UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WAS HI N GTON , D

.C

. 20460 

## DEC112DIZ

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review: Captan (081301) FROM:

THRU:

TO: Tara Chandgoyal, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist

## hi**~--** /1.

## ··~ ./J B . 1
. al al

. B h

## ~ tM4U{

## ~

10 

### ogtc An ys1s ranc v Sepehr 

### Haddad, Environmental Protection Specialist

# II'-~ Science Information and Analysis Branch • 

## 7 Andrew 

### Lee, Ph.D

., Economist

# ~**liJ~ ~**  .,..J\

# ~L . " John Faulkner, Ph

. D
., Economist

## ~ v, \

## ~Vt\ft/\, Econ
. omic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) AmetJones,Chief

# ~~ Biological Analysis Branch

. (/ Diann Sims,

# Chief**~** Science Information and Analysis Branch



### .... Timothy Kiely, Chief 

# (':t--

# ~ Economic Analysis Branch 

# '! J

. Biological and Economic Analysts Division ( 503P) Christina Scheltema, Chemical Review Manager Risk Management and Implementation Branch 3 Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) Product Review Panel date: December 

### 5, 2012 INTRODUCTION The purpose ofthis document is to convey usage information and a broad overview ofthe pest management roles ofpesticides that are beginning to undergo registration review. The anticipated audience consists ofthe team 

### ofEPA staff

### currently evaluating the registration status 

### ofcaptan and eventually the general public. This document builds upon the data already 

### 1

### provided in the usage and label use data packages that are also provided to Registration Review teams by 

### BEAD
. The document is based on information and data available to 

### BEAD as of November 21,2012
. Captan was registered in 1951. The Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for captan was issued in 1999. Captan is a fungicide that belongs to group M4 offungicide as per Fungicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC, 2012). Captan is a broad-spectrum fungicide with protectant and some curative activity. 

### It is used on a wide range ofagricultural and horticultural crops in temperate, sub

-tropical and tropical climates in open fields and glasshouses. HISTORY OF BEAD ASSESSMENTS FOR CAPT AN No BEAD assessments were found in BEAD's Official Records. SECTION 18 EMERGENCY REQUEST HISTORY There have been no requests for emergency uses ofthis chemical on any crop to control fungal pests under FIFRA Section 18. Emergency exemption requests indicate a valuable use for a chemical due to a lack of effective control methods on specific crop against specific pests. However, the lack ofemergency requests does not imply a lack ofvalue in registered uses. COMMON FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS Captan is formulated as dust, granular, wettable powder, water dispersible granules, flowable concentrate, soluble concentrate and water soluble packaging. Captan is applied by broadcast, chemigation, dusting, drip treatment to soil and as spot applications

. Captan is also used as a seed treatment. USE SITES Agricultural Use Sites Captan is a fungicide registered for use on caneberries, grapes, strawberries, nut crops, pome fruits, stone fruits, cucurbits, fruiting vegetables, leafy and stem vegetables, root crop vegeta bles, seed and pod vegetables, forage grasses, forage legumes, grain crops, ginseng, beets, com, cotton, peanuts, soybeans and rapeseed

. Non

-Agricultural Use Sites Captan is a fungicide registered for use on ornamenta l herbaceous plants, ornamental lawns and turf, ornamental woody shrubs and vines, ornamental trees, wood structure protection and greenhouse soils. USAGE Agricultural Usage Based on private market usage data from 2001

-2011, usage averaged approximately 2.8 million pounds active ingredient (a.i.) for 1.5 million acres treated

. The average a.i. ra te over this time period was 1
.9 pounds a.i./acre. More recently, in the 2009

-2011 timeframe the average a.i. rate was lower at 1.7 pounds a.i./acre. Figure 1 presents captan usage in pounds a.i. over the 2001- 2011 timeframe

. Figure 2 presents total area treated in acres over the 2001-2011 timeframe. (Proprietary Data, 2001-2011).



### 23,500,000

- - -

0 f

... 2001 2()02 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Years 

### Soun:e: Proprietary Data, 2001-2011**~** 0
. - --**-~-----** 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Years 

### Source: Proprietary Data, 2001-2011

. Table 1 shows a comparison ofcrops with the highest use ofcaptanbetween the two time frames

of2001-2006 and 2007-2011. Apples, strawberries, peaches, and almonds were the top crops in 

### both timeframes, with apples accounting for over 50 percent ofall use in 

### both time periods. The average a.i. rate for apples and almonds increased between the 2001-2006 and the 2007-2011 timeframes, while the average ai. rate for strawberries and peaches decreased between the two timeframes. For apples, the rate increased from 1.8 pounds aiJacre in 2001-2006 to approximately 2.0 pounds/acre in

### the 2007-2011 timeframe, and for almonds the rate increased from 2.9 pounds ai.lacre to 3.15 pounds/acre. 3

### TABLE 1. Comparison ofCrops with Highest Use ofCaptan- Percent ofTotal Lbs. Applied Between the 2001-2006 and 2007-2011 Timeframes 2001-2006 Average = 2,860,000 lbs/yr 

### Crop 0 /o 

### Lbs Apples 56 Strawberries 15

Peaches 12 Almonds 

### 8

Plums 

### 4 Cherries 2 Other• 

### 3 2007-2011 Average= 2,625,000 lbs/yr 

### Crop %Lbs Apples 62 Strawberries 16 Peaches 

### 10 Almonds 

### 4 Cherries 

### 3

Plums 2 Other• 

### 3 *Other crops in the 2001-2006 timeframe include wine, table, and raisin grapes, apricots, canebenies, pecans, pumpkins, peanuts and 10 other crops. Other crops in the 2007-2011 timeframe include canebenies, wine, table and l'lUsin grapes, apricots,**peppe~,** cucwnbers, peanuts and 1 0 other crops. 

### Source: Proprietary Data, 2001-2011 Table 2 shows a comparison ofStates with the highest use ofcaptan between the two time frames of2001-2006 and 2007-2011. California, New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania were the States withthe most use 

### in bothtimeframes, even though New York was the State with the most use 

### in the lattertime frame when compared to the earlier period where California was the top State. These four States accounted for approximately 70 percent ofall use 

### in both time periods. 

### TABLE 2. Comparison ofStates with Highest Use ofCaptan- Percent ofTotal Lbs. Applied Between the 2001-2006 and 2007-2011 Timeframes 2001-2006 Average= 2,860,000 lbs/yr 

### State %Lbs California 25 New York 17 Michigan 17 Pennsylvania 8 Virginia 

### 5

South 

### 4 Carolina Other* 24 

### 2007-2011 Average = 2,625,000 lbs/yr 

### State %Lbs New York 25 Michigan 21 California 

### 17 Pennsylvania 

### 9 Florida 

### 5 Virgina 

### 4 Other* 

### 19 *Other States in the 2001-2006 timeframe include Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, New**Je~y.** Wisconsin, West Virginia, Georgia, Maine and 17 other States. Other States in the 2007-2011 timeframe include South Carolina, North Carolina, Ohio, New Jersey, West Virginia, Washington, Oregon and 16 other States. 

### Source: Proprietary Data, 2001-2011 4Agricultural Usage by Crop Reporting District Another measure ofusage is the use intensity. 

### Inthis analysis, the use intensity is expressed as the pounds a.i. applied per 1000 acres ofland in fanns. This differs from the application rate, which is expressed as the pounds 

### ai. applied pertreated area. The average application rate of 1.7 lb per acre implies a rate of 1700 lb a.i. per 1000 treated acres. The maximwn use intensity observed is about 230 lb 

### ai. per 1000 acres offannland. Figure 3 spatially represents captan usage by crop reporting district for 2006-2010. The highest use intensity is in the Northeast, especially New York and Michigan. FIGURE 3. Captan Usage by Crop Reporting District (2006-2010)

Average PoundS Per 1,000 Acres of Jlarmland

- <10

- 10·25 0 26-50 

## 0 51-tt6

- 117-235
This is a map of agricultural pesticide usage at the Crop Reporting District (CRD) level prepared by BEAD for use in the Environmental Fate and Effects Division documents. These maps are used to help visualize where the pesticide being considered is most likely to be used and can be helpful in scenario selection and placing the exposure assessment in context. CRDs are boundaries created by USDA NASS which are aggregates ofcounties (USDA, 2010). Pesticide usage is displayed as average pounds (for the years 2006- 2010) per 1,000 acres of farmland in a CRD to normalize for the variation in farmland between CRDs. Farmland acreage was obtained from USDA (2007). Fannland or "land in farms" is defined as follows: The acreage designated as "land in farms" consists primarily ofagricultural land used for crops, pasture, or grazing. It also includes woodland and wasteland not actually under cultivation or used for pasture or grazing, provided it was part of the farm. operator's total operation. Large acreages of woodland or wasteland 

### 5held for nonagricultural purposes were deleted fiom individual reports during the edit process. Land iil farms includes CRP, WRP, FWP, and CREP acres. Land in fanns is an operating unit concept and includes land owned and operated as well as land ren ted fiom others. Land used rent free was reported as land ren ted fiom others

. All grazing land. except land used under government permits on a per-head basis, was included as "land in farms" provided it was part of a farm or ranch. Land under the exclusive 

### use of a grazing association was reported by the grazing association and included as land in farms. All land in American Indian reservations used for growing crops, grazing livestock. or the potential of grazing l ivestock was included as land in farms

. Land in reservations not reported by reservation, individual American Indians or nonNative Americans was reported in the name ofthe cooperative group tha t used the land. In many instances, an entire American Indian reservation was reported as one farm (2007 Census ofAgriculture, USDA). Usage is based on private market surveys ofpesticide use in agriculture (Proprietary Data, 2006-2010). The survey data are limited to the states that represent the top 80-900/0 of acreage for the individual crops, therefore, use may be occurring in regions outside the scope of the survey. CRDs showing no usage of pesticides may be due to either the lack ofpesticide use in the region or non-participation in the agricultural surveys. In addition, across the years, there may be variations in the specific crops included in the CRD survey. This may result in a lower annual average for the CRD. This map displays ratio data (i.e., average pounds per 1,000 acres offarmland) summarized at a very highlevel. Readers are strongly cautioned against trying to over interpret the map without examination of the underlying data. The underlying data ma y explain some ofthe many reasons that a Crop Reporting District may have a high value for a particular active ingredient such as significant acreage (compared with the CRD as a whole) of a crop or crops with a high application rate and frequency ofapplication. The reader should pay particular attention to
.the figure legends and realize that a map prepared for a particular chemical is not directly comparable to a map prepared for a different chemical. Scale and units of measurement do matter and may be different between maps. Sources: Proprietary Data. 2006-20l0 USDA, 2006-2010. NASS Crop Reporting Districts. USDA, 2007. Census of Agriculture. Non-Agricultural Usage In tenns ofnon-agricultural usage, reported data are available only for nursery/greenhouses for 2002, 2004, and 2006, consumer fungicide for 2003, landscape for 2004, golfcourses for 2006, and lawn care operators for 2006 as shown 

### in Table 3 below. The reported data shows that consumer 

### use accounts for the majority ofnon-agricultural usage. It is important to note that these data are dated but are presented 

### in this document for reference. 

### Table 3. Captan Select**Non-A2ri~uJtural** 

### Usage (Pounds A.I.) 

### (2002-2004, 2 

### 006) Site 2002 2003 2004 2006 

### Golf

### Courses 

### 310

Landscape 965 Nursery/Greenhouse 

### 4636 2737 231 Lawn Care Operators 

### 355 Consumer

- Fungicide 

### 210,000 Shaded areas ofthe table are for those years where no data was 

### reported or no reports were ISSUed 

### for the particular 

### use site. 

### Source: Kline & 

### Co., 2002-2006 

### 6