### April 28,2011 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C ., 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY A N D POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### PC Codes: 230001 DP Barcodes: DP 376600

MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: T O: FROM: Drinking Water Assessment for Tolerance Petition for New Chemical Kasugamycin [EPA Est No. 075703-JPN-001] Mary Waller, Risk Manager Fungicide Branch, Registration Division (7505P) 

## ..,. Tiffany Dowen, Environmental Engineer .

# 1"4**{~ ~~**  

# J .1/-- / James Hetrick, Ph.D. ,

# Se**cience dvisor** **~** 

# fA· 

# r;-a_ rc..ADana Spatz, Branch

## Chie**~ ~**  Environmental Risk Brancl13

## ~ Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) The Environmental Fate and Effects Division [EFED] has been requested to provide a drinking water assessment (DWA) for the proposed use ofthe antibiotic fungicide kasugamycin on pome fruits (apples and pears), walnuts, tomatoes, and peppers. This memorandum presents the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) in surface and ground water for kasugamycin, at the maximum rate proposed for the new use, for the human health risk assessment. S ummary Conclusi ons 

### Based on the analysis described below, we recommend that HED use the following estimated drinking water concentrations in the human health dietary risk assessmen t :

### Table I. 

### Estimated d r inking water concentrations (EDWCs) for Kasugamycin plus degradates Kasugamycinic aci d and kasug anobiosami ne C rop Acute Exposu r e from One in C hro nic Exposure from One in Average of Yea rly Ave rage Ten Year Peak Values (p.g!L) 

### Ten Year Annual Mean {llg!L) 

### for Cancer Exposure (JLg/L) 

### Surface Water (PRZMIEXAMS) To mato 11.562 1.178 0.602 

### Ground Water (SCI-GROW) 

### Walnut 0 . 116 0.116 0.116 

### Background Arysta LifeScience N orth America LLC is proposing to use kasugamycin (CAS No. 066330- 00UNG) to control certain fungicides on pome fruits (apples and pears) , tomatoes, walnuts , and peppers. The product is Kasumin 2L, an agricultural antibiotic [EPA Est No. 075703

-JPN-00 1] and contains 2.3% kasugamycin hydrochloride hydrate. The Residues of Concern Know ledgebase Subcommittee (ROCKS) has previously detennined (DP387527) that paren t kasugamycin and the its two major degradation products kasuganobiosamine and kasugamycinic acid should be considered as the residues ofconcern (ROC). It is assumed that the toxicity ofthese two degradates are equivalent to the parent compound and will be as sessed using total toxic residues approach. The total toxic residues approach will be used for determining the Environmental fate data parameters for modeling using the Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides , 

### Version 2.1, October 22 , 2009 and the draft Guidance for Modeling Pesticides Total Toxic Residues (TTR) May 20, 2009. 

### Current Analysis The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) represent the combined res id ues of the fungicide kasugamycin p lus its major degradation products (kasuganobiosamine and kasugamycinic acid) f or the proposed maximum application rate on pome fruit (apples, pears) , tomatoes and peppers , and walnuts of 0.083 lb a.i ./ acre and 2, 3, 4 applications per season respectively, with intervals of3,7)4 days respectively. In this assessment, Tier II (PRZM and EXAMS) and Tier I (SCI-GROW) models were used to estimate EDWCs in sur face water and ground water, respectively. Table 2 lists the surface water EECs for kasugamycin plus degradate s of concern for the proposed uses , and Ta ble 3 lists the EECs calculated for ground water.

2

### Table 2. Estimated surface water concentrations for Kasugamycin plus degradates Kasugamycinic acid and Kasuganobiosamine Scenario Chosen in Acute Exposure Chronic Exposure Crop PRZMIEXAMS from One in Ten from One in Ten Year Peak Values Year Annual Mean (Jtg/L) (Jlg/L) CAfruit Wirri gSTD 0.715 0.147 Apple/ Pear NCappleSTD 3.462 0 . 569 ORappleSTD 0.849 0 . 230 PAappleSTD 2.262 0.435 CAalmond WirrigSTD 1.980 0.759 Walnut GAPecansSTD 9 .1 97 1.410 OR.filbertsSTD 1.569 0.42 1 Pepper CARowCropRLF V2 10.146 1 .384 FLpeppersSTD 2.680 0.840 Tomato CAtomato WirrigSTD 0.543 0 . 112 FLtomatoSTD 11.562 1.1"'8 *Bold : numbers represent the highest EDWCs calculated per use. *Red and Bold : represent the suggested numbers to be used by HED. 

### Table 3. Estimated ground water concentrat ions for Kasugamycin plus degradates Kasugamycinic acid and Kasuganobiosamine Average of Yearly Average for Cancer Exposure (Jlg/L) 0.093 0.271 0.174 0.270 0.613 0.862 0.325 0.598 0.541 0.105 0.602



### Acute Exposure from Chronic Exposure from Average of Yearly Crop One in Ten Year Peak One in Ten Year Annual Average for Cancer Values (Jtg/L) Mean (Jtg/L) Exposure (Jtg/L) Apple /Pear 

### 0 .0581 0.0581 0.0581 Walnut 

### 0. 116 O.ll6**0.11~** Tomato/Pepper 

### 0.0871 0.0871 0 . 0871 * Red and Bold : represent the suggested numbers to be u sed by HED. 

### The EDWCs ofKasugamycin and its degradates, Kasugamycinic acid and Kasuganobiosamine, are not expected to exceed 11.562 J..lg/L for the 1 in 10 year daily peak concentration, 1.178 J..lg/L for the 1 in 10 year annual peak, and 0.602 J..lg/L for the 30 year annual average. 

## Use Characterization Kasugamycin is a fungicide that belongs to the aminoglycoside class of compounds, a group of antibiotics that inhibit protein synthesis. Unlike other members of this class, kasugamycin exhibits ?Ctivity only towards phytopathogens and is ineffective against human and animal p athogens. As such, it is not used as a human or veterinary antibiotic. In general, the aminoglycosides are linked to nephrotoxicity. The proposed kasugamycin application rate on pome fruit (apples, pears), tomatoes and peppers, and walnuts is 0.083lb a.i./acre with 2, 3, and 4 applications per season resp ectively, with

3

### intervals of3,7,14 days respectively. The proposed label indicates that kasugamycin can be applied using ground spray equipment. Residues of Concern, Chemical and Physical Properties 

### This drinking wa ter assessment considers the combined residues parent kasugamycin plus the degradation products kasuganobiosamine and kasugamycinic acid. The common name, chemical name , and structure for kasugamycin and its degradation products are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The common name , chemical name and structure for a) kasugan1y cin, and the degradation pro ducts b) kasugamycinic acid and c) kasuganobiosamine. Co m mon Name Chemical Name a. Kasugamycin ; Pseudonyms: Kasugamycin hydrochloride hydrate, Kasugamycin HCLxH20 , Kasumin 2L, Kasumin Cobre; Kasugamycin hydrochloride ; KSMxHCl; Kasugamy cin,3-0- (2-Amino-4- [(carboxyiminomethyl)amino]-2 ,3,4,6- tetradeoxy-a-0-arabino-hexopyranosyl] -Dchiro-inositol hydrochloride hydrate; IUPAC Name: 1 L-1,3,4/2,5,6- .1-Deoxy-2,3,4,5,6

- penta-a-hydroxycyclohexyl 2-amino-2,3,4,6- tetradeoxy-4-(a-iminoglycino )-a-D-arabinohexopyranoside hydrochloride hydrate Cas#: 19408-46-9 (for kasugamycin hydrochloride) b. Kasugamycinic acid ; Pseudonyms: 3-0- [2-Amino-4- { (carboxycar b onyl)amino]

- 2,3 ,4 , 6-tetradeoxy-a- D-arabinohexopyranosyl]

- D-chiro-ino sitol; IUPAC Name: {5-Amino-2-methyl-6-((2,3,4,5,6- pentahydroxycyclohexyl)oxy]tetrahydro-2Hpyran-3-yl}amino)(oxo)acetic acid Cas#: 6001-03-2

c. Kasuganobiosamine ; Pseudonyms: Kasuganobiosamine 2HC1 [KB-3; kasuganob iosamine dihydrochloride; KSB; KB] ; JUPAC Name: 6-(3 , 5-Diamino-6- methyltetrahydro-2H-pyran-2

- yl)oxy]cyclohexane-1,2,3,4,5

-pentol hydrochloride Cas#: 6189-93-1 Structure HN>-OH H 3 C NH HO OH

# 0~ HCI H 20 HO*O NH 2 HO OH



### 0 

# 0

==<0H H 3 

### C NH 

### HO OH

# 0~ HO*O NH 2 

### HO OH



### 4

### Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization 

## Kasugamycin is a fungicide that belongs to the aminoglycoside class of compounds. Its major routes ofdegradation are aqueous photolysis (MRID 47945716), aerobic biodegradation, and hydrolysis (MRID 46485501). In 

### the aqueous photolysis study , the half-life in natural lake water was 17.4 days 1

. 

### The hydrolysis study showed that kasugamycin tends to break down much faster in neutral to alkaline environments. The hydrolysis half-life at pH 4, 5, 7, and 9 was 462, 630, 79.7, and 11.4 days, respectively. The aerobic aquatic metabolism total system half- life was approximately 45 days in lake waterloamy sand sediment and river water-clay loam sediment (MRID 47945720) . In soil, the halflife was 73 days in an aerobjc clay-loam soil (MRID 47945718), and 147.5 days in an aerobic/anaerobic soil metabolism study performed under paddy conditions (MRID 47945719). The anaerobic aquatic metabolism study reported total system half-life was 105 days (MRID 47945721). Since aerobic soil metabolism data are only available on one soil type, there is uncertainty regarding the variability of degradation in aerobic soils. Based on the FAO Mobility classification 2, 

### kasugamycin is classified as highly mobile (Koc 

### = 10 ml/g in sand) to moderately mobile 

## CKoc = 364 mL/g in a clay loam soil) (MRID 47945714). At termination (25-33 days) ofa soil column leaching study (MRID 47945715) kasugamycin and its degradates were not found in the leachate. Since this study was performed using three foreign soils that could not be identified as typical pesticide use areas in the United States, there is uncertainty on kasugamycin ' s and its two degradates, kasugamycinic acid's and kasuganobiosamine's, leaching potential . Additionally, the preferred batch equilibrium method ofmeasuring sorption coefficients only examined sorption in two soils when this measurement is recommended for five soils . Therefore, sorption in the natural environment is likely to be more variable than that reflected for the two soils. Kasugamycin is highly soluble with a solubility of 228 giL 

### at 25°C and a pH 7. The pKa for kasugamycin is 7 . 73 and thus is less soluble at lower pH. With a vapor pressure of9.8 x 10· 8 

### torr at 25°C, the compound does not appear to volatilize (MRID 47945719). The log 

# Kow of Kasugamycin is <1.96 at 23°C and pH 5 (MRID 47945716). With a low 

# Kow, kasugamycin is less likely to bioaccumulate. Soil dissipation/accumulation ofkasugamycin under US field conditions was studied using bare plots ofloamy sand soil near Madera, California (Site 1), Ephrata, Washington (Site 2), North Rose, New York (Site 3), and Chula, Georgia (Site 4). Dissipation half-lives were only calculated for site 2 (Washington, t 112 = 5.7 days, r2 

### = 0.8843) and site 3 (New York, t112 = 12.3**days,~=** 

### 0.4591). A half-life value could not be calculated for sites 1 (California) and 4 (Georgia) because the parent decreased to <LOQ (<0.01 ppm) by 7 and 3 da y s before the fourth application, respectively. The compound did not leach further than 0-15 em in Georgia, New

1 This is an adjusted half-life assuming 12 hr days and 12 

### hr nights. 2 FAO . 2000 . Appendix 2 . Parameters of pesticides that influence processes in the soil. In FAO Informati on Div i sion Ed ito ri a l Group ( Ed . ), 

### Pesticide Disposal Ser ies 8. Assessing Soil Contamination. A Reference Man ua l. Rome · Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ( FAO ). Avai l able at http :/ /www .fao . org/ DOCREP/003/X2570EIX2570E06 . htm (Accessed July 10 , 2009 ) . 

### 5

### York, and Washington, and not further than the 15-30 em depth in California. The degradate kasugamycinic acid was not detected above the LOQ at any sampling interval . No other degradates were looked for in this study. The two half-lives calculated reflect the residues in the 0-15 em soil layer as kasugamcyin was only**dete~ted** 

### in that layer at those two sites (MRID 48132602). A waiver was submitted for the soil photolysis study. Since this study is missing, degradates that would be formed via this pathway may be missed and are an uncertainty. Although there were no unique degradates formed by the aquatic photolysis study and it is believed the same would apply to the soil photolysis study, without having this study it is uncertain what degradates may be formed. Biodegradation studies of kasugamycin parent produced kasugamycinic acid under aerobic and anaerobic conditions and kasuganobiosamine under anaerobic conditions . In these studies, the kasuganomycinic acid was present at 3.1% at 180 days (the termination of the paddy study) in non-sterile soil and 11.9% in the sterile soil. Kasugamycinic acid was seen at a maximum of 30.7% after 14 days in the aerobic aquatic metabolism study, but was only present at 0.6% by the termination of the study (100 days). In 

### the anaerobic metabolism study, kasugamycinic acid was present at 28.7% at termination of the study (368 days) and a maximum of35.9% at 185 days into the study. Kasuganoboisamine was a major degradate in the anaerobic aquatic metabolism study only with 44.7% present in the total system at study termination (368 days) and a maximum of48.5% present in the total system after 277 days. Kasuganobiosamine was also detected in the aerobic aquatic metabolism, but was not quantified. Based on the 

### F AO classification system, kasugamycinic acid was moderately mobile with a 

# Koc of 339 mL/g and kasuganobiosamine was slightly mobile (Koc 

# = 6, 606 mL/g) in a clay·loam soil (soil column leaching study, MRID 47945715). These 

# Koc values were based on data from one soil and they were not measured using the preferred batch equilibrium study method. Therefore, there is some uncertainty in these measured values and in the variability ofthe values expected in the field on a range of soil types. The mobility of kasugamycin acid and kasuganobiosarnine is expected to be similar to or greater than the parent kasugamycin. Therefore, they will likely range from highly mobile to moderately mobile. Both ofthese degradates have the potential to be found in 

### drinking water and ground water. An 

### area depicted as Area-l in a chromatogram for the anaerobic aquatic metabolism study was a major degradate at a maximum of 16.2% of the applied at 63 days,**b~t** 

### was not seen at termination ofthe study. This degradate was not identified and therefore, is an uncertainty. Carbon dioxide was a major degradate in the aerobic aquatic metabolism study and the aerobic soil metabolism study at levels up to 45.5% and 55.4% ofthe applied, respectively. Minor (e.g., 

### those present at <10% applied radioactivity) degradates of kasugamycin include a few unclassified resi dues: 

## • M

- 1 (found in aerobic aquatic metabolism study 

## at a max 

## of 6.2%) • M-2 (found in aerobic aquatic metabolism study at a max of2.2%) 

## 6

### • Area-3 (found in anaerobic aquatic metabolism study at a max of 5.5%) 

## Modeling Inputs for Drinking Water Assessment: The environmental fate properties used for modeling for the combined residues are summarized in Table 4. Environmental fate data parameters used in the modeling were selected from the submitted studies in general accordance with 

### Guidancefor Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides, Version 2.1, October 22, 2009 and the draft Guidance for Modeling Pesticides Total Toxic Residues (TTR) May 20, 2009. Please note that the half -lives for the hydrolysis study at pH 5 and photolysis study did not need to be recalculated using the TTR method because the half-lives for the parent were stable. In addition, the half-life for the aerobic soil metabolism study was not recalculated since neither ofthe degradates of concern were detected in the study. Typically, the values generated by the models for drinking water are multiplied by a percent crop area factor (PCA). The PCA accounts for the fact that is it unlikely for any basin to be . completely planted to agricultural crops. The PCA adjustment factor is assumed to be 0 .87 3 

### for the crops in this assessment. Detailed description, documentation, and direct links for running these models can be found in: http ://wvvw.epa.go v/oppefedl /models/water/index.htm Table 4. Summary of model input parameters used for the drinking water assessment P arameter Modeling Input Value2 

### Parent or Degradate Source Molecular Weight 433.84 Parent MRID 47945719 Solubility@ 25 

## ·c 228,000 mg/L @ pH-7 Parent MRID 47945719 Vapor Pressure 1.31e-02 mPa Parent MRID 47945719 Henry's Constant Calculated by model NA NA Hydrolysis Half

- life pH 5 = 630 Parent, MRID 46485501 pH7 = 1155 Parent and degradates* pH 9 = 6932 Parent and degradates * Aquatic Photolysis Stable (days) Parent MRID 47945716 Half-life Photolysis on soil Half

- No Data No Data No Data life Aerobic Aquatic 43.3 days Parent and degradates** MRID 47945720 Metabolism Half

-life Anaerobic Aquatic Stable (days) De gradate MRID 47945721 Metabolism Half-life (kasuganobiosamine)

3 Guidance on Development and Use of Percent Cropped Area Adjustment Factors in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments September 9 , 2010 

### 7

### Table 4 . Summary of model input parameters used for the d ri nking water assessment Parameter Mo deling I npu t Value 2 

### Parent or Degradate Organic Carbon 10 (sand), 151 (sandy Parent Partition Coefficient clay loam), 364 (clay (Koc) (mUg) loam), 345 (sandy loam) Mean"" 217.5 NA Ground Spray Drift 0.064 Ground Application Efficiency 0 . 99 Ground FEXTRA

- foliar apps PRZM Foliar Extraction 0.5 (frac/cm rain) [Residues of Concern]: 73 days Parent Aerobic Soil (multiply by 3 per Metabolism Half-life guidance "" 219 days) *Kasugamycinic acid was the only degradate seen 

### in the study. **The amount ofkasuganobiosamine was not quantified. 

### Drinking Water Modeling Surface Water Source MRID 47945714

EFED Guidance

EFED Guidance MRID 47945718



### The EDWCs in surface water were estimated with the Tier II PRZM (Version 3.12.2) and EXAMS (version 2.98.04.06) models linked by the program PE5 (Version 01 compiled 07 /24/07). PRZM simulates pesticide fate and transport as a result ofleaching, direct spray drift, runoff and erosion from an agricultural field. The EXAMS model simulates pesticide loading via runoff, erosion, and spray drift assuming a s tandard watershed of 172.8 ha that drains into an adjacent standard drinking water index reservoir of 5.26 ha, an average depth of2.74 m. A more detailed description ofthe index reservoir (IR) watershed can be found in Jones et al., 2000. Simulations for drinking water used the Index Reservoir scenario in EXAMS, which is a surrogate for a drinking water source drawn from a surface water source (USEPA, 2000). Weather and agricultural practices are simulated for 30 years so that the 10-year exceedence probability ( 1-year in 10-year) at the site can be estimated. The simulation was generated using the 30 years ofmeteorological data, encompassing the years from 1961 to 1990. Ground water concentrations were estimat ed using the Tier I SCI-GROW (Version 2.3) model. SCI-GROW is a regression model used as a screening tool to estimate pesticide concentrations found in groundwater used as drinking water. SCI-GROW was developed by fitting a linear model to ground water concentrations with the Relative Index of Leaching Potential (RILP) as the independent variable. Groundwater concentrations were taken from 90-day average high 

### concentrations from Prospective Ground Water studies. The RILP is a function of aerobic soil metabolism and the soil

-water partition coefficient. The output of SCI-GROW represents the



### 8

### concentration of kasugamycin and it s degradates, kasuganobiosamine and kasugamycinic acid, residues. Further information on these models can be found at the EFED water model website at http : // www.epa.gov/oppefedl /models /water / . Scenarios Scenarios and EDWCs for kasugamycin residues of concern (kasugamycin 

## + kasugamycinic acid 

## + kasuganobiosamine) are summarized in Table 5. Table 5. PRZMIEXAMS Tier II drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for the propoSed new chemical uses. Crop or Maximum Total Minimum I" Application EDWC Crop Application (season AppliClltion Scenario Application :\'letbod (1-in-10 year) Group Rate or Interval date crop) (State crop) (mn-day) lb Scenario Annual 30-yr lb a.iJacre a.iJacre (days) Peak Mean 'Jean CA.fruit WirrigSTD 1-Apr 0.715 0.147 0.093 NCapp leS TD 3-May 3.462 0.569 0.271 OR appleSTD 30-Apr 0 .849 0230 0.174 Apple/Pear PAappleSTD 10-May 2 .262 0 .435 0.270 2 3 CAalmond WirrigSTD 2-Aug 1.980 0 .759 0.613 GAPecansSTD 2 1

- Sep 9.197 1.410 0.862 Walnut 4 14 ORfilbertsSTD IS

- Apr ground 1.569 0.421 0.325 C ARo wCropRLF V2 !

-Apr 10. 146 1.384 0.598 Pepper FLpeppersSTD 15-Nov 2 .680 0.840 0.541 CAt omato WirrigSTD 1

- Jul 0.543 FL

tomatoSTD 21-Apr 11.562 Tomato 0 .083 3 7 PAtomatoSTD 30-Jun 4.425

Abbrevtattons . lbs a. !.lA =pounds acttve mgredtent per acre as converted from Fl ovA; A-Acre, a.t .-actiVe mgredtent * Values in bold are the most conservative values. 

### The model outputs are provided in Appendix 1. Ground Water 0.112 0.105 1.1 '8 0.602 0.913 0 . 540



### The ground water EDWC (0.1 1 6 

### J.tg/L) represents the combined residues ofkasugamycin plus its two degradates of concern, kasuganobiosamine and kasugamycnic acid, for the maximum application rate. Monitoring Data 

### Kasugamycin is a relatively new chemical, for which there is no monitoring data available. The C alifornia Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) surface water database (http: //www .cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emonlsurfwtr / surfcont.htm and USGS NA WQA surface and ground water database (http: // infotrek.er.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=l36: 1:O : :N O : : :) were evaluated for available monitoring data . Also , no monitoring data on kasuganobiosamine or kasugamycini c acid were found. 9

## Drinking Water Treat ment OPP does not have any direct data on effects ofdrinking water treatment on kasugamycin or its degradates. CITATIONS 

### Burns, L.A. 2002. EXAMS (fuposute Analysis M odeling furstem) Version 2.98.04.06. Environmental Research Laboratory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Athens , GA. Carse} et al., 1997. PRZM (Pesticide Root Zone Model) Version 3.12.2 Environmental Research Laboratory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Athens, GA. Jones, R.D. et al., 2000. Guidance for use of the Index Reservoir and Percen t Crop Area Factor in Drinking Wa ter Assessments (March 21, 2000). Office of Pesticide Programs , Environmental Fate and Effects Division , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Arlington, VA. SCI-GROW (Screening Concentration In Ground Water) 2003. (Version 2.3; July 29, 2003). Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office ofPesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Arlington, VA. http://w\VW .epa.gov /oppefed I /models/water/i ndex. htm 

### USEPA, 2009a. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport ofPesticides. Version 2.1 October 22,2009. http: ' 'ww\\.epa.gov /oppefedl /mode ls/water/i nput guidance2 28 0' .htm . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofPesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Divi s ion. Arlington, VA. USEPA, 2009b. DRAFT Guidance for Modeling Pesticides Total Toxic Residues (TTR) May 20, 2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Arlington, VA. U.S. EPA. 2003. Use of Regional Percent Crop Area Factors in Refined Drinking Water Assessments. U S EPA Office ofPesticide Programs (OPP) , Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED), Water Quality Technical Team (WQTT) . Arlington, VA. U SEPA 2010. Guidance on Development and Use of Percent Cropped Area Adjustment Factors in Drinking Wa ter Exposure Assessments September 9, 2010. U .S. Environmental Protection Agency , Office ofPesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Arlington, VA. http: //www.epa.gov/oppefed 1/models /watcr/index reservoir dwa.html USGS. 2007. National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. Data-warehouse http: //water.usgs.gov/na\\qa/data.html

10

### APPENDIX 1. Model Outputs**PRZMIEXA~S** Surface Water Estimates stored as CAApple. out Chemical: kasugamycin PRZM environment: CAfruit _ WirrigSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May2007 at 12 : 42:32 EXAMS environment: ir298 . exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16 :3 4 : 12 Metfile : w93193 .dvf modified Wed day, 3 July 2002 at I 0 : 04 : 24 Water segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96hr 21 Day 60 Day 90Day Yearly 1961 0 . 4099 0.4 0.3619 0.2919 0.2475 0.08059 1962 0 .424 0.4131 0.3733 0.2993 0.2543 0 .08791 1963 0 . 835 0.8179 0 .753 0 .611 0.52 0 . 1804 1964 0 .4419 0.4321 0 .3943 0 .321 0 .2744 0 . 1009 1965 0.4423 0.4321 0.4077 0 .3 323 0.2837 0 . 1007 1966 0.427 0.4155 0.3717 0 .2917 0.2438 0.08466 1967 0 . 7088 0.6989 0.6452 0 .5 184 0.4502 0.1533 1968 0.4779 0.4666 0 .4227 0 .3401 0 . 2863 0.1003 1969 1.839 1.797 1.636 1.299 1.087 0 .3636 197 0 0.4661 0.4565 0 .4192 0.339 0 .2855 0.1106 1971 0.4757 0.4655 0.4248 0.3745 0.323 0.1131 1972 0.4289 0.4188 0.3798 0.303 0 . 2541 0 . 08827 1973 0.4254 0.4154 0.3768 0 .2984 0.2483 0.08465 1974 0.4245 0.4149 0 .3776 0 . 3026 0.2543 0.08627 1975 0 .4258 0.4175 0 .385 0. 3131 02652 0 . 09269 1976 0 .4279 0.4188 0.3837 0.3093 0 .2619 0 . 0931 1977 0.4259 0.4144 0.3707 0.2961 0.25 0.08529 1978 0 . 8633 0.8441 0.7707 0 .6177 0.5168 0.171 1979 0 .4346 0.424 0 .3833 0 . 304 0 . 2539 0.08867 1980 0 .4228 0 . 4126 0 .3735 0 .2996 0.2546 0.08626 1981 0 .4234 0.4128 0.3734 0.2967 02461 0.08051 1982 0.4231 0.4139 0.3779 0 .3039 0 .2575 0 . 08858 1983 0.4256 0.4164 0.3807 0 .3204 0.2727 0.09347 1984 0.4237 0.4137 0.3751 0 .2947 0 . 2439 0.07929 1985 0 .4202 0.4084 0 .3637 0 .2849 02362 0.07687 1986 0 .4208 0.4104 0 .3703 0 .2923 0 . 2429 0.07996 1987 0.4208 0.4091 0.3649 0 .2844 0 . 2362 0.0797 1988 0.4593 0 . 4485 0.4203 0 .3 605 0.3074 0.1026 1989 0 .4243 0.4125 0.3682 0 . 289 0 . 242 0.08249 1990 0 .4225 0.4111 0.3703 0 . 2952 0 . 2485 0 . 08341 Sorted results Pro b . Peak 96hr 21 Day 60Day 90Day Yearly 0 . 032258064516129 1.839 1.797 1.636 1.299 1.087 0 . 3636 0 .0645161290322581 0.8633 0 . 8441 0 .7707 0.6177 0.52 0.1804 0 .09677419354 83871 0.835 0 . 8179 0 . 753 0 . 611 0.5168 0.171 0 . 129032258064516 0 . 7088 0 .6989 0 .6452 0 . 5184 0.4502 0.153 3 0 . 161290322580645 0.4779 0 .4666 0.4248 0.3745 0.323 0.1131 0.193548387096774 0.4757 0.4655 0.4227 0.3605 0.3074 0 . 1106 0.225806451612903 0.4661 0.4565 0 .4203 0 .3401 0.2863 0.1026 0.258064516129032 0.4593 0 .4485 0.4192 0 . 339 02855 0 . 1009 0290322 580645161 0.4423 0 .4321 0.4077 0.3323 02837 0 . 1007 0 . 32258064516129 0.4419 0 .4321 0 .3943 0.321 0.2744 0.1003 0 .354838709677419 0.4346 0.424 0.385 0 .3204 0 . 2727 0 .09347 0 .387096774193548 0 .4289 0.4188 0.3837 0.3131 02652 0 .093 1 0.419354838709677 0.4279 0.4188 0 . 3833 0 .3093 02619 0 .09269 0 .451612903225806 0.427 0.4175 0 . 3807 0.304 0.2575 0.08867 0 .483870967741936 0.4259 0.4164 0.3798 03039 0.2546 0.08858 0 . 516129032258065 0.4258 0.4155 0 . 3779 0.303 0 . 2543 0.08827 0 . 548387096774194 0.4256 0.4154 0.3776 0.3026 0 .2543 0.08791 0 . 580645161290323 0.4254 0.4149 0 . 3768 0.2996 0.2541 0 .08627 0 .612903225806452 0.4245 0.4144 0 .3751 0 .2993 02539 0 .08626 0 .645161290322581 0 .4243 0. 4139 0 . 3735 02984 0 .25 0.0 8529 0 . 67741935483871 0.424 0.4137 0 . 3734 0 .2967 0.2485 0.08466 0 . 709677419354839 0.4237 0.4131 0.3733 0.2961 0.2483 0.08465 0.741935483870968 0.4234 0.4128 0 . 3717 0 .2952 0 .2475 0.08341 0 .774193548387097 0.4231 0 .4126 0 . 3707 0.2947 0.2461 0.08249 

### 110.806451612903226 0.4228 0.4125 0.3703 0 .2923 0.2439 0.08059 0.838709677419355 0.4225 0.4111 0.3703 0.2919 0.2438 0.08051 0.870967741935484 0.4208 0.4104 0.3682 0 .2917 0 . 2429 0 .07996 0.903225806451613 0.4208 0 .4091 0.3649 0 . 289 0 .242 0.0797 0.935483870967742 0.4202 0 .4084 0.3637 0 .2849 0 .2362 0.07929 0.967741935483871 0.4099 0 .4 0.3619 0 .2844 0 .2362 0.076 87 0.1 0.82238 0.806 0 . 74222 0.60174 0.51014 0 . 16923 Average ofyearly averages : Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006 Data used for this run : Output Fi le : CAAppl e Metfile : w93193 . dvf PRZM scenario: CAfruit_ WirrigSTD .txt EXAMS environment file: ir298 .exv Chemical Name: kasugamycin Description Variable Name Molecular weight mwt 433 . 84 Henry's Law Const. henry Vapor Pressure vapr Solub ility sol 228000 Kd Kd Koc Koc 217.5 Photolysis half-life kdp Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Aerobic Soil Metabolism Hydrolysi s: pH 5 Hydrol ysis : pH 7 Hydrolysis : pH 9 Method: CAM I Incorporation Depth : DEPI Application Rate: TAPP Application Efficiency: Spray Drift DRFT Application Date Date Interval I interval 3 app . rate I apprate 0 . 09 Record 17 : FILTRA IPS CND UPTKF Record 18:PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 1.31E-02 m g!L m g!L m g!L 0 kbacw kbacs asm 630 1155 6932 integer 0 . 09 APPEFF 0.064 1-4 days kg/ha

Flag for Index Res . Run IR Flag for runoff calc . RUNOFF t otal stored as FLPepper .out Chemical: kasugamycin Value Units glmol atm·m"3/ mol torr days Half-life 43 days 434 days 219 days days Half-life days Half-life days Hal f- life See PRZM manual em kg/ha 0.99 fraction Comments

Halfife Halfife Halfife

fraction ofapplication rate applied to pond dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Reservoir none, monthly or total(average ofentire run)

PRZM environment: FLpeppersST D . txt modified Thuday, 24 May 2007 at 09:44:22 EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:34:12 Mettile : w12844 . dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 10:04 : 30 Water segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96hr 21 Day 60Day 90Day Yearly 1961 0 .6803 0 . 6372 0 . 5071 0.2991 0.1994 0 . 04916 1962 2 .879 2.714 1.161 0 . 5558 0 . 3719 0 .2219 1963 9 .697 5 . 427 3.165 1.257 0 . 9587 0 .4769 1964 11.88 11.27 9 . 581 5 .314 3.549 1.823 1965 4 .49 5 4.248 3 . 379 2.176 1.649 0 .603 1966 7.839 7.38 6.1 4.003 3 .043 0.9134 1967 1 .687 1.584 1.268 0.955 0.7648 0.2863 1968 1.44 1.353 1. 063 0.563 0.3764 0.196 1969 5 . 115 4 . 822 4 .297 2 .948 2.317 1.015 1970 4 . 896 4.626 3 . 723 2 .75 2 . 17 7 0 . 6483 1971 1.946 1.82 0 .9778 0 . 5089 0 . 341 0 . 1951 1972 2.136 1.998 1.5 57 1.006 0 . 7633 0.3108 

### 12 0.1066381973 1.751 1.644 1.376 1.056 0 .8149 0.3332 1974 4.86 4 . 573 3.469 2 1.551 0.7558 1975 2 . 86 2.68 2 .071 1.27 0.9496 0.3649 1976 3.458 3.25 2 . 642 1.25 0.8362 0 .4 709 1977 7 .99 7.578 6 . 563 3.939 2 . 629 0.9703 1978 7 . 697 7.205 5.999 2.25 1.504 0 . 7668 1979 6.031 5.664 4 .409 2 .766 2 .087 0.8873 1980 3.329 3.139 2.501 2 .081 1.691 0.6891 1981 7 . 704 3.927 I. Oil 0 .6699 0.5604 0 .2453 1982 7.242 6.96 5 .724 3 .637 2 .764 0 .9514 1983 5.522 5 . 184 4.092 1.716 Ll93 0 . 6116 1984 30.94 29 . 11 22 .96 11.86 7.909 2.315 1985 8 .657 8 .201 6 . 597 4 .279 3.38 1.087 1986 13 .63 12 . 75 9.886 4.902 3 .274 1.647 1987 6.453 6.085 4.813 3 .046 2 .292 0.8346 1988 1.953 1.838 1.661 1.122 0.8569 0.3014 1989 4 .225 3 .982 1.891 0.8092 0 . 5406 0.2514 1990 3 . 23 3 .023 2 .478 1.555 1.217 0 .4078 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60Day 90Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 30 . 94 29 . 11 22.96 11.86 7 .909 2.315 0.0645161290322581 13 . 63 12 .75 9 . 886 5 .314 3.549 1.823 0.0967741935483871 11.88 11.27 9 . 581 4.902 3 . 38 1.647 0.129032258064516 9 .697 8.201 6.597 4279 3 . 274 1.087 0.161290322580645 8 .657 7 . 578 6 . 563 4.003 3.043 1.015 0.193548387096774 7 .99 7.38 6.1 3.939 2 .764 0.9703 0 .225806451612903 7 . 839 7.205 5.999 3 .637 2 .629 0 .9514 0 .258064516129032 7 .704 6.96 5.724 3.046 2 .317 0 .9134 0 .290322580645161 7.697 6.085 4.813 2.948 2 . 292 0 . 8873 0.32258064516129 7 .242 5.664 4 .409 2 . 766 2.177 0 . 8346 0 .354838709677419 6.453 . 5 .427 4 .297 2.75 2 .087 0 .7668 0 .387096774193548 6 .031 5.184 4.092 2.25 1.691 0.7558 0 .419354838709677 5 . 522 4.822 3.723 2.176 1 .649 0.6891 0.451612903225806 5 . 115 4626 3 .469 2 . 081 1.551 0.6483 0.483870967741936 4 . 896 4.573 3.379 2 1.504 0 . 6116 0.516129032i58065 4.86 4 .248 3.165 1.716 1.217 0 .603 0.548387096774194 4 .495 3.982 2.642 1.555 Ll93 0 .4769 0 . 580645161290323 4 .225 3 .927 2 . 501 1.2 7 0 .9587 0 .4709 0 . 612903225806452 3.458 3 .25 2 . 478 1.257 0.9496 0.4078 0.645161290322581 3 . 329 3 . 139 2 . 071 1.25 0 . 8569 0 . 3649 0 . 67741935483871 3.23 3.023 1.891 1.122 0 . 8362 0.3332 0.709677419354839 2.879 2.714 1.661 1.056 0 . 8149 0.3108 0.741935483870968 2.86 2.68 1.557 1.006 0.7648 0.3014 0.774193548387097 2.136 1.998 1.376 0.955 0 . 7633 0 .2863 0.806451612903226 1.953 1.838 1.268 0.8092 0.5604 0 .2514 0.838709677419355 1.946 1.82 Ll61 0.6699 0.5406 0.2453 0.870967741935484 1. 751 1.644 1.063 0.563 0.3764 0 . 2219 0.9032258064516 1 3 1.687 1.584 1.011 0 . 5558 0.3719 0.196 0 .935483870967742 1.44 1.353 0 .9778 0 . 5089 0.341 0.1951 0 .967741935483871 0 .6803 0.6372 0.5071 02991 0.1994 0 .04916 OJ 11.6617 10. 9631 9 . 2826 4 . 8397 3 .3694 1.591 Average ofyearly averages: 0 .687655333333334 lnputs generated by pe5.pl- Novemeber 2006 Data used for this run: Output File: f:LPepper Metfile : wl2844. dvf PRZM scenario: FLpeppersSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: ir298 . exv Chemical Name: kasugamycin Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 433.84 glmol Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m"3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 1.3IE-02 torr Sol. ubility sol 228000 mg/L Kd Kd mg!L Koc Koc 217 .5 mg/L 

### 13Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 43 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 434 

### days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 219 days Halfife Hydrolysis : pHS 630 days Half

-life Hydrolysis : pH7 1155 days Half-life Hydrolysis : pH9 6932 days Half

-life Method : CAM I integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth : DEPI em Application Rate: TAPP 0.09 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.064 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Da te Date I S-II dd/mm or ddlmmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Interval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app . app . rate 1 apprate 0.09 kg/ha Interval 2 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app . app. rate 2 apprate 0 .09 kg/ha Record 17:FILTRA IPSCND UPTKF Record 18 : PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res . Run IR Reservoir Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total( average ofentire run) stored as ORApple . out Chemical : kasugarnycin PRZM environment : ORappleSTD .txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13 :00 :08 EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at I6 : 34 : I2 Metfile : w24232.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 10:06:10 Water segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60Day 90Day Yearly 1961 0 .4092 0 .3983 0 .3565 02195 0.2343 0.08852 1962 0.4487 0 .4375 0.4057 0.3244 0.2754 0.1398 1963 3 . 285 3.196 2.857 2.255 1.898 0.7 1964 0 . 5375 0.5242 0.473 0.3816 0.3247 02081 1965 0.4755 0.4637 0.418 0.336 0.2855 0 . 1687 1966 0.4787 0.4661 0.4179 0 .33 19 0.2806 0 . 1641 1967 0 .4772 0.4648 0.4356 0.3 478 0 .2926 0.1574 1968 0 .4833 0 .4692 0.4349 0.4006 0.3505 0 . 1786 1969 0 . 6261 0 .6059 0.5297 0.4038 0 . 378 0.2345 1970 0.4849 0.4723 0.4263 0.338 0.284 0.1561 1971 0.4512 0.4395 0 . 3948 0 . 3258 0.2963 0.1832 1972 0 .9 449 0 .9264 0.8282 0 . 6429 0.5551 0 . 247 1973 0.4803 0.4674 0.418 0.3317 0.2802 0. 1505 1974 0.4774 0.4678 0.4452 0.3784 0.2697 0.1616 1975 0 .6556 0.6386 0 . 5735 0.4575 0.3884 0.216 1976 0 .4561 0.4443 0 . 3992 0.3193 0.2719 0.1201 1977 0 . 5127 0.4999 0 .45 0.3814 0.326 0.1288 1978 1.669 1.624 1.451 1.116 0.9192 0.336 1 1979 0.9134 0 .892 0 . 8034 0.6306 0.5271 0.266 1 1980 0 .4799 0 .4676 0 .4206 0.3869 0.3544 0 . 1856 1981 0 .6996 0.6796 0.6 126 0 .4767 0.4461 0.2245 1982 0 .4648 0 .4524 0.4052 0.3 192 0.2682 0.1283 1983 0.5747 0.5585 0.5004 0.4{)25 0.3464 0.1452 1984 0.7 192 0 .7003 0.629 1 0 . 5789 0.5354 0213 1985 0 .9789 0 .949 0.8449 0 . 6355 0 . 5435 02525 1986 0 . 5375 0 . 5232 0.4684 0 .3702 0.3123 0 . 1537 1987 0 .6032 0.5839 0.5107 0.3832 0.3194 0.195 1988 0 . 5003 0.4876 0.4386 0 . 3677 0.3166 0.1756 1989 0 .4466 0.4344 0.3 881 0.3051 02568 0.1461 1990 0 .4808 0 .4682 0.4201 0 . 3355 0.2825 0 . 1604 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60Day 90 Day Yearly 0 .032258064516129 3 .285 3. 196 2.857 2.255 1.898 0.7 00645161290322581 1.669 1.624 1.451 1.116 0.9192 0.3361 

### 140 . 096774193548387 1 0.9789 0 .949 0.8449 0.6429 0 . 555 1 0.266 1 0 .1 29032258064516 0.9449 0.9264 0.8282 0 . 6355 0 . 5435 0 .2525 0 . 161290322580645 0.9134 0.892 0.8034 0.6306 0.5354 0 .247 0.1935 4 8387096774 0.7192 0.7003 0 .6291 0.5789 0 . 5271 0 .2345 0 .225806451612903 0.6996 0.6796 0. 6126 0.4767 0.4461 0 .2245 0 .258064516129032 0 . 6556 0.6386 0.5735 0.4575 0.3884 0.216 0 .290322580645161 0.6261 0 .6059 0.5297 0.4038 0.378 0.213 0 .32258064516129 0 . 6032 0 . 5839 0.5107 0.4025 0.3544 0.2081 0.354838709677419 0.5747 0 . 5585 0.5004 0.4006 0.3505 0.195 0.387096774193548 0 . 5375 0 . 5242 0.473 0 . 3869 0 .3464 0 . 1856 0 .419354838709677 0 . 5375 0.5232 0.4684 0 . 3832 0 .326 0 . 1832 045161290322 5 806 0 . 5127 0.4999 0.45 0.38 1 6 0 .3247 0 . 1786 0 .483870967741936 0 . 5003 0.4876 0 . 4452 0.3814 0.3194 0 . 1756 0.516129032258065 0.4849 0.4723 0.4386 0.3784 0.3166 0.1687 0 . 548387096774194 0.4833 0.4692 0.4356 0.3702 0.3123 0.1641 0 . 580645161290323 0.4808 0 .4682 0.4349 0.3677 02963 0.1616 0.612903225806452 0 .4803 0.4678 0.4263 0.3478 0.2926 0.1604 0.645161290322581 0.4799 0.4676 0 .4206 0 .338 0 .2855 0.1574 0.67741935483871 0.4787 0.4674 0 .4201 0.336 0 .284 0.1561 0.709677419354839 0.4774 0.4661 0.418 0 .3355 0 .2825 0.1537 0.741935483870968 0 .4772 0.4648 0 .418 0.3319 0 .2806 0.1505 0.774193548387097 0.4755 0.4637 0 .4179 0.33 17 0.2802 0.1461 0.806451612903226 0 .4648 0.4524 0.4057 0.3258 0.2754 0.1452 0.838709677419355 0.4561 0.4443 0 .4052 0.3244 0.2719 0.1398 0 .870967741935484 0.4512 0.4395 0.3992 0.3193 0.2697 0 . 1288 0.903225806451613 0.4487 0.4375 0.3948 0.3192 0.2682 0.1283 0 .935483870967742 0 .4466 0.4344 0.3881 0.3051 0.2568 0.1201 0.967741935483871 0.4092 0.3983 0 . 3565 0 .2795 0 .2343 0 .08852 0 . 1 0.9. 755 0.94674 0 .84323 0 . 64216 0 . 55394 0 .26474 Average ofyearly averages: 0.199504 Inputs generated by pe5.p l- Novemeber 2006 Data used for this run : Output File : ORApple Metfile : w24232.dvf PRZM scenario: ORappleSTD.txt EXAMS environment file : ir298 . exv Chemical Name: kasugamycin Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 433.84 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m"3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 1.31E-02 torr Solubility sol 228000 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 217.5 mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half

- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 43 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 434 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 219 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pHS 630 days Half-life Hydrolysis: pH7 1155 days Half-life Hydrolysis: pH9 6932 days Half

- life Method: CAM I integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI em Application Rate : TAPP 0.09 kglha Application Efficiency : APPEFF 0 . 99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.064 fraction ofapplication rate applied to pond Application Date Date 30-4 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

-mm or dd

-mmm Interval 1 interval 3 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate I apprate 0.09 kglha Record 17 : FILTRA lPSCND UPTKF Record 18 : PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run) 

### 1 5