UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT I ON AGENCY WASHI N GTO N , D

. C

. 20460 

## DEC 05 2012

MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

SUBJECT: BEAD Chemical Profile for Registr Propazine (080808) FROM : Bill Phi llips , PhD, Agronomis Biological Analysis Branch 1'7 

### n . .I Cyn thia Doucoure, Environmental Pro tection Specialist**~ ~** 

THRU: Science Information and Analysis Branch Andrew Lee, Eco nomist 

# (],.or (\;+. 

# Yv\. \l

# ~ Economic Analysis Branch 

# VU**~** Biolog i cal and Economic Analysis Divis ion (7503P) Amet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Branc Diann S im s,

# Chief**~** Science Information and Analy sis Branch Timoth y Kiely, Chief 

# A yJ\

# ~ ·_,Q_ Economic Analys is Branch 

### U }

# ~\.) Biological and Economic Analysis Divisio n (7503P) TO : Kaitli n Ke ll er, Chemical Review Manager Risk Management and Implementation Branch 4 Pesticide Reevaluation D iv ision (7508P)


### Product Review Panel date: October 10,2012

Page 

### 1 of8

### INTRODUCTION The purpo se of thi s docum e nt is to convey usage information and a broad overview of the pest management roles of pesticides that are beginning to undergo registration revi ew . The anticipated audience consists of the team of EPA staff currently evaluating the registration status of propazine, and eventually the general public. Thi s document builds upon the data already provided in the "Usage and Label Use Data Packages" that are a lso provided to Registration Review teams by BEAD
. The document is based on information and data avai lable to BEAD as of August 2012 Propazine (2-chloro-4,6-bis(isopropyalamino)-s-triazine) is in the Weed Science Society herbici de group 5 (s-triazine) with th e mechanism of action of inhibiting photo synthesis in photosystem II (PS II). Propazine is applied preemergence in grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) in order to control broadleaf and grass weeds. In greenhouse crops and in non -ag ricultural u se sites this herbicide is applied prior to weed emergence. In 1989 the registration for propazine u se in grain sorghum was cancell ed , however its u se was allowed under a Section 18 for the years 1993-1995. EPA propri e tary data shows that use continued through 2001(Figure 1). BEAD was unable to determine why such u ses continued for so long following 1995. In 2007 a new registrant applied for and r eceive d a registration for the use of this herbicide in sorghum. Currently propazine is used in grain sorgh um as well as in g reenho use s for co ntaineri zed ornamentals. Even though the registrant did not fulfill a data requirement need e d for the rereg is tration of the herbicide, tolerances for grain so rghum st ill remained , and becau se greenhouse use was sti ll labeled , propazine was a part of the Agency's 2006 triazine cumulative as sessment. In June of 2006 the "EPA [had] concluded that, with the mitigation measures in the individual atrazine and simazine deci sions, the cumulative risks associated with the triazine pesticides are below the Food Quali ty Protection Act (FQPA) regulatory level of concern. " 1 As for any ri sks associated with propazin e, in August of 2006 "EPA [had] evaluated the existing propazine sorghum tolerances and determined that there [was] reasonable certainty that no harm to the general population, infants, children, or other major ident{fzable subgroups of consumers [would] r esult from these tolerances. Die tary exposure to propazine was determin ed to be essen tially zero; propazine, therefore, wasfound to pose no risk concerns."


### HISTORY OF BEAD ASSESSMENTS FOR PROPAZINE In its 2004 (Phillips and Zinn, 2004) and 2005 (Phillips et al., 2005) assessments, BEAD concluded that in the narrow scope of pre-emergence co ntrol of broadleaf weed species in sorghum crop production, propazine is an agronomic replacement for atrazine; however , this doe s not preclude the possible use of atrazine as a po s t-emergence " rescue treatment" in fields where an application of propazine was made and failed to provide adequate control. The se works by BEAD s ugge st th e potential of propazine as an alternative to atrazine, which i s currently under the Agency review for its effects potentially relevant to human health ri sk assessment.

1 Triazine Cumulative Risk Assessment and Atrazine , Simazine, and Propazine D ecisions: June 22 , 2006 http://www.epagov/oppsmll/cumu I at ivc/triazine fs.ht m#howtocomment Page 2 of8

### COMMON FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS Propazin e is commonly formulated as a flowable concentrate and applied via aerial and ground spray applications, using flat fan-type nozzles for uniform broadcast applications and band treatments. Propazine is also applied through flood or drench nozzles in greenhouse applications.


### USAGE Agricultural Use Trend, 1998-2011 Overall use ofpropazine on grain sorghum in the U .S. , as reported in private market research surveys , increased between 1998 and 2009 as shown in Figure 1. A sharp increase in use of propazine occu rred between 2008 and 2009 , fo ll owed by a sharp decrease in recent years . No use ofpropazine was rep orted during the years 2001-2006. A s imilar trend was found for total area treated as s hown in Figure 2. Figure 1: Propazine: Pounds a.i. Applied, 1998-20 II 200,000

0 p,fb p,">**~<:) ~'\.** **~')., ~'>)**  

## d>**~<,** 

### d<>**~ ~tO** **~0, ~<:)** **~""**

'\.Oj ...,Oj**').,~ ').,~** **').,~ ').,~** **').,~ ').,~** **').,~ ').,~** **').,~ ').,~**  ').,<:) ').,<:) Year
Source: E PA Proprietary Data, 1998-20 II

Page 3 of8Figure 2. Propazine: Total Area Treated (acre) , 1998-2011 

### 250000

0 'i'J'b ?>0)**~<:> ~"'** **~'\. ~'?** **~~ ~<,** **~'o ~** **~'b ~0)** **~<:> ~"'** 

"'Oj
..... Oj '\.<S '\.<S '\.<S '\.<S '\.<S '\.<S '\.<S '\.<S '\.<S '\.<S 

### '\.<:> '\.<:> Year
Source: EPA Proprietary Data , 1998-2011 Agricultural Use 2007 - 2011 During the 2007-2011 timefram e, use ofpropazine on grain sorghum averaged approximately 74,000 pounds annually and was applied on average to 96,000 acres at an ove rall average a.i. application rat e of 0.8 lbs/acre. In earlier years , the top states for use of propazine in terms of pounds a.i. applied and total area treated were Texas, with a little over half the market, followed by Nebraska (25%) and Kansas (12%) as shown in Figure 3. However , based on private market research during the 2007

- 2011 period , Texas clearly dominated the market in terms of pounds of propazine and total area appl ied (92%) , fo ll owed by Kansas (4%) and New Mexico (4%). D uring this recent period , there was no reported use of propazine on grain sorghum in Nebraska and Missouri as shown in Fi gure 4.
Figure 3. Prop azine Use on Grain Sorghum, Top States, 1998-2000 

### Pounds 

### AI

Source: EPA Proprietary Data , I 998-2000I S::.C· URI C.%**r-----------------------------~**

Page 4 of8 

### Total Area Treated

MI SSO URI 69'.Figure 4
. Propazine Use on Grain Sorghum , Top States, 2007

- 2011 

### Pounds A .l.

Source: EPA Proprietary Data , 2007-20 II
Non-Agricultural Use**l<AN SA~**  4 %

4 ro**r- ------** **----~ ---** **------ --** **-- ----** **,** 

### Total Area Treated

No reported usage of propazine in the non-agricultural sector was found in available sources.

INFORMATION THAT MAY BE USEFUL FOR BEAD'S FUTURE WORK ON PROPAZINE Obtaining additional information on typical p ropazi ne use in the non-agricultural secto r would improve future BEAD assessments of the importance of propazine and may be required as part ofthe registration review of this pesticide. Requested data should include , but not be limited to , app li cati on t iming, application rate, application method, and application freque n cy .
CONCLUSION The propazine overall average a.i. rate for application to so rghum has bee n inconsistent in the area treated and the number of pounds applied. In consistent use notwith s tanding , it still remains that a small fractio n of the sorghum crop is treated.
REFERENCES EPA 2004. Atrazine/Propazine U se on Sorghum. Phillips and Zinn , August 25 , 200 4 EPA 2005a. 'Atrazin e and Propazine Use Rates in Sorg hum for Potential Co-occurre nce (DP 308550)

- Phillip s, Zinn , and Kiely , October 1 1, 2005 Page 

### 5 of8EPA 2005b. Projected Percent of Crop Treated Estimates for Propazine o n Sorghum (080807). Kiely and Smearman , January 11, 2005. EPA 2007. Refined Projected Percent Crop Treated (PPCT) Est imate s for Use ofPropazine and Atraz ine on Sorghum in Texas, PC Code 080808 , DP Barcode 335065

- Alsadek and Zinn, March 9, 2007. EPA Proprietar y Data , 1 998

-2011 USDA, 2006-2010
. NASS Crop Reporting Di stricts
. Online: http: //www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/arms/resourceregions/resourceregions.htm# nass . US DA, 2007. Census of Agriculture
. On li ne: http: //www . agcensus. usda. gov /Publications/2007 / i ndex.asp
.

Page 6 of8APPENDIX Agricultural Usage by Crop Reporting District Another measure of usage i s the use intensity. In this analys is, th e use intensity is expressed as the pound s a.i. app li ed p e r acre of land in farms. Thi s differ s from the appli cat ion rate , which is exp ressed 

### a s the pounds a.i. appli e d per tre ated area. Note that the ave ra ge application rate is calcu lated to be about 0.8 lb a.i. per acre , equiv alent to 800 lb a .i
. per l ,00 0 acres. The most intense use s hown on the ma p is about 5 lb a.i. per 1 , 000 acres of farm land
. Figure 5 spatially represents propaz in e ' s use intensity in the U.S. , which is relatively greater in Texas.
Figure 5 . Propazine U sage by Crop Reporting D istrict (2006- 2010)

Propat i no • Use (2006 · 20 I 0) b y Crop Reponing Dimict Average Pou nd s per 1
.0 00 Ac re s of Farm l and

- < 002

- 0
. 2

- 0.3 0 4 -05

- 06- 5
. 1

Pag e 7 of8This 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 whe r e the pesticide being considered is most likely to be used and can be he lpful in scenario selection and placing the exposure assessment in context. CRDs are boundaries created by USDA NASS which are agg rega t es of counties (USDA, 20 1 0). Pes ticide usage is displayed a s ave rage pounds (for the years 2006- 20 I0) per 1 , 000 acres of fa rm land in a CRD to normal ize for the variation in farmland between CRDs. Farmland acreage was obtained from USDA (2007)
. Farmland or "land in farms " is defined as follows: The acrea ge designated as "land in farms " consists primarily of agricultural land used for crops , pasture, or grazing. It also includes woodland and wasteland not actually under cultivat ion or used for pasture or grazing, provided it was part of the farm operator's total operation. Large acreages of woodland or wasteland held for nonagricu ltural purposes were deleted from individual reports during the edit process. Land in farms inc ludes CRP, WRP, FWP, and CREP acres. Land in farms is an op erating un it concept and inc l udes land owned and operated as we ll as land rented from others. Lan d used rent free was repor ted as land rented from 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 potent i al of grazing livestock was included as Land in farms. Land in reservations not reported by re servatio n , individual American Indian s or non Native Americans was reported in the name of the cooperative group that used the land. I n many instances, an entire American Indian reservation was reported as one farm (2007 Ce n sus of Agric u lture , USDA)
. Usage is based on private market surveys of pesticide use in agriculture (Propr ietary Da ta, 2006-201 0). T he survey data are limited to the states that represent the top 80-90% of acreage for the individual crops , therefore , use may be occurring in regions outside the scope of the survey. CRDs s howing no usage of pesticides may be due to either the lack of pesticid e 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 s urvey. This may result in a lower annual average for the CRD. This map displays r atio data (i.e
. , average pounds per I , 000 acres of farmland) s ummarized at a very highlevel. Re aders are strong l y cautioned agai n st trying to over interpret the map without examination of the underlying data. T h e underlying data may explain some of the many reasons th at a Crop Reporting District m ay have a hi gh value for a particula r act ive ingredient suc h as significant acreage (compared w ith the CRD as a whole) of a crop or crops w ith a high application rate and frequency of app l ication. The reader should pay particular attention to the figure legends and realize that a map prepared for a particu lar 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. 2006-20 I 0 US DA, 2006-20 I 0
. NASS Crop Reporting D istricts. On line: http: //www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/arms/resourceregions/resourceregions.htm# nass . USDA, 2007. Census of Agriculture. Online: hnp: //www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications /2007/ index.asp



### Page 8 of8