Handihalli, and D.R. Wyatt. 2006. A Retrospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in the Pacific Northwest. Bayer CropScience Study No. RAAVY005.

46793703. Lenz, M, R.L. Jones, D.R. Wyatt, U.B. Handihalli, and R.E. Lee. 2006 . A Retrospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in California . Bayer CropScience Study No. RAAVY006.

46793704. Mosier, D.G., R.L. Jones, U.B. Handihalli, and R.E. Lee. 2006. A Retrospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in Texas. Bayer CropScience Study No. RAAVY007.

### 62 46793705.Wyatt, D.R., R.L. Jones, U.B. Handihalli, and R.E. Lee. 2006. A Retrospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in Mississippi Delta Region. Bayer CropScience Study No. RAAVY008.

46793706. Lee, R.E., R.L. Jones, D.R. Wyatt, and U.B. Handihalli. 2006. A Retrospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in the Southeastern

United States. Bayer CropScience Study No. RAAVY009.

### 63 Ecological Effects Studies

098301 Aldicarb Eco Effects Bibliography 71-1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

102038 Hudson, R.; Tucker, R.; Haegele, M. (1972) Effect of age on sensitivity: Acute oral toxicity of 14 pesticides to mallard ducks of several

ages. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology (22):556- 561 . (Also In unpublished submission received Oct 26, 19 77 under 1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:096397-E)

107398 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Brown, R. (1979) Final Report: Acute Oral LD50- -Mallard Duck: Technical Grade Aldicarb: Project No. 142 - 119. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1979 under 1016

- 78; prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd., submitted by Union Carbid e Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:099120-A)

148695 Balcomb, R.; Stevens, R.; Bowen, C. (1984) Toxicity of 16 granular

insecticides to wild -caught songbirds. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 33:302-307

.

148698 Benjamini, L. (1981) Testing aldicarb as a bird repellent in a sprouting sugar beet field

. Phytoparasitica 9(2):89-94.

148703 Hill, E.; Camardese, M. (1984) To xicity of anticholinesterase insecticides to birds: Technica l grade versus granular formulations. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 8:551-563

.

148704 Hilbig, V.; Westphal, D.; Lucas, K.; et al. (1979) Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Vogeltoxizitae t mit Zwei Granulatformulier - ungen des Nematizides Temik [Comparative Studies of the Toxicity to Birds of Two Granulated Formulations of Temik Nematocides]: Vetmed

Berichte 2/1979. Unpublished study prepared by Institute of Veterinary Medicine. 24 p.

148707 Medd, R.; Burrows, I.; Roberts, N.; et al. (1972) The Determination of the Single Dose Oral LD50 (24 Hour Value) and Residual Levels of Temik (Coal) in the Pheasant: Amended: 5355/72/751 . Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 28 p.

148709 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1977) A Comparison of the Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) of Three Formulations of Temik to the Japanese Quail: UNC 68 W/771042. Unpublished study prepared by Hun tingdon Research Centre. 12 p.

5008363 Hudson, R.H.; Haegele, M.A.; Tucker, R.K. (1979) Acute oral and percutaneous toxicity of pesticides to mallards: correlations with mammalian toxicity data. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 47(3):451-460.

42446501 Kendall, R. (1992) Behavior, Survivability and Biochemical Response of Wild Northern Bobwhites (Colinus virginianus) Dosed with Temik: Lab Project Number: 08034. Unpublished study prepared by Clemson Univ., Inst. of Wildlife and Environ. Tox. 34 p.

### 64 00160000 Hudson, R.; Tucker, R.; Haegele, M. (1984) Handbook of toxicity of pesticides to wildlife: Second edition. US Fish and Wildlife Service: Resource Publication 153. 91 p.


### 71-2 Avian Dietary Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

76066 Woodard Research Corporation (1965) UC-21149: Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife: (Bobwhi te Quail and Rainbow Trout). (Unpublished study received Jul 26, 1966 under 1016

- 69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:231174-B)

76067 Beliles, R.P.; Knott, W.; Wright, L. (1966) UC-21149 10%: Summary of Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife. Summary of studies 231174-A

and 231174

- B. (Unpublished study received Jul 26, 1966 under 1016- 69; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:231174-D)

80706 Beliles, R.P.; Knott, W.; Wright, L. (1966) UC-21149: Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife: (Bobwhi te Quail and Rainbow Trout). (Unpublished study received Mar 2, 1967 under 7F0573; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Charleston, W.Va.; CDL:090072-O)

102132 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Brown, R. (1979) Final Report: Eight-day Dietary
LC50 --Bobwhite Quail: Technical Gr ade Aldicarb: Project No. 142- 118. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1979 under 1016

- 78; prepared by Wildlife Inte rnational Ltd., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:099120-B)

115301 Hill, E.; Camardese, M. (1981) Subacute toxicity testing with young birds: Response in relation to age and interest variabil - ity of LC50

estimates. Avian and Mammalian Wildlife Toxicology 2:41-65

. (Also In unpublished submission receiv ed Oct 7, 1982 under 201 -142; submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, DC; CDL:248514-U)

148706 Medd, R.; Roberts, N. (1972) Palatability and Acceptability of Te- mik (Corn Cob and Coal Formulations) to the Pheasant and the Pi- geon: 5419/72/815. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Re - search Centre. 31 p.

22923 Hill, E.F.; Heath, R.G.; Spann, J.W.; et al. (1975) Lethal Dietary

Toxicities of Environmental Pollutants to Birds: Special Scientific Report

-- Wildlife No. 191. (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; unpublished report)

45592114 Handley, J.; Grant-Salmon, D.; Bartlett , A. (1995) The Acute Toxicity of Aldicarb Sulfoxide to Daphnia Magn a: Lab Project Number: 282/442. Unpublished study prepared by Safepharm Laboratories Limited. 26 p.

Aldicarb sulfone = PC Code 110802



### 71-3 Mammal Acute

101957 Lavoie, K. (1963) Bioassay Record: UC-21149: Peromyscus: Test No.

R -14. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Wildlife Research Center; unpublished study, CDL:091373-AC)

### 65 43961101 McCann, J.; Teeters, W.; Urban, D. et al. (1981) A short-term dietary toxicity test on small mammals. p. 132 -142 of the Second Conference of Avian and Mammalian Wildlife Toxicology, Lamb, D.; Kenaga, E. Eds.; Published in American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM STP 757; 1981.


### 71-5 Simulated or Actual Field Testing

MRID Citation Reference

100231 or

101959 Lund, R.C.; Haines, R.G. (1969) Field Evaluation of Temik 10G

Aldicarb Pesticide Potential Hazard to Whitetail Deer and Cottontail Rabbits from Simulated Spills. (Unpublished study re - ceived Oct 27,

1969 under 1016 -EX-30; prepared in cooperation with New Jersey, Fish and Game Commission, Black River State Game Field Station, submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:126506-C)

101956 Back, R. (1968) Temik 10G Granular Pesticide: Field Evaluation of Potential Hazard to Bobwhite Quail. (Unpublished study received Apr 18, 1969 under 9F0798; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., New York, NY; CDL:091373-AB)

101960 Clarkson, V.; Haines, R.; Hennsley, W.; et al. (1969) Report on

Additional Field Tests with Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide on the Potential Hazard to Bobwhite Quail. (Unpublished study received Aug 20, 1970 under 0F1008; submi tted by Union Carbide Corp., Washington, DC; CDL:091748-C)

101961 Haines, R. (1970) Field Evaluation of Potential Hazard of Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Valley Qu ail and Ring-necked Pheasants: Trial I

. (Unpublished study received Aug 20 , 1970 under 0F1008; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Washington, DC; CDL:091748-D)

101962 Haines, R. (1970) Field Evaluations of Potential Hazard of Temik 10G

Aldicarb Pesticide to Valley Quail and Ring-necked Pheas- ants: Trial

II

. (Unpublished study received Aug 20, 1970 under 0F1008; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Washington, DC; CDL:091748-E)

102167 Union Carbide Corp. (1968) Temik 10G Insecticide: Field Evaluation of Potential Hazard to Bobwhite Quail. (Unpublished study re - ceived Dec 5, 1968 under 1016-E X-30; CDL:131937-A)

132989 Ashton, A.; Jackson, W. (1983) Letter sent to Union Carbide dated Nov 18, 1983: Temik field trial (Michigan): Effects on wild - life|. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1983 under 264

- 330; prepared by Bowling Green State Univ., submitted by Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC; CDL:251947-A)

144970 Jackson, W. (1984) Letter sent to T. DeWitt dated June 21, 1984: [A Field study to evaluate the hazard to birds in Corn Fields treated with Temik. 6 p.

148685 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Eichler, A. (1977) Temik 10G--Gypsum Formulation (Blue): Wildlife Surveys following Application to Four Sugar Beet and Four Potato Fields: UNC 57/774581. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 255 p.

148691 Tait, F. (1972) Aldicarb: Wild Life Survey 1972. Unpublished study

### 66 prepared by Duphar-Midox Ltd. 28 p.

148692 United Kingdom, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, Pest Infestation Control Laboratory (1974) A Study of the Effects of Aldicarb or Wildlife. Unpublished study. 65 p.

148693 Brown, P.; Bunyan, P.; Stanley, P.; et al. (1975) Field Surveil- lance of

the Possible Wildlife Hazards Associated with the Use of the Nematicide, Aldicarb: Chemistry Department Report No. 17. Unpublished study prepared by U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Pest Infestation Control Laboratory. 57 p.

148696 Back, R. (1968) Temik 10G Granular Pesticide: Field Evaluation of Potential Hazard to Bobwhite Quail. Unpublished study prepared by Union Carbide Corp. 15 p.

148697 Benjamini, L. (1981) The efficacy of seed treatment with aldicarb to establish conditioned aversion in birds to sprouting sugar beets. Phytoparasitica 9(1):3-9

.

148698 Benjamini, L. (1981) Testing aldicarb as a bird repellent in a sprouting sugar beet field. Phyt oparasitica 9(2):89-94

.

148699 Clarkson, V.; Rowe, B. (1970) Temik Insecticide: Field Evaluations of the Toxic Hazard of Temik Formulations 10G, 10GV, 10GC and 10GVB4 to Bobwhite Quail: Project No. 111B32: File No. 12676. Unpublished study prepared by Union Carbide Corp. 15 p.

148700 or

101962 or

101961 Haines, R. (1970) Temik 10G Granular Pesticide: Field Evaluations of Potential Hazard of Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Valley Quail and Ring

- necked Pheasants in Sugar Beet Plantings: Trial III. Unpublished study prepared by Union Carbide Corp. 8 p.

148701 Haines, R. (1971) Continued Field Evaluations on the Potential Hazard of Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Valley Quail and Ring - necked Pheasants in a Cotton Planting. Unpublished study pre - pared by Union Carbide Corp. 7 p.

148702 Haines, R. (1971) Continued Field Evaluations on the Potential Hazards of Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Bob White Quail in Cot - ton Plantings. Unpublished study prepared by Union Carbide Corp. 7 p.

148705 Lund, R. (1970) Summary of Field Observations: Potential Hazard of Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Ring -necked Pheasant ... from Simulated Spills. Unpublished study prepared by State of New Jersey, Dept. of Conservation and Econ omic Development, Black River Wildlife Management Area. 2 p.

148706 Medd, R.; Roberts, N. (1972) Palatability and Acceptability of Te- mik (Corn Cob and Coal Formulations) to the Pheasant and the Pi - geon: 5419/72/815. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Re - search Centre. 31 p.

40607502 Fletcher, D. (1988) Application of Temik Brand 15G Aldicarb to Three Major Crops: A Terrestrial Verbebrate Field Study: BLAL Study No. 87 FV 3. Unpublished study prepared by Bio-Life Associates, Ltd. 536 p.

100230 Clarkson, V.A.; Haines, R.G.; Hennsley, W.H.; et al. (1969) Report on

Additional Field Tests with Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide on the

### 67 Potential Hazard to Bobwhite Quail. (Unpublished study re- ceived Oct 27, 1969 under 1016 -EX-30; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:126506-B)

100409 Haines, R. (1970) Field Evaluations of Potential Hazard of Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Valley Quail and Ring -necked Pheas- ants: Trial Two. (Unpublished study received Jan 25, 1978 under 1016 -79; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:096734-K)



### 72-1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

MRID Citation Reference

60555 or

92405 Borash, A.J. (1965) Test Report on Union Carbide Agricultural Products. (Unpublished study rece ived Jun 1, 1965 under unknown admin. no.; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:128692-G)

60556 Cope, O.B. (1964) Letter sent to Robert G. Harris dated Oct 30, 1964 Toxicity of various pesticid es to rainbow trout and blue - gill sunfish|. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish

- Pesticide Research Laboratory; unpublished study; CDL:128692-H)

61089 Borash, A.J.; Bryant, H.M., Jr. (1965) Test Report on Union Carbide Agricultural Products. (Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1965 under

1016 -EX-18; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:126458-K)

76065 Knott, W.; Beliles, R.P. (1966) UC-21149: Acute Toxicity in Sunfish. (Unpu blished study received Jul 26, 1966 under 1016- 69; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:231174-A)

76066 Woodard Research Corporation (1965) UC-21149: Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife: (Bobwhite Quail and Rainbow Trout). (Unpublished study received Jul 26, 1966 under 1016

- 69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:231174-B)

76067 Beliles, R.P.; Knott, W.; Wright, L. (1966) UC-21149 10%: Summary of Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wi ldlife. Summary of studies 231174 -A

and 231174

- B. (Unpublished study received Jul 26, 1966 under 1016- 69; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:231174-D)

80706 Beliles, R.P.; Knott, W.; Wright, L. (1966) UC-21149: Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife: (Bobwhite Quail and Rainbow Trout). (Unpublished study received Mar 2, 1967 under 7F0573; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Charleston, W.Va.; CDL:090072-O)

80707 Knott, W.; Beliles, R.P. (1966) UC-21149: Acute Toxicity in Sun- fish. (Unpublished study received Mar 2, 1967 under 7F0573; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Charleston, W.Va.; CDL:090072-P)

81883 Union Carbide Corporation (1965) Toxicity to Fish and Wildlife. (Compilation; unpublished study received May 10, 1965 under

### 68 5G0452; CDL:090494-B)

100296 Clarkson, V.A.; Hensley, W.H. (1968) Temik Insecticide: Toxicity of Temik, Temik Sulfoxide, and Temik Sulfone to Bluegill Sunfish: File No. 10493. (Unpublished study received Jan 25, 1978 under 1016

- 79; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:096727-B)

102133 Schneider, C. (1979) The Acute Toxi city of Aldicarb Technical to the Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri Richardson): UCES Proj. No. 11504-

14 -03. (Unpublished study receiv ed Dec 12, 1979 under 1016-78; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:099120-C)

102134 Schneider, C. (1979) The Acute Toxi city of Aldicarb Technical to the Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque): UCES Proj. No.

11504 -14- 04. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1979 under 1016- 78; submitted by Union Carbide Corp ., Arlington, VA; CDL:099120-D)

102145 Borash, A.; Bryant, H. (1965) Test Report on Union Carbide Agricultural Products: (Toxicity to Goldfish). (Unpublished study received Sep 9, 1965 under 1016-EX-24; CDL:126467-A)

139863 or

53353 Clarkson, V.A.; Hensley, W.H. (1968) Temik Insecticide: Toxicity of Temik, Temik Sulfoxide, and Temik Sulfone Bluegill Sunfish. Project No. 111B32. (Unpublished study received Jan 18, 1977 under 1016-

EX -37; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:238153- C)

5010817 Coppage, D.L. (1977) Anticholinesterase action of pesticidal carbamates in the central nervous system of poisoned fishes. Pages

93 -102, In Physiological Responses of Marine Biota to Pollutants, Proceedings of a Symposium; Nov, 1975, Milford, Connecticut. Edited by F.J. Vernberg, A. Calabrese, F.P. Thurberg and W.B. Vernberg.

New York: Academic Press.

40098001 Mayer, F.; Ellersieck, M. (1986) Manual of Acute Toxicity: Interpretation and Data Base for 410 Chemicals and 66 Specie s of Freshwater Animals. US Fish & Wildlife Service, Resource Pub lication 160. 579 p.

44598601 Pickering, Q.; Gilliam, W. (1982) Toxi city of aldicarb and fonofos to the early -life-stage of the fathead minnow. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.

11:699-702.

45592113 Odin-Feurtet, M. (1999) Aldicarb: Ac ute Toxicity (96-Hour) to Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) under Static Conditions: Lab Project Number: SA 99331. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone

- Poulenc Agro. 74 p.

45592115 Odin-Feurtet, M. (1998) Aldicarb Sulfoxide: Acute Toxicity (96 Hours) to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under Flow -Through Conditions: Lab Project Number: SA 98081. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Agro. 65 p. PC Code 110802

45592117 McElligott, A. (1998 ) Aldicarb Sulfone: Acute Toxicity (96 Hours) to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under Flow -Through Conditions: Lab Project Number: SA 98082. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone -Poulenc Agro. 64 p. Aldicarb Sulfone = PC Code

118201


### 72-2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

### 69 MRID Citation Reference

107395 Vilkas, A. (1977) The Acute Toxicity of Aldicarb Technical to the Water Flea ...: UCES Proj . #11504-14- 01. (Unpublished study received Dec 19, 1977 under 1016

- 69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:096683-A)

45592114


### 72-3 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms

MRID Citation Reference

66341 U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency, Environmental Research Laboratory (1981) Acephate, Aldicarb, Carbophenothion, DEF, EPN, Ethoprop, Methyl Parathion, and Phorate: Their Acute and Chronic Toxicity, Bioconcentration Potential, and Persistence as Related to Marine Environments: EPA-600/4-81-023. (Unpublished study)

102036 Heitmuller, T. (1972) Letter sent to S. Ichikawa dated Jan 7, 1972 Toxicity of Temik to grass shrimp|. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze Laboratory; unpublished study; CDL:096397-B)

40228401 USEPA Gulbreeze Laboratory Study Reports- multiple species


### 72-4 Fish Early Life Stage/Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Study

MRID Citation Reference

66341 U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency, Environmental Research Laboratory (1981) Acephate, Aldicarb, Carbophenothion, DEF, EPN, Ethoprop, Methyl Parathion, and Phorate: Their Acute and Chronic Toxicity, Bioconcentration Potential, and Persistence as Related to Marine Environments: EPA-600/4-81-023. (Unpublished study)

44598601 Pickering, Q.; Gilliam, W. (1982) Toxi city of aldicarb and fonofos to the early -life- stage of the fathead minnow. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.

11:699-702.


### 72-7 Simulated or Actual Field Testing

MRID Citation Reference

61078 Mulla, M.S. (1964) Letter sent to R.G. Haines dated Oct 20, 1964 Information on toxicity of some compounds against mosquito fish|. (Unpublished study received Oct 20, 1964 under unknown admin. no.; prepared by Univ. of California --Riverside, Div. of Agricultural Sciences, Citrus Research Center an d Agricultural Experiment Station, Dept. of Entomology, submitted by Union Car - bide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:131936-A)



### 141-1 Honey bee and Beneficial Insect Acute Toxicity

117840 Johansen, C.; Eves, J. (1967) Bee Research Investigations, 1967.

### 70 (Unpublished study received Oct 13, 1969 under 0F0897; prepared by Washington State Univ., submitted by Fisons Corp., Wilmington, MA; CDL:091551-H)

149696 Johansen, C.; Mayer, D.; Eves, J.; et al. (1983) Pesticides and bees. Environ. Entomology 12(5):1513-1518.

91958 Ridgway, R.L.; Cowan, C.B. (1966) A Report on Laboratory and Field Studies on the Effect of Several Insecticides on Beneficial Arthropods

in 1966: Mobay| 20268. (U.S. Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Div., Cotton Insects Systemic Chemicals Investigations and Southwestern Cotton Insects Investigations; unpublished study; CDL:120463-D)

36935 Atkins, E.L.; Greywood, E.A.; Macdonald, R.L. (1975) Toxicity of Pesticides and Other Agricultural Chemicals to Honey Bees: Labo ratory Studies. By University of California, Dept. of Entomology.: UC, Cooperative Extension. (Leaflet 2287; published study.)


### 142-3 Simulated or Actual Field Testing

MRID Citation Reference

102104 Atkins, E.; Kellum, D.; Atkins, K. (1977) Repellent Additives to Reduce Pesticide Hazards to Honey Bees: Maximizing the Effectiveness of Bees as Pollinators of Agricu ltural Crops: Project No. 3565 -RR (W139). Final rept. (Unpublished study received Jan 27, 1978 under

10182 -17; prepared by Univ. of California-- Riverside, Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, Dept. of Entomology, submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:096765-N)



## Non Guideline Selections

53386 Spurr, H.W., Jr.; Sousa, A.A. (1974) Potential interactions of Aldicarb and its metabolites on nontarget organisms in the envi - ronment. Journal of Environmental Quality 3(2):130 -133

. (Also In unpublished submission received jan 18, 1977 under 1016 -EX- 37; subm itted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL: 228979-AA)

93913 Westlake, G.E.; Bunyan, P.J.; Martin, A.D.; et al. (1981) Carbam- ate poisoning: Effects of selected carbamate pesticides on plasma enzymes and brain esterases of Japanese quail (Coturnix cotornix japonica). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 29(4):779

- 784. (Also In unpublished submission re ceived Jan 26, 1982 under 239- 2471; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:246657-J)

98468 Stauffer Chemical Company (1980) Comparison of Acute Oral Avian Toxicology between Dyfonate^(R)I 20

- G Insecticide and Other Corn Granular Insecticides. (Unpublished study received Oct 24, 1980 under 476-2028; CDL:243582-A)

102197 Yu, C.; Kearns, C.; Metcalf, R. (1972) Acetylcholinesterase in- hibition by substituted phenyl N -alkyl carbamates

. J. Agr. Fd. Chem. 20(3):537-540. (Also In unpublished submission re- ceived Dec 11,

### 71 1979 under 264-322; submitted by Un ion Carbide Agricultural Products Co., Inc., Ambler, PA; CDL:241454-C)

102198 Hastings, F.; Main, A.; Iverson, F. (1970) Carbamylation and affinity constants of some carbamate inhibitors of acetylcholinesterase and their relation to analogous substrate constants. J. Agr. Food Chem. 18(3):497 -502. (Also In unpublished submission received Dec 11, 1979

under 264

- 322; submitted by Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., Inc., Ambler, PA; CDL:241454-D)

102199 Reiner, E. (1971) Spontaneous reactivation of phosphorylated and carbamylated cholinesterases. Bull Wld Hlth Org. 44:109-112. (Published study; CDL:241454-E)

148686 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1978) A Comparison of the Palatability to the Ring- necked Pheasant of Three Formulations of Temik
10 G with Other Gr anular Pesticides: UNC/69C/78938. Un - published study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 23 p.

148687 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1978) A Comparison of the Palatability to the Zebra Finch of Two Formulations of Temik: UNC 69 G/78398. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 16 p.

148688 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1978) A Comparison of the Palatability to the Ring -necked Pheasant of Two Formulations of Te- mik: UNC 69 G/78399. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 14 p.

148689 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1979) The Effect of Granule Size
on the Toxic Hazard to Passeriformes of Temik 10G: UNC 69B/ 78721. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Cen- tre. 16 p.

148690 Stickel, W. (1979) Letter sent to R. Back dated May 29, 1979: [Comments on "Report on palatability studies and trials regarding the acute toxicity of the plant protection products Temik 10 G and Temik 10 GGF (gypsum) with Japanese quails, chickens and sparrows"]. Prepared by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Pa - tuxent Wildlife Research Center. 3 p.

148694 Spencer, D. (1985) A Review of the Research Conducted on the Toxicity and Potential Hazard of Granular Formulations of Aldicarb (Temik) to Bird Life. Unpublished study. 32 p.

148708 Relton, J. (1970) Wild Life Survey: Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide on Sugar Beets: Suffolk, England, 1970. Unpublished study. 11 p.

41255501 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1989) Biological Opinion on Selected Pesticides. Unpublished study. 891 p.

41377100 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1990) Submission of Biological Opinion Data for Selected Pesticides. Transmittal of 1 study.

41377101 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1989) Biological Opinion Log on Selected Pesticides. Unpublished study. 677 p.

1982 Biological Opinion

41708603 Hobson, J. (1990) Aldicarb: Response to the Review by the Ecologi-

### 72 cal Effects Branch of the 1987 Temik Terrestrial Vertebrate Field Study. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co. 20 p.

41708604 Kendall, R. (1990) Behavior, Survivability and Biochemical Response of Wild Mourning Doves (Zenaida macroura) Do sed with Aldicarb:Final Research Report Phase I: Lab Project Number: 08035. Unpublished study prepared by Clemson Univ., Institute of Wildlife and Environ. Toxicology. 29 p.

42316001 Smith, K. (1992) Clinical Necropsy report on three red-tailed hawks found near Edgefield, South Carolina. Prepared by Univ. of Ga., College of Veterinary Med. 2 p.

42316100 Univ. of Georgia (1992) Submission of an incident report involving Temik in the wildlife kill of a gray fox. Data submitted under FIFRA 6(a)(2). Transmittal of 1 study.

42316101 Smith, K. (1992) Clinical Necropsy Report on a Gray Fox Found near Edgefield, South Carolina. Unpublis hed study prepared by Univ. of Georgia, College of Veterinary Med. 2 p.

42316200 Univ. of Georgia (1992) Submission of an incident report involving

Temik in a wildlife kill of raccoons. Data submitted under FIFRA 6(a)(2). Transmittal of 1 study.

42316201 Smith, K. (1992) Clinical Necropsy Record on a Raccoon Found near Edgefield, South Carolina. Unpublished study pre pared by Univ. of Ga., College of Veterinary Med. 2 p.

42316500 Rhone-Poulenc Ag. Co. (1992) Submission of incident reports under FIFRA 6(a)(2) Status (Adverse effect s and incident report) to support the reregistration of Temik (Aldicarb) pesticide. Transmittal of 1 study.

42316501 Davis, W. (1992) Letter Sent to S. Haddad dated May 11, 1992: Death of dogs and cats in two separate incidents related to Temik (Aldicarb)|. 2 p.

46655401 Moore, D.; Thompson, R.; Purbrick, S. (2005) Problem Formulation for the Refined Aquatic Risk Assessme nt of Aldicarb. Project Number: 201373, 88380. Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. 31 p.

46655402 Moore, D.; Purbrick, S.; Thompson, R. (2005) Problem Formulation for the Refined Wildlife Risk Assessment of Aldicarb. Project Number: 201374, 88380. Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. 37 p.

46792601 Hall, L. (2006) Temik Brand 15G Aldicab Pesticide Crop and Geographical Usage Information (A Reference Provided for an Endangered Species Assessment of Aldicarb). Project Number: G201481. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Cropscience LP. 76

p.

46796102 Moore, D.; Thompson, R.; Purbrick, S. (2006) Refined Aquatic Risk Assessment for Aldicarb. Project Number: 201482. Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. 234 p.

46796103 Moore, D.; Purbrick, S.; Teed, R.; et. al. (2006) Refined Wildlife Risk Assessment for Aldicarb. Project Number: 201483, 88390.

### 73 Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. 493 p.

46873101 Best, L.; Brewer, L.; Klaine, S.; et. al. (2006) Refined Ecological Risk Assessment for Aldicarb Expert Peer Review Panel Process and Comments. Project Number: EPR/32306. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience LP. 10 p.

47124601 Fisher, D.; Ramanarayanan, T.; Moore, D.; et al. (2007) Effects
Determination for California Red

- Legged Frog Potentially Exposed to Aldicarb. Project Number: 88380, 20 1692. Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental, Inc. 138 p.

47164600 Croplife America (2007) Submissi on of Environmental Fate and Exposure and Risk Data in Support of the Preservation of the California Red Legged Frog. Transmittal of 2 Studies.

47164601 Moore, D.; Breton, R.; Rodney, S.; et al. (2007) Generic Problem
Formulation for California Red -Legged Frog. Project Number: 89320, 05232007. Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. 87 p.

47164602 Holmes, C.; Vamshi, R. (2007) Data and Methodology Used for Spatial Analysis of California Red Legged Frog Observations and Proximate Land Cover Characteristics. Proj ect Number: 3152007, WEI/252/03. Unpublished study prepared by Waterborne Environmental, Inc. (WEI). 19 p.

101909 Union Carbide Corp. (1969) Temik Aldicarb Pesticide: The Potential Hazard from Ingestion of Treated Plant Tissue. (Unpublished study received Nov 5, 1969 unde r 1016-69; CDL:024310-F)

102199 Reiner, E. (1971) Spontaneous reactivation of phosphorylated and carbamylated cholinesterases. Bull Wld Hlth Org. 44:109-112

. (Published study; CDL:241454-E)

42243301 W. Davis (1992) Letter Sent to S. Haddad dated February 19, 1992: Concerning deaths of an ocelot, tw o oppossums, and four raccoons atAtascosa Wildlife Refuge in Rio Hondo, Texas|. Prepared by RhonePoulenc Ag. Co. 1 p.

53383 or

102053 or

104568 Romine, R.R.; Meeker, R.L. (1973) Accumulation of Aldicarb Residues in Fish Tissue from Chronic Exposure to Aldicarb, Aldicarb sulfoxide and Aldicarb sulfone in Aquaria Water: Project No. 111A13. (Unpublished study received Jan 18, 1977 under 1016 -EX-37; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:228979-X)

### 74 Appendix A. Ecological Effects Data

Toxicity testing reported in this section does not represent all species of birds, mammals, or aquatic organisms. Only a few surrogate species for both freshwater fish and birds are used to represent all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (68 0+) species in the United States. Mammalian acute studies are usually limited to Norway or New Zealand rat or the house mouse. Estuarine/marine testing is usually limited to a crustacean, a mollusk, and a fish. Also, neither reptiles nor amphibians are tested. The risk assess ment assumes that avian and reptilian toxicities are similar. The same assumption is used for fi sh and amphibians in the aquatic environment. The following information was taken from previous assessments and updated if recent studies

were submitted.

Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals

Birds, Acute and Subacute

The acute oral LD 50 

### is 1.0 mg/kg-bw for aldicarb, and 33.5 mg/kg-bw for aldicarb sulfone. The most sensitive species tested for both aldicarb a nd aldicarb sulfone is the mallard duck. Aldicarb and aldicarb sulfone are categorized as very highly toxic and highly toxic to avian species on an acute oral basis, respectively (MRID 107398). Supplemental open literature suggests acute oral

LD 50s 

### of 0.75 mg/kg-bw aldicarb for passerine species (MRID 148695).

The most sensitive species tested on a subacute 5-d dietary basis for both aldicarb and aldicarb sulfone is the bobwhite quail. The 5-d LC 50 

### is 71 ppm for aldicarb, and 5706 ppm for aldicarb sulfone (or sulfocarb). Aldicarb and aldicarb sulfone are categorized as very highly toxic and practically nontoxic to avian species, respectively (MRID 00102132 & 1096727).

Birds, Chronic

The avian reproduction studies submitted by the re gistrant were both classified as supplemental (MRIDs 48156905 & 48198801).

MRID 48156905 is a one-generation reproductive toxicity study involving dietary exposures of Northern bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) to aldicarb. Aldicarb was administered to the birds in the diet at nominal concentrations of 0 (vehicle control), 2, 10, and 50 mg ai/kg diet (corrected for purity). Mean-measured concentrations were <0.2 (<LOQ, control), 1.8, 8.3, and 43 mg ai/kg diet, respectively. This study is scientifically sound but classified supplemental because of small cage sizes and because the test was unable to detect up to 25% difference in treatment animal endpoints compared to controls. This study may not be used to fulfill the guideline requirement. Although none of the e ndpoints in the treated groups displayed statistically significant differen ces compared to controls, several of the endpoints had 10-25% difference in the two highest treatments. These endpoints include: number of eggs laid/pen, number of eggs set/pen, number of viable embryos/pen, number of live embryos/pen, number of hatchlings/pen, hatchling survival/pen. In addition, a dult body weight gain was also decreased in these treatments. The reviewer concluded that these differences may be biologically significant. Therefore, the NOAEC of this study is set to th e lowest test concentration (i.e., 1.8 mg a.i./kgdiet) and the LOAEC is 8.3 mg a.i./kg-diet.

### 75 MRID 48198801 is a one-generation reproductive toxicity study involving dietary exposures of mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) to aldicarb. Aldicarb was administered to the birds in the diet at nominal concentrations of 0 (vehicle control), 3, 15, and 75 mg ai/kg diet (corrected for purity). Mean-measured concentrations were <1.0 (<LOQ, control), 3, 15, and 72 mg ai/kg diet, respectively. There were slight, but statistically -significant (p<0.05) effects on several endpoints at the 15 mg ai/kg diet level; however, these effects were not observed at the next highest level (i.e., 72 mg a.i./kg diet). At the 15 mg a.i./kg diet level, there was a significant (p=0.016) increase in the number of eggs cracked, with an average of 0.25 eggs cracked per pen in the control versus 1.31 eggs per pen in the 15 mg ai/kg diet group. No other treatment level exhibited a higher incident of cracked eggs, but the 15 mg ai/kg diet level continued to exhibit reductions in the number of eggs set to eggs laid (p=0.010; 3.5% reduction from control), ratio of 14-day survivors to number hatched (p=0.04; 0.6% reduction), and hatchling weights (p=0.004; 5.8% reduction). No other treatment-related effects were observed at any concentration level for any adult, reproductive, or offspring parameter. Despite the observation of statistically significant effects at the 15 mg ai/kg level, the reviewer concluded that these effects were not

related to the test substance because similar ef fects were not observed at the next highest treatment level (i.e., 72 mg a.i./kg diet), which was a factor of 5 greater than the level were effects were observed. This study is scientifically sound; however, it does not satisfy the guideline requirement for a mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) reproductive toxicity study. This study is classified supplemental because a LOAEC was not established in the study and the study report does not indicate the maximum field residue that would be expected based on application rates of aldicarb. Therefore, it is unknown if the highest level tested was an appropriate level to approximate the maximum expected field residues.

Mammals, Acute

Rat toxicity values obtained from the Agency's Health Effects Division (HED) substitute for wild mammal testing. Aldicarb is categorized as very highly toxic to small mammals on an acute oral

basis with a rat LD 50 

### of 0.9 mg/kg-bw (MRID 00057333).

Mammals, Chronic

In a 2-generation reproduction study reviewed by HED (MRID 42148401), rats were exposed to aldicarb in their diet at concentrations of 0, 2, 5, 10, and 20 ppm. Exposure consistently led todecreased dam body weight gain (parental LOAEL = 0.7 - 0.9 mg/kg-bw; NOAEL = 0.4 mg/kgbw). Aldicarb treatment also caused lower survivability and pup weights in offspring of all litters (reproductive LOAEL = 1.4 - 1.7 mg/kg-bw; NOAEL = 0.7 - 0.9 mg/kg-bw). These toxicity

values are similar to the acute oral LD 50 

### mammalian values and suggest that mammals that survive acute aldicarb exposure may suffer adverse reproductive effects from chronic exposure.

Beneficial Insects

A honey bee acute contact study using the TGAI is not required for aldicarb due to its granular formulation. However, aldicarb is categorized highly toxic to bees on an acute contact basis with

an LD 50 

### of 0.285 ug/bee (MRID 00036935). It is recognized that potential honey bee exposure may occur due to the systemic nature of aldicarb. Because of its granular formulation, it is

### 76 unlikely that there is a direct contact exposure scenario for honey bees; however, these and other beneficial insects could be exposed to aldicarb an d aldicarb residues through contact with plants

and soil.

Earthworms

Soil-dwelling invertebrates, such as earthworms, can play important roles in maintaining soil fertility and facilitating organic matter degradat ion, as well as an important food source for birds and mammals. A study by Mosleh et al (2003) demonstrated an earthworm ( Aporrectodea caliginosa ) 28-day LC 50 

### of 0.68 ppm.

Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants

Terrestrial plant testing is required for pesticides other than herbicides if data from the literature indicate that a pesticide is phytotoxic. A ti er I seedling emergence study (MRID 4704401) is classified supplemental and cannot be used to fulfill the guideline requirement for 850.4100. A Tier II seedling emergence study was subm itted for ryegrass and tomato (MRID 49477401). No effects to Ryegrass of Tomato resulted in the Tier II study using granular TEMIK 15G.

Summary of review of MRID 47904401

The effect of Temik 15 G (AI: Aldicarb) on the seedling emergence of monocot (corn, Zea mays ; oat, Avena sativa ; onion, Allium cepa ; and ryegrass, Lolium perenne ) and dicot (cucumber,

Cucumis sativus ; oilseed rape, Brassica napus ; sugarbeet, Beta vulgaris ; soybean, Glycine max ; sunflower, Helianthus annuus ; and tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum ) crops was studied at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control) and 75 kg product/ha, which is equivalent to 11.5 kg ai/ha (10.3 lb ai/A). The growth medium used in the seedling emerge nce test was a mixture of natural soil (silt loam) and washed sa nd; pH 7.24, organic carbon 0.63%. On day 21, the surviving plants per pot were recorded and cut at soil level for measuring the plant height and dry weight.

The most sensitive monocot species was ryegrass, with a 12 and 44% difference in shoot length and weight, respectively, compared to the control . The most sensitive dicot species was tomato, with a 28 and 25% difference in shoot length and weight, respectively, compared to the control. Phytotoxic effects, including stunting and necrosis, were observed in ryegrass and tomatoes. Based on the observance of >25% effects in ryegrass and tomato, a tier II study consistent with OCSPP guideline 850.4225 and using these two species is necessary to fulfill the guideline requirement for 850.4100. The Tier I studies w ith ryegrass and tomato are considered supplemental. The data from the Tier I studies with corn, oat, onion, cucumber, oilseed rape, soybean, sugarbeet and sunflower are all considered acceptable. Overall, this toxicity study is classified supplemental and does not satisfy the guideline requirement for a seedling emergence toxicity study because >25% effects were observed in two species (i.e., ryegrass and tomato) and tier II studies have not been submitted for those species.

### 77 Toxicity to Freshwater Animals

Freshwater Fish, Acute

Aldicarb

Since the 96-h LC 50 

### values ranged from 52 to 110 ppb ai, aldicarb is categorized as very highly toxic to highly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis. The most sensitive of these results was the 52 ppb ai for the bluegill sunfish (Mayer and Ellersieck 1986) conducted under static conditions. A supplemental acute toxicity test co nducted under static conditions reported a 96-h

LC 50 

### for aldicarb of 110 ppb ai for juvenile bluegill sunfish. Because of the static conditions, it is likely this value reflects cont ribution of parent aldicarb and its degradates. The bluegill sunfish

96-h LC 50 

### of 52 ppb ai was chosen to calculate acute risk quotients from exposure to aldicarb because it is the most sensitive endpoint of the 96-h LC 50 

### values. There was an acute value for fathead minnow exposed to aldicarb found in the public literature but it was only for a 48 hour study, therefore it is likely an underestimate of aldicarb toxicity to this species at 96 hours and is therefore classified as supplemental information.

Acute Toxicity Endpoints for Freshwater Fish

Species Endpoint (ppb ai) MRID/Reference

Aldicarb
Bluegill sunfish 96 -h LC 50 

### = 52 ppb ai MRID 40098001and MRID3503 (Mayer and Ellersieck 1986)

Rainbow trout 96 -h LC 50 

### = 560 ppb ai MRID 40098001and MRID 3503 (Mayer and Ellersieck

Fathead minnow 48 -hr LC 50 

### = 8,860 ppb ai Moore. et al . 1998 (Supplemental information as this is only a 48 -h study)

Aldicarb sulfoxide

Rainbow trout 96-h LC 50 

### = 7,140 ppb ai MRID 45592115
Aldicarb sulfone

Rainbow trout 96 -h LC 50 

### = 42,000 ppb ai Acc# 096727 (Anonymous 1976)

Rainbow trout 96 -h LC 50 

### > 106,000 ppb ai MRID 45592117

Aldicarb sulfoxide

A flow through acute toxicity test using the degradate aldicarb sulfoxide was conducted on

rainbow trout. A 96-h LC 50 

### of 7,140 ppb was reported which is classified as moderately toxic (MRID 45592115).

### 78 Aldicarb sulfone

An acute toxicity test conducted on rainbow trout using the degradate aldicarb sulfone had a 96-h

LC 50 

### of 42,000 ppb ai. This is characterized as slightly toxic [Acc# 096727 (Anonymous 1976)]. A flow through acute toxicity test using aldicarb sulfone had a 96-h LC 50 

### greater than 106,000 ppb ai for rainbow trout, which is characterized as practically non toxic (MRID 45592117).

Based on the acute toxicity studies for freshwater fish, the relative toxicity relationship is:

aldicarb>aldicarb sulfoxide> aldicarb sulfone.

Freshwater Fish, Chronic

Aldicarb

A freshwater fish early life-stage test using aldicarb (99% ai) has been conducted with the fathead minnow. The NOAEC was 78 ppb ai and the LOAEC was 156 ppb ai. The most sensitive endpoint was the survival of larva e-juveniles after 30-days exposure (MRID 44598601 also known as BOWOAL07/4 (Q.H. Pickering and W.T. Gilliam 1982)). However, according to the acute freshwater fish data the bluegill sunfish was the most sensitive freshwater fish tested

with a 96-h LC 50 

### of 52 ppb ai. This 96-h LC 50 

### of 52 ppb ai is lower than the NOAEC of 78 ppb ai for the fathead minnow, indicating that the bluegill is much more sensitive to aldicarb than the fathead minnow. Therefore, a screening level chronic RQ for fish cannot be calculated using the fathead minnow chronic NOAEC directly. However since both a supplemental acute (48-h

LC 50 

### = 8,860 ppb ai; Moore. et al . 1998) and acceptable chronic (NOAEC = 78 ppb ai) aldicarb value exist for fathead minnow, an acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR) can be calculated for this species and then used to determine an estimated NOAEC for the bluegill sunfish.

The ACR for the fathead minnow of 114 is calculated by dividing the fathead minnow 48-hr

EC 50 

### of 8,860 ppb ai by the fathead chronic NOAEC of 78 ppb ai. The 96-h LC 50 

### of 52 ppb ai for the bluegill sunfish is then divided by the A CR of 114 which results in an estimate of the chronic NOAEC for the bluegill sunfish of 0.46 ppb ai. A 48-h LC 50 

### value was used to calculate the ACR

rather than a 96-h LC 50 

### because none was available, this potentially over estimates the ACR for fathead minnow. Additionally, a robust estimate of an ACR (i.e., geometric mean of ACRs for at least three fish species with at least one coldwa ter and one warmwater spec ies) for aldicarb could not be calculated because only one fish species, the fathead minnow, had both acute and chronic endpoints available for determination of an ACR. While a more robust estimate of the ACR is desirable, the use of the fathead minnow ACR is a reasonable estimate but may be either a slight

over or underestimate of ACR for fish.

Chronic Toxicity Endpoints for Freshwater Fish

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Fathead minnow fish early life stage NOAEC = 78 ppb ai MRID 44598601 also known as BOWOAL07/4 (Q.H. Pickering and W.T. Gilliam 1982)

### 79 Bluegill sunfish Estimated NOAEC = 0.46 ppb ai 96 -h LC 50 

### for bluegill sunfish (52 ppb ai) divided by ACR (fathead minnow 48-h

EC 50 

### of 8860 ppb ai divided by NOAEC of 78 ppb ai)

Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute

Aldicarb

A Daphnia magna core study determined the 48-h EC 50 

### to be 410 ppb ai (Acc #096683, also known as BOWOAL08 and MRID 107395 (Vilkas 1977), categorizing aldicarb as highly toxic to aquatic freshwater invertebrates on an ac ute basis. Because this test was conducted under static rather than flow-through conditions, it is like ly that this value reflects the contributions of a mixture of parent aldicarb and various degrada tes. A supplemental study from the literature reported the 48-h LC 50 

### of aldicarb to Daphnia magna, Aedes aegypti, Atermia sp., and Aedes taeniorhynchus as 75, 290, 5460, and 150 ppb ai respectively, in 48 hour static tests (Song et al.

, 1997). A supplemental study from open literature al so concluded that aldicarb was very-highly

toxic to Daphnia magna with a reported 48-h EC 50 

### of 583 ppb (Moore. et al . 1998). This same study reported a 48-h EC 50 

### of 3990 ppb for Hyalella azteca (categorized as moderately toxic) and a reported 48-h EC 50 

### of 20 ppb for Chironomus tentans. A supplemental study obtained from open literature (Foran et al. 1985) determined the 48-h EC 50 

### of juvenile Daphnia laevis to be 65 ppb and 51 ppb for adult Daphnia laevis categorizing aldicarb as very highly toxic.

Because Moore et al. (1998) is classified as a supplemental study of high quality, the 48-h

Chironomus tentans EC 50 

### value of 20 ppb will be used in the risk characterization.

Aldicarb sulfoxide

Foran et al. 1985 also found that aldicarb sulfoxide is also very highly toxic to Daphnia laevis

, with a 48-h EC 50 

### of 57 ppb for juveniles and 43 ppb for adults. Thus, aldicarb sulfoxide toxicity to freshwater invertebrates appears to be simi lar in toxicity to aldicarb. A supplemental static acute toxicity test was performed using the degradate aldicarb sulfoxide with the test species Daphnia magna . The 48-h EC 50 

### was 696 ppb, which is classified as highly toxic to daphnids (MRID 45592114).

Aldicarb sulfone

Based on a core study, the 48-h EC 50 

### for aldicarb sulfone is 280 ppb for Daphnia magna which is categorized as highly toxic to freshwa ter invertebrates on an acute basis [Acc# 096727 (Anonymous 1976) ]. Foran et al. (1985) also found that the toxicity of aldicarb sulfone to daphnids is in the highly toxic category (juvenile 48-h EC 50 

### =556 ppb and adult 48-h EC 50 

### =369 ppb).

Based on the acute toxicity studies for freshwater invertebrates, the relative toxicity relationship

is: aldicarb | 

### aldicarb sulfoxide > aldicarb sulfone.

### 80 Acute Toxicity Endpoints for Freshwater Invertebrates

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Daphnia magna 48 -h EC 50 

### = 410 ppb Acc #096683, also known as

BOWOAL08 and MRID 107395 (Vilkas 1977),

Daphnia magna 48-hr LC 50 

### = 75 ppb Song et al. , 1997

Aedes aegypti 48-hr LC 50 

### = 290 ppb Song et al. , 1997

Atermia sp. 48-hr LC 50 

### = 5460 ppb Song et al. , 1997

Aedes taeniorhynchus 48-hr LC 50 

### = 150 ppb Song et al. , 1997

Daphnia magna 48-hr EC 50 

### = 583 ppb Moore. et al . 1998

Hyalella azteca 48-hour EC 50 

### = 3990 ppb Moore. et al . 1998

Chironomus tentans 48-hour EC 50 

### = 20 ppb Moore. et al . 1998

Daphnia laevis (juvenile) 48 hr EC 50 

### =65 ppb Foran et al. 1985

Daphnia laevis (adult) 48 hr EC 50 

### = 51 ppb Foran et al. 1985

Aldicarb sulfoxide

Daphnia magna 48-h EC 50 

### = 696 ppb MRID 45592114

Daphnia laevis (adult) 48 hr EC 50 

### = 43 ppb Foran et al. 1985

Daphnia laevis (juvenile) 48 hr EC 50 

### =57 ppb Foran et al. 1985

Aldicarb sulfone

Daphnia magna 48 -h EC 50 

### = 280 ppb Acc# 096727 (Anonymous 1976)

Daphnia laevis (adult) 48-h EC 50 

### =369 ppb Foran et al. (1985)

Daphnia laevis (juvenile) 48-h EC 50 

### =556 ppb Foran et al. (1985)

Qualitative Studies

Midge, Chironomus riparius Symptoms of intoxication Kallander et al. 1997

Midge, Chironomus riparius 24 -hr LC 50 

### (water only) = 9.9 ppb

24 -hr LC 50 

### (spiked water) = 10.0 ppb,

24 -hr LC 50 

### (spiked sediment) = 26.7 ppb Lydy et al. 1990

Gammarus italicus Goedm. 96-hr LC 50 

### = 420 ppb Pantani et al. 1997

### 81 Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Echinogammarus tibaldii

Pink. 96 -hr LC 50 

### = 220 ppb Pantani et al. 1997

Midge Chironomus riparius 24 hr EC 50 

### value = 23 ppb Sturm and Hansen 1999

Daphnid Daphnia magna 24 hr EC 50 

### value = 227.6 ppb Sturm and Hansen 1999

Aedes taeniorhynchus 48 -hr LC 50 

### = 150 ppb (hyperosmotic condition)

72 -hr LC50=200 ppb (isosmotic conditions) Song and Brown 1998

Artemia sp. 48 -hr LC 50 

### = 5460 ppb (hyperosmotic)

72 -hr LC50=17250 ppb (isosmotic conditions) Song and Brown 1998

Pond snail Lymnaea

acuminata 48 -hr LC 50 

### = 20000 ppb Singh and Agarwal 1981

Apple snail Pila globosa

Swainson 48 -hour LC 50 

### value could not

be determined Singh and Agarwal 1981

Midge Chironomus riparius None Fisher et al. 1993

Midge Chironomus riparius 24 -hour LC 50 

### values ranged from 17-28 ppb at pH 4-8 Suorsa and Fisher 1986

Aldicarb sulfoxide

Daphnia magna EC 50 

### = 696 ppb MRID 45592114

Daphnia laevis (adult) 48 hr EC 50 

### = 43 ppb Foran et al. 1985

Daphnia laevis (juvenile) 48 hr EC 50 

### =57 ppb Foran et al. 1985

Aldicarb sulfone

Daphnia magna EC 50 

### = 280 ppb Acc# 096727 (Anonymous 1976)

Daphnia laevis (adult) EC 50 

### =369 ppb Foran et al. (1985)

Daphnia laevis (juvenile) EC 50 

### =556 ppb Foran et al. (1985)

Freshwater Invertebrate Qualitative Studies Using the database ECOTOX to identify additional data from the open literature, several supplemental studies were identified that can be used qualitatively to discuss the effects of

aldicarb on freshwater invertebrates. These studi es were not appropriate for quantitative use in calculation of risk quotients.

### 82 A one day test identified aldicarb as very highly toxic to the midge and daphnid on an acute toxicity basis under static conditions. The 24-h EC 50 

### value was reported to be 23 ppb a.i. for the midge and 227.6 ppb a.i. for the daphnid (Sturm and Hansen 1999).

Several studies examined the effects of aldicarb to freshwater invertebrates and the effects of pulse dosing, pH, and different modes of exposure. In a pulsed exposure test, Kallander et al

. (1996) studied midges (Chironomus riparus) exposed to aldicarb under static conditions. Midges exposed to aldicarb for two, pulsed 1-hour periods with a recovery period in clean water for 6 or more hours showed significantly fewer symptoms of intoxication than those exposed continuously for 2 hours. This indicates that continuous exposure to aldicarb from runoff events with no recovery time would exacerbate the symptoms of intoxication for freshwater

invertebrates.

The 24 hour acute toxicity of aldicarb to Chironomus riparus was studied under static conditions at pH 4, 6, and 8 (Suorsa and Fisher 1986). The 24-h LC 50 

### values ranged from 17-28 ppb for aldicarb at pH 4-8. Toxicity of aldicarb to midges did not differ significantly as a function of pH.

A 24 hour static study by Lydy et al (1990) evaluated three modes of exposure of aldicarb to Chironomus riparius : treated water only with no sediment (water only); treated water with untreated sediment (spiked water); and treated sediment with untre ated water (spiked sediment). The reported 24-h LC 50 

### for the water only, spiked water, and spiked sediment treatments were 9.9, 10.0 and 26.7 ppb respectively, which classifi es aldicarb as very highly toxic to C. riparius on an acute toxicity basis for all three routes of exposure. In addition, these tests indicate that the water exposure pathways produce more sensitive endpoints than sediment exposure. This affirms the use of acute aquatic toxicity tests using aldicar b for freshwater invertebrates to be the most sensitive route of exposure.

Fisher et al. 1993 studied the toxicity of aldicarb to the midge with and without sediment. Five molecular descriptors (molecular volume, Henry’s law constant, n -octanol/water partition coefficient, molecular connectivity, and linear so lvation energy) were used in regression analysis as potential predictors of pesticide activity. Qu antitative structure activity relationships indicate sediment sorption plays a large role in the ultimate toxicity of aldicarb to the midge.

Several studies were identified that deal with sp ecies not normally tested in registrant submitted

studies. These studies classified aldicarb in a range of slightly toxic to highly toxic. The 96-hr acute toxicity of aldicarb to Gammarus italicus Goedm and Echinogammarus tibaldii Pink was studied under static conditions (Pantani et al . 1997). The 96-h LC 50 

### value was determined to be 420 ppb a.i. and 220 ppb a.i., respectively, which ca tegorizes aldicarb as highly toxic on an acute toxicity basis.

The 240-hr acute toxicity of aldicarb to the pond snail Lymnaea acuminata and the apple snail Pila globosa Swainson was studied under static conditions (Singh and Agarwal 1981). Paralysis was observed in the test organisms within 24 hours of exposure even though the animals remained alive for varying lengths of time; no mortality was observed in the control group. The

48-h LC 50 

### value was 20000 ppb a.i., which categorizes aldicarb as slightly toxic to L. acuminata on an acute toxicity basis. The 48-h LC 50 

### value could not be determined for the apple snail within the range of doses tested. The LC 50 

### values from 72 hours to 240 hours ranged from

### 83 210000-78000 ppb, which categorizes aldicarb as practically non-toxic to slightly toxic to P. globosa on an acute to subchronic toxicity basis.

The 48-h hyperosmotic and 72-hour isosmotic ac ute toxicities of aldicarb to the mosquito Aedes taeniorhynchus and brine shrimp Artemia sp. were studied under static conditions (Song and Brown 1997). Mosquito and nauplii larvae were exposed to the test material at two different salinities, hyperosmotic and isosmotic. Under hyperosmotic conditions, the reported Aedes 48-

hour LC 50 

### was 150 ppb a.i and the Artemia 48-hour LC 50 

### was 5460 ppb a.i. Aldicarb is thus, classified as highly toxic to Aedes and moderately toxic to Artemia sp. Under isosmotic conditions, the reported 72-hour LC50 was 200 ppb a.i. for Aedes (highly toxic) and the 72-hour LC50 was 17250 ppb a.i. for Artemia ( slightly toxic)

.

Freshwater Invertebrate, Chronic

Aldicarb

The chronic risk to freshwater invertebrates is based on the estuarine/marine chronic study using Mysidopsis bahia . The reason for using this endpoin t is based on the memorandum dated December 14, 1993, from A. Maciorowski, EFED to P. Poli, SRRD (D196663): “EEB has previously received and reviewed a valid Mysid shrimp chronic toxicity study that resulted in a calculated MATC of 1-1.5 ppb. Since the acute data indicates that the Mysid shrimp is more

sensitive to aldicarb than Daphnia magna (Mysid shrimp LC 50 

### = 16 ppb, Daphnia magna LC 50 

### = 410.7 ppb) and EEB does have valid Mysid shrimp c hronic toxicity data, EEB is willing to waive the requirement for the Guideline 72-4(b) Freshwater Invertebrate Life Cycle Study. However, as a result all aquatic risk assessments utilizing invertebrate chronic toxicity data will be based on the Mysid shrimp data.” The mysid shrimp NOAEC is 1.0 ppb.

A supplemental chronic toxicity study was submitted that evaluated the effect of aldicarb (99.9% a.i.) on Daphnia magna . An EC 50 

### of 90 ppb, NOAEC of 20 ppb, and LOAEC of 60 ppb were reported for mortality and immobilization. An EC 50 

### with a range of 190 to 570 ppb, NOAEC of 190 ppb and LOAEC greater than 190 ppb were reported for reproductive effects. The most sensitive endpoint was reproductive effects (M RID 45592112). This study is classified as supplemental and is not upgradeable to core due to the study’s deviations.

Chronic Toxicity Endpoints for Freshwater Invertebrates

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Daphnia magna NOAEC = 20 ppb MRID 45592112

### 84 Toxicity to Estuarine and Marine Animals

Estuarine and Marine Fish, Acute

Aldicarb

Based on results from the preferred test species, sheepshead minnow, 96-h LC 50 

### values range from 41 to 170 ppb. Therefore, aldicarb is categorized very highly to highly toxic to

estuarine/marine fish on an acute basis. The most se nsitive estuarine/marine fish species tested was the sheepshead minnow with a 96-h LC 50 

### of 41 ppb [MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 1986)]. A supplemental study obtained from open literat ure (Landau and Tucker 1984) found a similar magnitude value for a snook (Centropomus undecimalis) embryo/larva bioassays with a 36-hr

LC 50 

### of 40 ppb. After 96-hr of exposure the snook may have a lower LC 50 

### ; therefore, the snook may be more sensitive than the sheepshead minnow.

Acute Toxicity Endpoints for Estuarine and Marine Fish

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Sheepshead minnow 96 -h LC 50 

### = 41 ppb MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 1986)

Snook (Centropomus undecimalis) 36 -h LC 50 

### = 40 ppb Landau and Tucker 1984

Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodin variegates ) 96 -h LC 50 

### = 170 ppb MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 1986)

Estuarine and Marine Fish, Chronic

Aldicarb

A chronic estuarine/marine fish early life-stage test using aldicarb (99% ai) has been conducted with the sheepshead minnow. The NOAEC was 50 ppb and the LOAEC was 88 ppb. The most sensitive endpoint was growth based on the mean standard length [MRID 00066341 (U.S. EPA 1981b)]. The lowest chronic endpoint value available for sheepshead minnow is higher than the lowest acute endpoint value for sheepshead minnow. Therefore, it not appropriate to screen for

chronic risks to estuarine/marine fish with this value. However, since there is an ACR of 114 available for fish (freshwater fathead minnow ACR, see the Freshwater Fish, Chronic Aldicarb section above) this value was used to esti mate a chronic NOAEC using the acute 96-h LC 50 

### for sheepshead minnow from MRID 40228401.

The estimated chronic NOAEC for the sheepshead minnow is 0.36 ppb and is calculated by dividing the 96-h LC 50 

### of 41 ppb for the sheepshead minnow by the ACR for fathead minnow of 114. As discussed in the Freshwater Fish, Chronic Aldicarb section above a 48-h LC 50 

### value was

used to calculate the ACR rather than a 96-h LC 50 

### because none was available, this potentially

over estimates the ACR for fathead minnow. Additi onally, a robust estimate of an ACR (i.e.,

### 85 geometric mean of ACRs for at least three fish species with at least one coldwater, one warmwater and one saltwater species) for aldicarb could not be calculated because only one fish species, the fathead minnow, had both acute and chronic acceptable endpoints available for

determination of an ACR. While a more robust es timate of the ACR is desirable, the use of the fathead minnow ACR is a reasonable estimate but may be either a slight over or underestimate of

ACR for fish.

Chronic Toxicity Endpoints for Estuarine and Marine Fish

Species Endpoint (NOAEC) MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Sheepshead minnow Early life stage NOAEC = 50 ppb MRID 00066341 (U.S. EPA 1981b)

Sheepshead minnow Estimated NOAEC = 0.36 ppb 96 -h LC 50 

### for sheepshead minnow (41 ppb ai) divided by ACR (fathead minnow 48-

h EC 50 

### of 8860 ppb ai divided by NOAEC of 78 ppb ai)

Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates, Acute

Aldicarb

Based on results from the preferred test species , pink shrimp and Eastern oyster, following test guidelines, the toxicity values fall in the range of 12 to 8800 ppb. Therefore, aldicarb is categorized as very highly to moderately toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute

basis. The 48-h EC 50 

### for the Eastern oyster is reported as 8800 ppb. Therefore, the most sensitive estuarine/marine invertebrate tested was the pink shrimp, with a 96-h LC 50 

### of 12 ppb [MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 1986)].

Acute Toxicity Endpoints for Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Eastern oyster 48 -h EC 50 

### = 8800 ppb MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 1986)

Pink shrimp 96 -h LC 50 

### = 12 ppb MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 1986)

### 86 Estuarine and Marine Invertebrate, Chronic

Aldicarb

A chronic estuarine/marine invertebrate full life -cycle test using aldicarb (99% ai) has been conducted with the mysid shrimp. The NOAEC was 1 ppb and the LOAEC was 1.5 ppb. The most sensitive endpoint was average number of offspring [MRID 00066341(U.S. EPA 1981b)].

Chronic Toxicity Endpoints for Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Mysid shrimp Full life cycle NOAEC = 1 ppb MRID 00066341

Toxicity to Aquatic Plants

Aldicarb

According to CFR 40 Part 158.540, aquatic plant testing is generally not required for nonherbicides unless there is evidence of potential phytotoxicity at use rates from other lines of evidence. At this time, EFED has one study conducted on the marine diatom, Skeletonema

costatum (MRID 40228401) and a study on Duckweed (MRID 47904402). The EC 50 

### is >50 ppm for the diatom and >88.7 ppm for duckweed.

Toxicity Endpoints for Aquatic Plants

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Marine diatom, Skeletonema

costatum EC 50 

### > 50 ppm MRID 40228401

Duckweed, Lemna gibba EC50 >88.7 ppm MRID 47904402

Summary of review of MRID 47904402

In a 7 day acute toxicity study, Duckweed ( Lemna gibba; freshwater floating aquatic vascular plants) were exposed to Aldicarb Technical at nom inal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 2.56, 6.40, 16.0, 40.0, and 100 mg ai/L under static renewal conditions. Measured concentrations were <0.20 (<LOQ, control), 2.17, 5.50, 14.3, 35.9, and 88.7 mg ai/L.

The % growth inhibition of frond number in the treatm ent groups as compared to the control ranged

from 4 to 41%. For biomass based on frond number , inhibitions ranged from 3 to 38%. For dry weight, inhibitions ranged from 5 to 46%. Ther e were no compound related phytotoxic effects. The NOAEC for this study was 5.50 mg a.i./L, ba sed on effects to frond number, biomass and dry weight at 14.3 mg a.i./L. For all endpoints that were included in this study ( i.e., frond number, dry

### 87 weight and growth rate), <50% effects were obser ved, resulting in an EC50 value >88.7 mg ai/L ( i.e., the highest test concentration). Since a dose-re sponse relationship was observed in this test and the highest test concentrations resulted in almost 50% effects, extrapolated EC50 values were calculated by the reviewer. The lowest extra polated EC50 was 110 (95% confidence interval: 90- 130; slope = 1.74+/- 0.251) based on effects to dry weight. Although an EC50 value was not bound by the concentrations used in this test and the highest test concentration was not 100 mg a.i./L, the extrapolated EC50 value for dry weight and the available NOAECs are sufficient to establish endpoints from this study. This toxicity study is considered scientifically sound and classified acceptable. This study may be used to satisfy the guideline requirement for an aquatic plant toxicity study using Lemna sp.

### 88 Appendix B. Aquatic Model File

Parent Aldicarb SWCC Output Files.zip Aldicarb TTR SWCC Output Files.zip8990Appendix C. Domestic Animal and Aggregate Incident Summary for AldicarbDomestic Animal Incidents Associated with Aldicarb Products as Reported in the Incident Data System (IDS)IncidentPackageReportIncidentDateLocationCountryProductNamePCCodePackage Description008922 -000015/5/1998BASTROP, LAUSALDICARB098301Rhone-Poulenc: 5 D-A reports: 10/1-12/31/98: a/d/e) Dogs and catsgiven food baited with aldicarb. b/c) Dogs poisoned but no baitfound.008922 -000026/8/1998WINSER, LAUSALDICARB098301Rhone-Poulenc: 5 D-A reports: 10/1-12/31/98: a/d/e) Dogs and catsgiven food baited with aldicarb. b/c) Dogs poisoned but no baitfound.008922 -000039/12/1998WINSER, LAUSALDICARB098301Rhone-Poulenc: 5 D-A reports: 10/1-12/31/98: a/d/e) Dogs and catsgiven food baited with aldicarb. b/c) Dogs poisoned but no baitfound.008922 -000046/1/1998TUTWILER, MSUSALDICARB098301Rhone-Poulenc: 5 D-A reports: 10/1-12/31/98: a/d/e) Dogs and catsgiven food baited with aldicarb. b/c) Dogs poisoned but no baitfound.008922 -0000511/9/1998ELLISVILLE, MSUSALDICARB098301Rhone-Poulenc: 5 D-A reports: 10/1-12/31/98: a/d/e) Dogs and catsgiven food baited with aldicarb. b/c) Dogs poisoned but no baitfound.009194 -000011/1/1999HARPER'SFERRY, WVUSTEMIKBRAND 15GALDICARBPESTICIDE098301Updates aggreg. I008694: D-A: dog poisoned by Aldicarb, Harper'sFerry, WV. Also 3 dogs,falcon, hawk died (w/ no confirmed link tochem.) Feud.009286 -000011/1/1999ROGERSVILLE,ALUSTEMIK098301Horses sick next to cotton field.Many chemicals applied to field.Horse had neurological symptoms: labored breathing, twitching...Owner sick too.010439 -000026/1/2000MSUSTEMIK098301Aventis: 2 Temik poisonings: misuse: a) coyote & opossum died, b)hunting dog, buzzard, raccoon died. Lawsuits: Aventis encouragesprosecution011127 -000011/25/2001BOWMAN, SCUSTEMIKBRAND 15GALDICARBPESTICIDE098301Aventis: intentional poisoning of broiler chickens, Bowman, SC.Some chickens processed. FDA issued recall. Misuse. See I011201for residue.91IncidentPackageReportIncidentDateLocationCountryProductNamePCCodePackage Description011146 -000012/13/2001SUMTER, SCUSALDICARB098301Gold Kist Inc. recalls 421,000 lbs. of chicken products for possiblecontamination with Aldicarb malicious intent by unknown person.Update I011127011201 -000012/6/2001BOWMAN, SCUSTEMIKBRAND 15GALDICARBPESTICIDE098301Aventis: Updates I011127: Lab analysis of feed from 1 of 4 chickenhouses showed aldicarb. Rendered fat from recall - no aldicarb013932 -000011/1/2003CAUSALDICARB0983012 dogs became ill near wool grower area. Aldicarb in lethal amountfound in regurgitated hot dog. Suspect poison was meant forcoyotes nearby.014563 -0000111/1/2003CHINO VALLEY,AZUSTEMIK0983012 dogs killed from misuse of Temik, man arrested, inspection ofranch pending.Chino Valley, Yavapai Co., AZ.Temik found infood bowl & vomit.016540 -000011/1/2005COUSTEMIK098301Dog exposed to spilled container of Temik in abandoned barn. Deadcat was found near the spilled Temik. Vet confirmed Temik in cat016940 -000143/2/2005DOS PALOS, CAUSALDICARB09830146 EPA Region 9 cases: 4 H-A, 1 D-A, 1 W-A, 10 P-A, 4 H-B, 19H-C, 1 H-D, 2 H, 5 E. 1 suicide, 1 attempted suicide, 3 accidentaldeaths. Spill017085 -000011/3/2006ARMUCHEC, GAUSALDICARB0983011 Georgia incident. 2 opossums & 1 dogdead after ingestingAldicarb. Another dog severely ill. Necropsies on opossums:Carbamate toxicosis.017086 -000011/3/2006ARMUCHEC, GAUSALDICARB(SUSPECTTEMIK)098301Update to I017085-001. Aldicarb poisoning of 2 opossums & 1 dog.Suspect aldicarb placed in deer carcass for bait to kill coyotes.017141 -000011/3/2006ARMUCHEC, GAUSALDICARB098301Update to I017085 includes notes from phone conv. with RangerGrant Matherly. 1 dog & 2 opossums dead of Carbamate toxicosis(Aldicarb). Georgia017792 -000044/1/2003GREAT BRITAINENTEMIK0983011 D-A, 1 H-C, 1 DW-A, 1 P-A & Summary of Pesticide Incidents,Great Britain HSE: 1/2003-3/2004. Field Operations Directive docfrom WWW92IncidentPackageReportIncidentDateLocationCountryProductNamePCCodePackage Description019363 -000021/1/2008ALUSTEMIK 15 G098301Bayer: 1 H-C, itchy rash; 2 D-A, 1 W-B, misuse, 7 dogs, 3opossums baited w/ Temik 15G; 6 G-A, aldicarb monitoringprograms, 7.3-40.2 ppb.019363 -000031/1/2008DOTHAN, ALUSTEMIK 15 G098301Bayer: 1 H-C, itchy rash; 2 D-A, 1 W-B, misuse, 7 dogs, 3opossums baitedw/ Temik 15G; 6 G-A, aldicarb monitoringprograms, 7.3-40.2 ppb.021284 -000011/1/1996EUROPE(FR,SP,GR,BL,IT...ZZALDICARB098301Publ. article: domestic animal poisonings in Europe. Thousands ofcases summarized briefly.Pesticides, plants, householdchemicals...021457 -000032/13/2006WAUSALDICARB098301Washington State PIRT report 2007 for 2006 data: only ecologicalincidents indexed, 2 D-A, 2 D-C, 3 P-A, 4 P-B, 11 P, 2 W-B.021729 -000104/1/2007GOREBRIDGE,SCOTLANDSTALICARB0983013 D-A, 33 W-B, A review of the illegal killing of birds of prey inScotland in 2007, confirmed deliberate poisoning incidents during2007.022543 -00001NEAR CAMDEN,SCUSTEMIK098301Several hunters sickened, 4 dogs diedafter rolling in Temik inwoods, Lee County, SC. Hospital briefly locked down. See alsoI022570022570 -00001SCUSTEMIK098301WWW: 1 D-A, H-C: 4 hunting dogs killed and 13 hunters sent tohospital after contacting aldicarb found on property in Lee County,South Carolina. Updates I022543023742 -000033/1/2010NEARKINGSTREE, SCUSTEMIK098301WWW: South Carolina: poisoning cases.In -001) man left pesticidelaced hamburger patties in a shed where foxes had established aden. Killed 2 juvenile redfoxes.Also nearby found 2 dead blackvultures, 1 dead armadillo, 1 dead domestic cat, 1 dead domesticdog, 1 dead possum, and another carcass.Also 4 South Carolinacases with multiple dogs being poisoned-mainly Temik.023742 -000041/1/2009SCUSTEMIK098301WWW: South Carolina: poisoning cases. In -001) man left pesticidelaced hamburger patties in a shed where foxes had established aden. Killed 2 juvenile red foxes.Also nearby found 2 dead blackvultures, 1 dead armadillo, 1 dead domestic cat,1 dead domesticdog, 1 dead possum, and another carcass.Also 4 South Carolinacases with multiple dogs being poisoned-mainly Temik.93IncidentPackageReportIncidentDateLocationCountryProductNamePCCodePackage Description023742 -000051/1/2010BATESVILLELEESVILLE, SCUSTEMIK098301WWW: South Carolina: poisoning cases. In -001) man left pesticidelaced hamburger patties in a shed where foxes had established aden. Killed 2 juvenile red foxes.Also nearby found 2 dead blackvultures, 1 dead armadillo, 1 dead domestic cat, 1 dead domesticdog, 1 dead possum, and another carcass.Also 4 South Carolinacases with multiple dogs being poisoned-mainly Temik.024836 -000295/1/2011STALDICARB098301Pesticide poisonings and screening in wildlife and a few domesticanimals, Scotland, 2011. 94 cases listed in publication.024836 -000295/1/2011STALDICARBSULFOXIDE110802Pesticide poisonings and screening in wildlife and a few domesticanimals, Scotland, 2011. 94 cases listed in publication.026606 -000015/1/2014TANAT VALLEY,LLANGYNOGWLALDICARB098301WWW: -001) dog out for a walk in forested Tanat Valley, Walesbecame sick suddenly and died. Lab analysis showed it died fromaldicarb poisoning. Had ingested a black feathered bird which wassuspected of having the poison in it.-002) nearby dead red kit wasalso found on footpath in that same area. Analysis showed aldicarbpoisoning.026958 -000026/1/2010SALT SPRINGS,FLUSTEMIK098301WWW:-002)man who poisoned animals with Temik, Salt Springs,FL was given probation after apologizing: black bears, vultureshawk, raccoons, coyotes, bobcats, foxes, opossums found deadwithin 10 ft. of his property line. also 4 dogs poisoned.-003)summary of wildlife deaths due to US Dept. of Agriculture'strapping and poisoning.-004) death of dog due to M-44, -005)human employee had an antidote kit which may have saved his lifeafter exposure to M-44.Aggregate Incidents Associated with AldicarbProducts in the Incident Data System (IDS)IncidentPackage AndSequenceSubmissionDateProduct NameIngredientNamePackage DescriptionTotalIncidentCount016573 -000738/31/2005TEMIK (NONSPECIFIC)TemikBayer CropScience: 114 aggregate summaries,Apr. -June 2005. Incl.H-D D-A, D-B, D-C, D-D, 91 P-B, 16 G-B, 4 G-C2794IncidentPackage AndSequenceSubmissionDateProduct NameIngredientNamePackage DescriptionTotalIncidentCount021434 -0009411/24/2009TEMIK BRAND15G ALDICARBPESTICIDEAldicarbBayer CropScience: 107 Aggregate summaries Jul.-Sep. 2009. 420 HD, 16 D-A, 6 D-B, 125 D-C, 168 D-D, 1 W-B (neurological-squirrel),14 P-B, 9 G-B (Temik-NY), 3 ONT (bee deaths-DE, VA, FL). Backupdetails include date, caller, state,species, route, symptoms.11014025 -000015/30/2003TEMIK (NONSPECIFIC)Aldicarb(ANSI)Bayer: 2 aggregate summaries, Jan.-Mar. 2003: incl. 4 W-B minorwildlife (Temik) and 2 P-B minor plant damage effects (Axiom 68DF).4014299 -000308/27/2003TEMIK 15GLOCK N LOADAldicarb(ANSI)Bayer: 31 aggregate summaries, Apr.- June 2003. Includes H-D, D-A,D-C, D-D, P-B, G-C30016573 -000048/31/2005TEMIK 15GAldicarbBayer CropScience: 114 aggregate summaries, Apr. - June 2005. Incl.H-D D-A, D-B, D-C, D-D, 91 P-B, 16 G-B, 4 G-C1008694 -000035/28/1999TEMIK BRAND15G ALDICARBPESTICIDEAldicarb(ANSI)Rhone-Poulenc: -001 Updates I008381 -001, product used wasAlbaugh: 10 Aggregate summary reports: 1/1- 3/31/99: H-D, D-A, DC/D/E, W-B, ONT, G-B/C76010562 -000018/28/2000TEMIK BRAND15G GRANULARALDICARBPESTICIDEAldicarb(ANSI)Aventis CropScience: 52 aggregate summaries, Apr. -June, 2000.Mostly P-B minor plant damage with H-D, domestic animals cases, 3W-B37015078 -000015/25/2004TEMIK (NONSPECIFIC)TemikBayer CropScience; 3 aggregate summaries, Jan.-Mar, 2004. Incl, 2H-D, 11 D-A, 4 D-B, 1 W-B (Temik), 4 G-B and 1 G-C21017666 -000878/15/2006TEMIK 15GLOCK 'N LOADAldicarbBayer: 151 Aggregate Summaries, April- June 2006. 251 H-D, 17 DA, 19 D-B, 88 D-C, 114 D-D, 1 W-B, 174 PD-B, 17 GW-B, 3 GW-C1017371 -000345/30/2006TEMIK (NONSPECIFIC)AldicarbBayer CropScience: 62 Aggregate Summaries Jan.-March 2006. 51 HD, 8 D-A, 3 D-B, 24 D-C, 29 D-D, 4 W-B, 4 P-B, 27 G-B, 233 G-C.Includes backup footnotes about water detects22021124 -000889/1/2009TEMIK BRAND15G ALDICARBPESTICIDEAldicarbBayer: 111 aggregate summaries, Apr. - June 2009, Incl. 387 H-D, 23D-A, 9 D-B, 143 D-C, 203 D-D, 1 W-B, 9 G-B, 45 P-B. Includes manybackup details for caller, state,species, route, symptoms.8020805 -000485/29/2009TEMIK 15 GAldicarbBayer CropScience: 50 aggregate summaries, Jan. -Mar. 2009, Incl. 80H-D, 18 D-A, 3 D-B, 34 D-C, 39 D-D, 2 P-B, 10 W-B, 3 G-B. Backupdetails include date, caller,species, route and symptoms.1095IncidentPackage AndSequenceSubmissionDateProduct NameIngredientNamePackage DescriptionTotalIncidentCount020557 -000013/2/2009TEMIK 15GAldicarbBayer CropScience: 49 aggregate summaries, Oct. -Dec. 2008, Incl. 73H-D, 5 D-A, 1 D-B, 39 D-C, 43 D-D, 1 W-B, 1 P-B, 17 G-B. Backupdetails include date, caller, species, route and symptoms18022216 -000668/31/2010TEMIK BRAND15G ALDICARBPESTICIDEAldicarbBayer: 127 aggregate summaries, Apr.-June 2010: human anddomestic animal effects. Includes backup details for date, caller, state,species, route, symptoms.4018741 -000518/8/2007TEMIK BRAND(NON-SPECIFIC)AldicarbBayer: 119 aggregate summaries, Apr.-Jun. 2007. 270 H-D, 18 D-A,13 D-B, 89 D-C, 118 D-D, 1 D-E, 1 W-B, 113 P-B, 16 G-B, 2 G-C.10022928 -000055/26/2011TEMIK 15 GAldicarbBayer CropScience: 55 aggregate summaries, Jan.-Mar. 2011. Includes94 H-D, 6 D-A, 6 D-B, 32 D-C, 38 D-D, 1 W-B, 1 P-B, and 3 G-B.Backup details: caller, date, state, species, route, and symptoms areprovided.3