OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION
PREVENTION 

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

PC Code: 083702
DP Barcode: D411096
Date: September 22

, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Registration Review: Preliminary Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk
Assessment Endangered S pecies Effects Determination 

### for Tetrachlorvinphos

TO: James Parker , Chemical Review Manager
Thomas Moriarty

, Team Leader
Neil Anderson , Branch Chief

Pesticide Re

- evaluation Division (7508P)

FROM: Mary Clock

- Rust, Biologist
Chuck Peck, Environmental Engineer
Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P )

REVIEWE D
BY: T homas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor
Jim Carleton , Ph.D. , Senior Scientist
Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P )

APPROVED
BY: Jean Holmes, DVM, MPH, Branch Chief
Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P )

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed a preliminary risk assessment
for the insecticide tetrachlorvinphos ( TCVP )

. TC VP is currently registered in 47 technical and
end

- use products for use as feed additives, sprays, and dusts for livestock; dips, collars, sprays,
and dusts for domestic pets; and sprays and dusts for structures and outdoor areas.

Risk Conclusions TCVP is very highly toxic to freshwater aquatic invertebrates. When estimates of TCVP exposure in aquatic environments are compared to the available ecotoxicity data, the results of the screening

-- Page 2 of 74

- 

### level assessment indicate a potential for acute and chronic risk to federally listed threatened and endangered (referred to as “ listed”) and non

- listed species of freshwater aquatic invertebrates for all of the registered uses of TCVP

. Although mortality was not observed in the acute avian studies, acute risks to birds could not be precluded, as the estimated environmental concent rations (EECs) for most of the uses of TCVP exceeded the highest dose tested in the acute toxicity study (2,000 mg/kg

- diet). Screening

- level chronic risk quotient (RQ) values for the uses of TCVP exceed the level of concern ( LOC ) for chronic risk to listed and non

- listed birds, reptiles, and terrestrial

- phase amphibians exposed to TCVP in the diet

. R esults of the screening

- level assessment indicate a potential for acute and chronic risk to listed and non

- listed mammals.

Uncertainties

The terrestria l plant toxicity studies were conducted at an application rate (6.09 lb a.i./acre) that was well below the highest application rate on TCVP labels (34.8 lb a.i./acre). Therefore, there is uncertainty surrounding the potential toxicity of TCVP to plants at application rates between 6.09 and 34.8 lb a.i./acre. However, risks for terrestrial plants exposed to TCVP did not result in exceedances for any of the registered uses. Therefore, the potential risk to terrestrial plants from exposure to TCVP in runoff is considered low.

Risks for terrestrial invertebrates were not quantified. While TCVP is classified as highly toxic to adult honey bees, the use pattern for TCVP (application to manure piles, poultry droppings, etc .) is likely to preclude exposure to honey bees. However, there is uncertainty regarding the effect of treated manure on fields where ground

- nesting solitary and social bees may be located.

An analysis evaluating the use of cow manure as a soil amendment was conducted for this risk

assessment

. Manure used as a soil amendment/organic fertilizer could be a source of pesticide
residues that are contained in the manure excreted from treated livestock. For modeling purposes,
an “a pplication” rate of TCVP was estimated based on dry weight of manure a pplication for crop production. The methodology used for the estimation of manure application is based on equations and tables provided in the USDA Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook (USDA, 2009). EFED conducted a similar analysis for swine, poultry, and horse manure, however cow manure generates the highest TCVP application rates and is considered protective for all manure amendment applications.- Page 3 of 74

- 

# Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment
for the Registration Review of Tetrachlorvinphos

O

O P O

O Cl

Cl

Cl Cl



## Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP)

CAS 22248

- 79

- 9 PC Code 083702



### September 22 , 2015

Prepared b y Mary Clock

- Rust

, Biologist Chuck Peck, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED)
Environmental Risk Branch IV 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Mail Code 7507P Washington, DC 20460 

### Reviewed by Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor James Carleton, Ph.D., Senior Fate Scientist Jean Holmes, DVM, MPH, Branch Chief- Page 4 of 74

- 

# Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 8
2. Problem Formulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 8
2.1. Nature of Regulatory A ction

................................ ................................ ........................ 8
2.2. Stressor Source and Distribution

................................ ................................ ................ 9
2.2.1. Nature of th e Chemical Stressor

................................ ................................ .............. 9
2.2.2. Overview of Pesticide Usage

................................ ................................ .................. 9
2.3. Receptors

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 10
2.3.1. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects

................................ ................................ ........... 10 2.3.2. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

................................ ................................ ........ 10
2.4. Assessment Endpoints

................................ ................................ ................................ 10 2.5. Conceptual Model

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 11 2.5.1. Risk Hypotheses

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 11 2.5.2. Conceptual Diagram

................................ ................................ ............................ 11 2.6. Analysis Plan

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 14 2.6.1. Measures of Exposure

................................ ................................ ....................... 14

2.6.1.1 Measures of Aquatic Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ 14
2.6.1.2. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure

................................ ................................ ............................ 14 

### 2.6.2. Measures of Effect

................................ ................................ ............................. 15 2.6.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects

................................ ............................... 16
3. Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 17
3.1 Use Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 17
3.2. Exposure Characterization

................................ ................................ ........................ 19
3.2.1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

................................ ...... 19

3.2.1.1. Transport and Mobility

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 20
3.2.1.2. Degradation

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 20
3.2.1.3. Field Studies

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 21
3.2.1.4. Bioaccumulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 21
3.2.1.5. Transformation Products

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 22 

### 3.2.2. Measures of Aquatic Exposure

................................ ................................ ............ 23

3.2.2.1. Aquatic Exposure Modeling

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 23
3.2.2.2. Development of Application Rates and Selection of Crop Scenarios

................................ ...... 24
3.2.2.3. Aquatic Modeling Inputs

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 27
3.2.2.4. Estima ted Environmental Concentrations in Surface

................................ ............................... 28
3.2.2.5. Monitoring Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 29
3.2.2.6 Aquatic Exposure from Indoor Uses

................................ ................................ ........................ 30 

### 3.2.3. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure

................................ ................................ ....... 31

3.2.3.1. Ingestion of Surface Residues by Birds and Mammals

................................ ............................ 31
3.2.3.2. Runoff and Spray Drift to Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants

................................ .............. 34 

### 3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization

................................ ................................ .......... 34
3.3.1. Aquatic Toxicity Assessment

................................ ................................ ............... 35

3.3.1.1. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 35
3.3.1.2. Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

................................ ................................ ....................... 36
3.3.1.3. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Fish

................................ ................................ ........................... 36
3.3.1.4. Toxicity to Estuarine/ Marine Invertebrates

................................ ................................ ............. 36
3.3.1.5. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 36 

### 3.3.2. Terrestrial Effects Characterization

................................ ................................ ... 37

3.3.2.1. Toxicity to Birds

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 37
3.3.2.2. Toxicity to Mammals

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 37- Page 5 of 74

- 3.3.2.3. Toxicity to Beneficial Insects

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 38
3.3.2.4. Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 38 

### 3.3.3. Review of Incident Data

................................ ................................ ....................... 39
4. Risk Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 40
4.1. Screening

- Level Risk Quotient (RQ) Values

................................ ............................ 40
4.1.1. RQ Values for Aquatic Organisms

................................ ................................ ...... 40
4.1.2. RQ Values for Terrestrial Organisms

................................ ................................ . 43
4.2. Risk Description

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 48
4.2.1. Risks to Aquatic Organisms

................................ ................................ ................. 48

4.2.1.1. Freshwater Fish, Amphibians, and Invertebrates

................................ ................................ ..... 48
4.2.1.2. Estuarine/Marine Fish and Invertebrates

................................ ................................ ................. 48
4.2.1.3. Aquatic Pl ants

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 49 

### 4.2.2. Risks to Terrestrial Organisms

................................ ................................ ............ 49

4.2.2.1. Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial

- phase Amphibians

................................ ................................ .. 49
4.2.2.2. Mammals

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 50
4.2.2.3. Terrestrial Invertebrates

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 51
4.2.2.4. Terrestrial Plants

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 51 

### 5. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)

................................ ........................... 51
6. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of Concern

............................ 52
6.1. Taxonomic Groups Poten tially at Risk

................................ ................................ ..... 52
7. Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 55
8. References

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 55
8.1. Submitted Product Chemistry and Environmental Fate Studies

........................... 57
8.2. Submitted Ecotoxicity Studies

................................ ................................ ................... 58- Page 6 of 74

- 

### Tables

Table 2.1. Chemical Profile of TCVP.

................................ ................................ ........................ 9 Figure 2.1. Conceptual Model Depicting Potential Risks to Nontarget Species from the Registered Uses of TCVP

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 13 Table 2.2. Agency Risk Quotient (RQ) Metrics and Levels of Concern (LOC) Per Risk
Class.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 16 Table 3.1. TCVP Maximum Application Rates for Labeled Uses.

................................ ........ 18 Table 3.2. Chemical Properties a nd Environmental Fate Parameters of TCVP.

................ 19
Table 3.3. Table of Transformation Products Formed in Environmental Fate Studies.

.... 22 1. Physical and chemical properties for degradates obtained through EPISuite 4.11.

........ 23
Table 3.4. A quatic Exposure Inputs in TCVP Ecological Exposure Assessment (SWCC) 1 

### 27 Table 3.5. Environmental Fate Data Used for Aquatic Exposure Inputs in TCVP Ecological E xposure Assessment.

................................ ................................ .............................. 28
Table 3.6. Surface Water EECs for TCVP.

................................ ................................ ............. 28 Table 3.7. Surface Water, Groundwater, and Sediment Monitoring Data

........................... 30 Table 3.8. Input Parameter s for Deriving Screening

- Level Terrestrial EECs for TCVP (T

REX v. 1.5) 1



### . ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 32 Table 3.9. Screening

- level Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg bw) as Food Residues for Birds,
Re ptiles, and Terrestrial

- Phase Amphibians from Labeled Uses of TCVP (T

- REX v. 1.5). 33 Table 3.10. Screening

- level Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg bw) as Food Residues for Mammals from Labeled Uses of TCVP (T

- REX v. 1.5).

................................ ................................ ........... 33 Table 3.11. Screening

- level Dietary

- based EECs (mg/kg

- diet) as Food Residues for Birds, Reptiles, Terrestria l

- phase Amphibians, and Mammals from Labeled Uses of TCVP (T

REX v. 1.5).

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 34
Table 3.12. EECs for Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants Near TCVP Use Areas (TerrPl ant v. 1.2.2).

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 34 Table 3.13. Endpoints Used in the TCVP Preliminary Risk Estimation

............................... 38 Table 4.1. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Freshwater Fish from TCVP TGAI.

................ 41
Table 4.2. Acute a nd Chronic RQs for Direct Effects to Freshwater Invertebrates from
TCVP TGAI.

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 41 Table 4.3. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine Fish from TCVP TGAI.

..... 42 Table 4.4. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates from TCVP
TGAI.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 42 Table 4.5. RQ Values for Direct Effects to Aquatic Vascular and Nonvascular Plants from
TCVP TGAI.

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 42 Table 4.6. Chronic Dietary

- Bas ed RQs for Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial

- phase Amphibians of Different Feeding Classes (T

- REX v. 1.5).

................................ ...................... 43
Table 4.7. Acute Dose

- based RQ values for Mammals Ex posed to TCVP (T

- REX v. 1.5). 45 Table 4.8. Screening

- level Dietary

- based Chronic RQs for Mammals from Labeled Uses of TCVP (T

- REX v. 1.5).

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 46 Table 4.9. RQs for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants Adjacent to TCVP Use Areas (Ground Spray).

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 47 Table 6.1. Preliminary Conclusions for Potential Direct Effects to Federally Listed Taxa Associated with the Registered Uses of TCVP, Based on Best Available Data.

.................... 53- Page 7 of 74

- APPENDICES

Appendix A. Chemical Names and Structures of TCVP and its Degradates

................................ ...................... 60 Appendix B. SWCC Sample Input/Output Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 62 Appendix C. Example T

- REX (v. 1.5) Input and Outpu t for TCVP

................................ ................................ .... 64 Appendix D. Example Terrplant (v. 1.2.2) Input and Output for TCVP

................................ ............................ 64 Appendix E. STIR Results.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 67 Appendix F. SIP Results.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 66 Appendix G. KABAM Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 67 Appendix H. Application Rate Estimation, Spot Application

................................ ................................ ................ 71 Appendix I. Communication with Registrant Re: Use of TCVP Oral Larvicide at Feedlots

............................. 72

ATTACHMENT S (SEPARATE ELECTRONIC FILE)

Attachment I. Bibliography of ECOTOX Open Literature ( December 2013 Refresh)
Attachment II. ECOTOX Data Table ( December 2013 Refresh)- Page 8 of 74

- 

## 1

. Executive Summary

The preliminary ecological risk assessment ( P RA ) examines the potential risks to wildlife, including non

- target plants, associated with labeled uses of the organophosphate insecticide tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) . The risk assessment is based on the best available scientific and
commercial information on the use, environmental fate and transport, and effects of TCVP on non

target organisms

. This P RA includes a screening

- level assessment which is consistent with prior
assessments for TCVP registration actions.

The residues of concern for this assessment were determined to be TCVP parent only. TCVP is very highly toxic to freshwater aquatic invertebrates. When estimates of TCVP exposure in aquatic environments are compared to the available ecotoxicity data, the results of the screening

- level assessment indicate a potential for acute and chronic risk to federally listed threatened and endangered (referred to as “listed”) and non

- listed species of freshwater aquatic invertebrates for
all of the registered uses of TCVP

. Although mortality was not observed in the acute avian studies, acute risks to birds could not be precluded, as the estimated environmental con centrat i ons ( EECs )
for most of the uses of TCVP exceeded the highest dose tested in the acute toxicity study (2,000 mg/kg

- diet)

. Screening

- level chronic risk quotient ( RQ ) values for the uses of TCVP exceed the level of concern ( LOC ) for chronic risk to l isted and non

- listed birds, reptiles, and terrestrial

- phase amphibians exposed to TCVP in the diet

. R esults of the screening

- level assessment indicate a potential for acute and chronic risk to listed and non

- listed mammals.



## 2 . Problem Formulatio n

The purpose of problem formulation is to provide the foundation for the environmental fate and ecological risk assessment being conducted for the representative labeled uses of tetrachlorvinphos [ ( Z )

- 2

- chloro

- 1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)vinyl dimethyl phosphate ; CAS 22248

- 79

- 9 ] ; PC Code 083702) , which are summarized in the most recent Label Use Information System (LUIS) report compiled by the B iological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) ( November 7, 2007 ) of the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP )

. The problem formulation sets the obje ctives for the risk assessment and provides a plan for analyzing the data and characterizing the risk ( USEPA 1998 a ). As part of the Registration Review process, a detailed Problem Formulation (DP Barcode D 34 6879 ) f or this risk assessment was published to the docket [ Docket ID: EPA

HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0316 ] in June 2008 (USEPA, 2008a) . The following section summarizes the key points of that document and discusses any differences between the analysis outlined there and the

a nalysis conducted in this risk assessment.

2.1

. Nature of Regulatory Action

The risk assessment is con ducted as part of the Agency’s Registration R eview process for pesticide active ingredients. The Registration Review process was established under the Fo od Quality Protection Act (FQPA 199 6 ).- Page 9 of 74

- 

### 2.2

. Stressor Source and Distribution

2.2. 1. Nature of the Chemical Stressor

Tetrachlorvinphos , hereafter refered to as TCVP

, is an organophosphate insecticide that acts by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase , an e nzyme needed for hydrolyzing the neurotransmitter, acetylcholine

.

TCVP was originally registered as a 50:50 mixture of E : Z isomers (CAS No. 961

- 1 1

- 5, PC code 083701), and was later registered as the Z

- isomer only (CAS No. 22248

- 79

- 9, PC code 083702).
Products that contain the E

- isomer alone (CAS No. 22350

- 76

- 1, PC code 083703) have not been registered, and products containing the 50:50 isomer mixture have been reformulated to contain
the Z

- isomer only. Therefore, only the Z

- isomer (PC code 083702) is considered in this environmental fate and ecological risk assessment.

The chemical profile of TCVP is provided in Table 2. 1 . Chemical names and structures of the
isomeric mixtures of TCVP and its degradates are listed in Appendix A

. As described in Se ction
3.2.1.4 , this screening

- level ecological risk assessment focuses on TCVP parent only

.

Table 2.1. Chemical Profile of TCVP

. Common name TCVP
IUPAC name ( Z )

- 2

- chloro

- 1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)vinyl dimethyl phosphate
CAS name (1 Z )

- 2

- chloro

- 1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)ethenyl dimethyl phosphate
Structure O

O P O

O Cl

Cl

Cl Cl 

### Pesticide type Insecti cide
Chemical class O rganophosphate insecticide
CAS number 22248

- 79

- 9 Empirical formula C 10 

### H 9 

### Cl 4 

### O 4 

### P

Molecular mass 365.96 g/mol

2.2.2

. Overview of Pesticide Usage

TC VP is currently registered in 47 technical and end

- use products for use as feed additives, sprays, and dusts for livestock; dips, collars, sprays, and dusts for domestic pets; and sprays and dusts for
structures and ou tdoor areas. Application rates vary by use pattern. Multiple applications are allowed, although the se are mostly limited to spot, surface, and livestock and pet treatments

. Specific use rates are discussed in Section 3.1

. TCVP can be applied as a feed additive/oral
larvicide , and, as such, resultant residues in manure appli ed as a soil amendment on farms are also
considered an exposure pathway in this risk assessment

.- Page 10 of 74

- 

### 2.3 . Receptors

2.3.1

. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects

A receptor is a biological entity that is exposed to a stressor (USEPA 199 8 ). Consistent with the process described in the Overview Document (USEPA 2004), this risk assessment uses a surrogate species approach in its evaluation of TCVP

. T oxic ity data generated from surr ogate test species,
which are intended to be representative of broad taxonomic groups, are used to extrapolate potential effects on a variety of species (receptors) included under these taxonomic groupings.

A cute and chronic toxicity data from studies sub mitted by pesticide registrants along with data
from the available open literature are used to evaluate potential direct effects of TCVP to aquatic and terrestrial receptors. The open literature studies are located through EPA’s database ECOTOX ( http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/ ), which provides a source for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife.

2.3.2. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

E cosystems at potential risk are often extensive in scope; therefore, it is not possible to identify
such ecosystems in other than general terms in a screening

- level assessment . In general terms, terrestrial ecosystems potentially at risk could include treated site s and areas immediately adjacent

to tre ated site s that may receive runoff , including that which carries eroded sediment

. Such areas could include the treated site s themselves and nearby cultivated fields, as well as uncultivated areas
such as fencerows

, he dgerows, meadows, fallow fields

, woodlands, wetlands, and other riparian
habitats.

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk i nclude water bodies adjacent to or down stream from treated

area s and may include natural or impounded lentic systems ( ponds, lakes

, reservoirs )

, and lotic ( flowing ) waterways

, i.e.

, streams and rivers. For uses in coastal areas, aquatic habitat includes
estuarine and marine ecosystems. Within water bod ies, the water column, sediment , and pore

water are all compartments of potential concern.

2.4

. Assessment Endpoints

Assessment endpoints represent the actual environmental value s that are to be protected, defined by ecological entitities (species, community, etc. ) and their attr ibute s or characteristics (USEPA
1998 ). For TCVP , t he ecological entities assessed include the following: birds , amphibians, reptiles, mammals, freshwater and estuarine/marine fish , terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and
terrestrial and aquatic plants. The assessed attributes for any of these entities may include growth, survival, and /or reproduction. (Se e Table 2. 3 in Section 2.6.2 , the Analysi s Plan, for further discussion).

The assessment endpoints are intended to reflect population sustainability and community structure within ecosystems

, and hence relate to ecosystem risk. If risks are identified for given- Page 11 of 74

- 

### species/taxa based on a screening

- level assessment, then such risks might be expected to translate to higher levels of biological organization.

2.5 . Conceptual Model

For a pes ticide to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors in biologically significant amount s . An exposure pathway is the means by which a pesticide moves in the environment from a source to an ecological receptor. For an ecological pathway t o be complete,
it must include a source, an environmental transport medium /mechanism , a point (location) of exposure, and a plausible route by which exposure occurs there

. The conceptual model shown
herein is intended to provide a written description and visual representation of predicted relationships between TCVP

, potential routes of exposure, and effects related to Agency assessment endpoint s

. A conceptual model consists of two primary components: a risk hypotheses and a conceptual diagram (USEPA 1998).

The conceptual model used to depict potential ecological risk s associated with the outdoor uses of
TCVP relies on the Agency’s current understanding of the environmental fate and ecological
effects of the chemical

. The use of TCVP on residual surfaces may result in aquatic exposure to organisms through runoff. Terrestrial and aquatic exposure s to TCVP are possible from the uses in kennels and spot treatments and as residue in soil amendment

. Consistent w ith the use of TCVP

as an insect icide, p otential risk to non

- target aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates is expected

. The conceptual model predict s that TCVP is capable of affecting aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates

, provided that environmental concentrations are of sufficient magnitude as a result of TCVP ’s registered uses ( Figure 2.1 ).

2.5. 1. Risk Hypotheses

For TCVP , the following risk hypothesis is employed for the ecological risk assessment:

Given the registered uses of TCVP and its environmental fate properties, there is possible
acute and chronic exposure to nontarget aquatic and terrestrial organisms. This asse ssment tests the hypothesis that, w hen used in accordance with the label, TCVP exposure may result

in adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of nontarget aquatic and
terrestrial plants and animals.

2.5.2

. Conceptual Diagram

The potential exposure pathways and effects of the registered uses of TCVP are depicted in Figure
2. 1 . Solid arrows depict the mos t likely routes of exposure and effects; dashed lines depict potential routes of exposure that are not considered likely for TCVP

. Most of the appl ications of TCVP are spot treat ments

, surface treatments, or applications to livestock or pets, with limited
exposure to non

- target aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. F or the registered uses of TCVP as a larvicide, residues may pass through a treated animal as manure and remain active. As manure containing TCVP residues may be applied to agricultural lands as a soil amendment, an exposure pathway exists, potentially exposing non

- target e cological receptors to TCVP. Organisms that may- Page 12 of 74

- 

### be exposed to TCVP include aquatic receptors ( e.g ., freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, aquatic

- phase amphibians, and plants) as a result of movement of TCVP via runoff
f rom site s of manure application. Exposure to terrestrial and semi

- aquatic wildlife ( i.e. , mammals, birds, terrestr ial

- phase amphibians, terrestrial invertebrates, and reptiles) and plants could occur
via application of spot treatments and application of TCVP

- containing manure to areas which
could be used as food sources for terrestrial and semi

- aquatic wildlife

. The conceptual framework for assessment of potential ecological risk s associated with TCVP use is depicted in Figure 2.1 ; potential endpoints, stressors, and ecological effects are identified based on this model.

As discussed in the preliminary problem formulation (USEPA 2008) and b ased on TCVP ’s vapor pressure (2.6 x10

- 7 

### torr)

, the chemical is not expected to readily volatilize and generate inhalation
concentrations of concern

. T he Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk ( STIR ) (see Section 2.6.2 )

, which compares inhalation exposure estimates to available avian and mammalian toxicity data,
confirm s this assumption

, so t h is assessment does not evaluate potential atmospheric transport in estimating environmental concentrations

. While the Screening Imbibition Program (SIP) conservatively qualitatively indicates that drinking water exposure could be a potential pathway of concern, the means to quantify the levels of exposure are currently not available ; therefore, the current assessment does not evaluate potential risk to wildlife through drinking water exposure.

For aquatic assessments, t he major routes of exposure for aquatic animal species are considered to
be through the respiratory surface (gills) or the integument. Similar to terrestrial organisms, exposure of aquatic organisms to TCVP may also oc cur through ingestion of residues in sediment
and forage. TCVP has an octanol

- water partition coefficient (K ow 

### ) of 3350 ( MRID 41222503 )

. A quatic plants may be exposed via direct uptake and adsorption.- Page 13 of 74

- Figure 2. 1 . Conceptual Model Depicting Potential Risks to Nontarget Species from the Registered Uses of TCVP . Solid arrows depict the routes of exposure and effects which are assessed for parent TCVP based on the available data; dashed lines depict potential routes of exposure that are not considered likely. 

### Stressor

Source/ Transport Pathways Direct Deposition Runoff
Erosion Leaching (Infiltration/
Percolation

Source/ Exposure
Media Terrestrial Plants
Terrestrial Invertebrates Terrestrial Plants Soil Receiving
Water Body/
Sediment Groundwater

Tested Exposure
Rou te Ingestion Direct C ontact Root Uptake Gill or Integument Uptake

Receptors

Attribute Changes Terrestrial Vertebrates Terrestrial Plants

Individual Animals :

Reduced survival , growth, and/or reproduction Aquatic Invertebrates Aquatic Vertebrates

Individual Plants :

Seedling emergence Vegetative vigor Individual Animals:
Reduced survival , growth, and/or reproduction Plant P opulation : Reduced population growth

Aquatic Plants Uptake/ Adsorption Spray Drift Volatilization Atmospheric Transport TCVP

Direct Contact

Terrestrial Invertebrates- Page 14 of 74

- 

### 2.6. Analysis Plan

2.6.1. Measures of Exposure

2.6.1.1 Measures of Aquatic Exposure

M easures of exposure to aquatic animals and plants are concentrations in surface water and benthic
sediment pore water simulated by the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC, v 1.106, May, 2014)

, used to generate estimated environmental conc entrations (EECs) of TCVP that may
occur from the chemical’s use for spot treatments and in manure

- amended soil

. The EECs used in
assessment of acute risk are 1

- in

- 10 year return frequency da ily maximum values (referred to as “peak” values). For chronic risk assessment, mean concentrations over a specified duration are generated. In both cases, each modeled site is selected to represent a site expected to be more
vulnerable to runoff than mo st locations where use may occur ( e.g. , based on the crop being grown). The SWCC simulates pesticide runoff from a treated area to an adjacent water body following applications, in addition to loadings that occur directly to the water as a consequence of spray drift.

2.6.1.2. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure

Terrestrial wildlife could be exposed to TCVP via consumption of residues on food items via applications of spot treatment non

- agricultural scenarios where applications result in residues on

gra ss and other plants . For applications, the T

- REX model (Terrestrial Residue EXposure model; v. 1.5.12; June 6, 2013) is used to predict dietary exposure to TCVP residues on foliar surfaces and insects using the Kenaga nomogram as modified by Fletcher (Hoe rger and Kenaga 1972,
Fletcher et al . 1994).

T he TERRPLANT (v. 1.2.2; December 26, 2006) model is used to derive EECs relevant to terrestrial and wetland plants

, assuming that default fractions of the intended application will be transported to an adjac ent field through runoff. Measures of exposure to terrestrial plants are expressed as a fraction of the mass of the TCVP applied. A s spray applications of TCVP products are typically spot treatments, and manure amendment applications are expected to resul t in little spray drift potential , exposure to spray drift applications of TCVP are expected to be minimal

.

The S creening T ool for I nhalation R isk (STIR v.1.0, November 19, 2010) was used to calculate

an upper

- bound estimate of exposure using TCVP ’s vap or pressure and molecular weight for vapor phase exposure

, as well as the rate that would result in TCVP residues applied in manure used as soil amendment (see Section 3.2.2.2 )

. Given TCVP’s method of application, spray drift was not
modeled. STIR incorporates results from several toxicity studies including acute oral and inhalation rat toxicity endpoints obtained from the “six

- pack” of core studies, which are a series of six guideline studies that are submitted to the Registration Division of the O ffice of Pesticide Programs for technical and formulated products of a pesticide ( oral LD 50 

### = 1480 mg a.i./kg bw/day,
MRID 41222504 ; and inhlation LC 50 

### > 3.61 mg/L air 

### , MRID 00138933 , respectively) as well as the most sensitive acute oral avian toxicity endp oint (LD 50 

### >2,000 mg/kg bw, MRID 00160000 ) for the mallard duck ( Anas platyrhnchos ) . Based on the results of the STIR model ( Appendix E ),- Page 15 of 74

- 

### exposure via inhalation of vapor phase TCVP was determined not to be a pathway of risk concern for either avian or ma mmalian species on an acute exposure basis.

The analysis of the inhalation route in STIR does not consider that aggregation with other exposure pathways such as dietary, dermal, or drinking water may contribute to total exposure that has a potential for effects to non

- target animals. However, the Agency does consider the relative importance of other routes of exposure in situ ations where data indicate that pesticide exposures through other routes may be potentially significant contributors to wildlife risk (USEPA 2004). The risk characterization section ( Section 4.3 ), discusses the impact of consideration of other
routes of ex posure that have been identified as potentially important and the degree of certainty associated with screening

- level risk assessment conclusions. Detailed information about STIR v.1.0, as well as the tool, can be found on EPA’s website ( http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_pg.htm#terrestrial ).

The S creening I mbibition P rogram (SIP v.1.0, r eleased June 15, 2010) was used to calculate an

upper

- bound estimate of exp osure using TCVP ’s solubility (1 1.6 mg/L, MRID 41222503 )

, that
was in turn compared to the most sensitive acute and chronic avian and mammalian toxicity endpoints ( see Table 3.22 and 3.23 , respectively). In this way, d rinking water exposure by itself

was determined to be a potential pathway of concern for avian species on a chronic exposure basis. The potential for acute exposure through consumption of drinking water to result in an adverse
effect was not calculated because the median lethal dose ( LD 50 

### ) f or birds is a nondefinitive value (LD 50 

### >2,000 mg a. i

. /kg bw). For a sample of the output generated by SIP v.1.0, please see Appendix F

.

While the impact of bioaccumulation is considered low, the KABAM model [Kow (based) Aquatic BioAccumulation Model, Ve rsion 1.0] was used as a screen to estimate potential bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic pesticides in freshwater aquatic food webs and subsequent risks to mammals and birds via consumption of aquatic prey contaminated with TCVP. The bioaccumulation po rtion of KABAM relies on a pesticide’s octanol

- water partition coefficient (K OW 

### ) to estimate uptake and elimination constants through respiration and diet of aquatic organisms in different trophic levels. Pesticide tissue concentrations in aquatic organisms are calculated for different trophic levels of a food web through diet and re spiration and are used to
estimate dose

- and dietary

- based exposures and associated risk quotients for mammals and birds consuming aquatic organisms. The results of the KABAM analysis (Appendix G) indicate that
the risk to birds and mammals that consume a qu a tic prey contaminated by TCVP is considered
low.

2 .6.2 . Measures of Effect

Measures of effect are obtained from a suite of registrant

- submitted guideline studies which were conducted with a limited number of surrogate test species ( Table 2.2 ) . The test species are not intended to be representative of the most sensitive species but rather were selected based on their ability to thrive under laboratory conditions. Toxicity testing reported in this risk assessment utilizes surrogate species to represent all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (680+) species in the
U.S. T he ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX), was searched in August 201 4 to determine- Page 16 of 74

- 

### whether additional, more sensitive ecological effects data were available for TCVP ; however, no

more se nsitive data were identified

.

The acute measures of effect used in this screening

- level assessment are the LD 50 

### (Lethal Dose),
LC 50 

### (Lethal Concentration)

, EC 50 

### (Effects Concentration) , and IC 50 

### (Inhibition Concentration)

. These are measures of acute toxicity which result in 50% of the respective effect in tested organisms. The endpoints for chronic measures of exposure are the NOAEC (No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration) and the NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level). Toxicity
studies were sub mitted for freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, aquatic plants, birds, mammals

, bees , and other terrestrial invertebrates . The endpoints used for risk characterization were derived from studies which underwent review and were classified as “acceptable” (conducted under guideline conditions and considered to be scientifically valid) or “supplemental” (conditions deviated from guidelines but the results we re considered to be scientifically valid).

2.6.3. Integ ration of Exposure and Effects

The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated in order to evaluate the risks of adverse ecological effects on nontarget species. For the risk assessment of TCVP , the risk quotient (RQ) method is used to compare esti mated exposure with measured toxicity endpoint s . The RQ method involves dividing EEC s by the most sensitive acute and chronic toxicity endpoint s available . The resulting RQs are then compared to the Agency’s Levels of Concern (LOC) (USEPA 2004) ( Table
2. 2 ). Any LOC exceedences are used to indicate use s of TCVP that have the potential to cause
adverse e ffects to non

- target organisms.

Table 2. 2 . Agency Risk Quotient (RQ) Metrics and Levels of Concern (LOC) Per Risk Class.

R isk C lass R isk D escription RQ LOC
Aquatic Animals (fish and invertebrates)

Acute Potential for effects to non

- listed animals from acute

exposures Peak EEC/LC 50 1 0.5

Acute
Restricted Use Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification Peak EEC/LC 50 1 0.1

Acute Listed Species Listed species may be potentially affected by acute

exposures Peak EEC/LC 50 1 0.05

Chronic Potential for effects to non

- listed and listed animals from chronic exposures 60

- day EEC/NOAEC (fish) 1 21

- day EEC/NOAEC (invertebrates)
Aquatic Plants

Non

- Listed Potential for effects to non

- listed plants from exposures Peak EEC/LC 50 1 1

Listed Potential for effects to listed plants from exposures Peak EEC/NOAEC 1

Terrestrial Animals (mammals and birds) 2

Acute Potential for effects to non

- listed animals from acute

exposures EEC/LC 50 (Dietary) 0.5 EEC/LD 50 (Dose)

Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures EEC/LC 50 (Dietary) 0.2- Page 17 of 74

- R isk C lass R isk D escription RQ LOC

Acute
Restricted Use Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification EEC/LD 50 (Dose)

Acute Listed Species Listed species may be potentially affected by acute

exposures EEC/LC 50 (Dietary) 0.1 EEC/LD 50 (Dose)

Chronic Potential for effects to non

- listed and listed animals from chronic exposures EEC/NOAEC 1

Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants

Non

- Listed Potential for effects to nontarget , non

- listed plants from

exposures EEC/ EC 25 1

Listed Plant Potential for effects to nontarget , listed plants from

exposures EEC/ NOAEC 1 EEC/ EC 05

1 LC 50 or EC 50

. 2 EEC b ased on upper bound Kenag a nomogram values for foliar exposure.



## 3 . Analysis

3.1 Use Characterization

TCVP is a broad

- spectrum insecticide. TCVP is an a ctive ingredient currently in 47 formulated products registered as insect larvicides and adulticides. Labeled trademark names for TCVP
include Rabon ® 

### , Rabex ® 

### , Equitrol ® 

### , and Equi

- Fly ® 

### ; trademark names no l onger labeled include
Gardona ® 

### and Stirofos ®



### . TCVP is registered for use as a spot treatment on kennels, yards, recreational areas, poultry droppings, manure piles, and garbage piles; as a surface treatment on residual surfaces, such as barn and farm buil dings ; as an oral la rvicide for livestock; and as a dust, spray, or dip for pets and livestock

. Maximum use pattern in formation is presented in Table 3. 1

.

A review of the current labels for TCVP indicates that the following mitigation measures, specifie d in EPA’s 2006 Tolerance Registration Eligibility Document, have been implemented:

• Restrict outdoor premise uses to spot treatments, one time a year, and along woody borders of kennels, yards, campgrounds, recreational parks, and footpaths and roadways leading to such areas.

• Prohibit the use of outdoor premise treatments by homeowners (indoor use by homeowners still permitted)

.

• Delete the paint

- on use with emulsifiable concentrate (EC) formulations.

• Modify directions for use to specify 1⁄3 oz. of po wder for every 10 pounds of body weight of the cat or dog.

• For TCVP feed

- through products for horses, labels must state that the product is a cholinesterase inhibitor, describe signs of cholinesterase inhibition in horses, caution against concurrent use with other cholinesterase inhibiting compounds, and direct horse owners to consult a veterinarian before using products containing TCVP on debilitated, aged, breeding, pregnant or nursing animals

.- Page 18 of 74

- Table 3.1. TCVP Maximum Application Rates for Labeled Us es.

Use Max. Single App. Rate (lbs a

. i

. /A) Annual
Max. # of

App. Min. App. Interval (d) EPA Reg. No.

Outdoor Uses
Kennels, y ards and recreational

areas 1 3.3 1 Not applicable 11556

- 162

1.1 1 Not applicable 61483

- 43,
67517

- 33

Residual surfaces (barns, farm buildings) around garbage dumps
and corrals 2 1 3 .9 Unlimited None specified 61483

- 43,
67517

- 33

, 11556

- 162
Poultry droppings, manure piles, garbage piles 1,2 34.8 1 Not applicable 61483

- 43,
67517

- 33

, 11556

- 162
Livestock (feed additive, salt lick) 3 0.0017 lbs ai/head Unlimited None specified (Several labels)

Indoor / Homeowner Uses

D ust 0.0010 lbs a.i./cat None 7 2596

- 78
0.0026 lbs a.i./dog None 7 2596

- 79

0.0075 lbs a.i./cattle None None 61483

- 45

0.0075 lbs a.i./swine None 14 61483

- 45

0.0038 lbs a.i./horse None None 47000

- 123

0.0001 lbs a.i./chicken None 14 47000

- 123

S pray 0.04 lbs a.i./cattle None None 61483

- 46

0.02 lbs a.i./swine None 14 67517

- 33

0.0004 lbs a.i./chicken None None 67517

- 33

0.043 lbs a.i./cat None 3 2596

- 141

Pet dip 0.0033 lbs a

. i

. /use None None 2596

- 119
Pet sponge 0.044 lbs a.i./use None 7 61483

- 51

Pet collar 0.016 lbs a

. i

. /collar None (≤7 months) 2596

- 139

1 Most labels indicate these uses are spot treatments and that only one application per year should occur outdoors. Reg. No. 11556

- 162 (formerly
61483

- 50) no longer includes this language, however the Agency has contacted the registrant and anticipates that this label will be revised in the near future to include this language

. 2 It is unclear from the labels if these uses are intended only for indoor applications, this P RA assumes these applications are made outdoors.

3 Manure from this use can be collected and broadcast to agricultural fields. Results from manure study (MRID 48956 301) will be used to develop an equivalent application rate.



### Reported usage of TCVP is mainly for animal manure treatment and animal structure applications. The BEAD Quantitative Usage Analysis for Tetrachlorvinphos (dated May 12, 2000) indicated a
nation al maximum annual usage of 1,816,000 lbs a.i. ( USEPA, 2000 ). The largest market was poultry, with a maximum annual lbs a.i. applied of 932,000. According the BEAD assessment,

t he uses with a high average percentage of domestic animals treated included ho rses (16%), poultry (6%), and dogs and/or cats (10%); maximum percentages of animals treated for these uses were 31%, 11%, and 20%, respectively.

In 2008 BEAD updated the usage report, using National Agricultural Survey Statistics (NASS)
data from 1997 to 2006 ( USEPA, 2008 b ). Between 1997 and 2006, over 494,000 lbs of TCVP was used on livestock and livestock buildings/structures. Approximately 74% of the usage was- Page 19 of 74

- 

### on cattle (application method not specified) , both beef and dairy, and 25% was used in/arou nd cattle buildings and structures. The remaining 1% was used i n /around swine, sheep, and associated livestock facilities. Updated data on poultry were not provided. More recent data on TCVP usage
on livestock are not available.

3.2

. Exposure Characteri zation

3.2. 1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

Chemical and environmental fate characteristics of the parent compound TCVP are listed in Table
3. 2 and are discussed in greater detail in the following sections. The environmental fate data set submitted for TCVP is limited, as the data are intended to fulfill the Subart N 40 CFR Part 158.1300 data requirements 1 

### for a residential outdoor use pattern. These data indicate that TCVP is moderately mobile in soil and n ot stable in terrestrial or aquatic environments. Most of the
submitted environmental fate studies were conducted on the TCVP cis : trans isomer mixture. Bridging between the biodegradation data for the isomer mixture and the Z

- isomer has not been performed , but the assumption has been made that the isomer data is representative of the Z

isomer.

Table 3. 1

. Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of TCVP

. Chemical/Fate Parameter Value Source (MRID)

Chemical name ( Z)

- 2

- chloro

- 1

- (2,4,5

- trichloropheny1)vinyl dimethyl phosphate

Molecular mass (g/mol) 365.96 4 1 222503

Vapor pressure ( 25 ° C ) (torr) 2.6 x 10

- 7 4 1 222503

Water solubility ( 25 ° C ) (mg/L) 11.6 4 1 222503

Octanol

- water partition coefficient (K OW ) 3 ,350 4 1 222503

Hydrolysis half

- life (d) pH 5, 25 ° C pH 7, 25 ° C pH 9, 25 ° C TCVP 41929101
43663501 57.3
29.8
10.3

Aerobic soil metabolism half

- life (d) TCVP Soil 1

8.8 Loam (1.6%) 42082401

9.2 Loam (Unknown) 00077821

15.7 Sandy clay loam (1.3%) 48879901

7.95 Sandy loam (1.2%)

Manure dissipation study half

- life (d) 152 NA 48956301

Freundlich soil

- water distribution coefficient (K F ); Freundlich organic carbon partitioning coefficient (K FOC ) K F K FOC n Soil 1 41681301

8.18 520 0.87 Loam (1.6%)

4.04 870 0.83 Sand (0.5%)

1 CFR. 2014. Title 40 (Protection of the Environment), Part 158 (Data Requirements for Pesticides), Subpart N (Environmental F ate), §158.1300 (Environmental fate data requirements table); http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi

- bin/text

idx?SID=d610e8a56f8b9045f13341b15f6c9bc9&node=se40.24.158_11300&rgn=div8- Page 20 of 74

- Chemical/Fate Parameter Value Source (MRID)

0.60 1,000 0.97 Sandy loam (0.06%)

13.7 1,100 0.90 Silty clay (1.3%)

1. % indicates percent of organic carbon in soil or sediment.



### 3.2.1.1

. Transport and Mobility

TCVP is soluble in water at up to 11.6 mg/L, and is not expected to volatilize significantly due to a low vapor pressure of 2.6 x 10

- 7 

### torr (25°C; MRID 41222503). The compound has an octanol

water partition coefficient of 3350 ( i.e

., Log K ow 

### of 3.53, MRID 41222503). TCVP appears to be slightly to moderate ly mobile in soil ( Kashuba, 2006 ), with a K FOC 

### range of 520 to 1100 L/kg oc 

### in

so ils representative of use sites ( MRID 41681301). Its mobility may be overestimated, however, as equilibration was terminated in the provided study after four hours in order to prevent significant hydrolysis of the compound. TCVP sorption to soil is related to soil organic matter, i.e. , the compound is less mobile in soils with higher organic matter. Data regarding the mobility of TCVP's degradates have not been submitted. Ho wever, an analysis using the Estimation Program
Interface Suite ( EPISuite TM 2 ; 

### version 4.11 ) estimates that the degradates are as mobile, and in most cases more mobile, than the parent.

3.2.1.2

. Degradation

TCVP hydrolyzes in water at a pH

- dependant rate. Hydrolysis is relatively rapid in alkaline water bodies (half

- life of 10.3 days; MRID 41929101, 43663501). In neutral to acidic water bodies, TCVP hydrolyzes with moderate to slow half

- lives of 30 to 57 days. A major degradate of hydrolysis found in the aqueous solution at pH 9 was des

- O

- methyl tetrachlorvinphos (28% at Day 21). Photolysis studies of TCVP have not been submitted.

TCVP isomer mixture (50:50, Z : E ) readily biodegraded in aerobic soils, with a half

- life of approximately 9 days (MRIDs 00077 821 and 42082401). However the rate of biodegradation for the mixed isomer of the parent TCVP was slightly reduced as concentrations decreased, which may indicate that microbes metabolize one isomer quicker than the other. As a result, the aerobic
soil m etabolism half

- lives reported in the ecological risk assessment written in support of Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED ) 3 

### ( i.e ., t 1⁄2 

### range; 4.4 to 8 days) were shorter than that of
the mixed isomer because the reviewers did not include the final con centrations in their calculations due to the reduction in degradation rates over time. Major degradates in one aerobic metabolism study ( MRID 00077821 ) included TCPEol (SD 15509, [l

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)ethanol], 25% at Day 16), TCCEol (SD 15125, [1

- (2 ,4,5

- trichloropheny1)

- 2

- chloroethanol], 28% at Day 16), and TCPEone (CO300, 2,4,5

- trichloroacetophenone, 11% at Day 8). Major degradates in the other aerobic metabolism study ( MRID 42082401 ) included TCPEol (31% at Day 4), TCCEol (14% at Day 7), TCPEone ( 51% at Day 60) and TCBA (2,4,5

- trichlorobenzoic acid, 19% at Day 129

. The aerobic transformation of [phenyl

- U

- 14C] TCVP was studied in two U.S. soils: a sandy clay loam soil, and a sandy loam soil, for up to 120 days (MRID 48879901). The half

- lives for TC VP ranged from 7.95 to 15.7 days, similar to the half

- lives from

2 USEPA. 2014. Estimation Program Interface (EPI) Suite TM

. http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm

3 USEPA, 1995. TCVP RED. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/0321red.pdf- Page 21 of 74

- 

### the earlier aerobic soil studies for the isomer mixture, indicating that both isomers probably degraded at rates similar to those in the earlier studies. Major degradates included TCPEol (41 % at Day 58), TCCEol (51% at Day 58), TCPEone (23% at Day 14), and TCBA (32% at Day 120). Studies on the biodegradation of tetrachlorvinphos in anaerobic soils or water have not been
submitted.

3.2.1.3

. Field Studies

The standard guideline data requirement field study “Terrestrial Field Dissipation” (OCSPP Guideline 835.6100) was replaced with the special study "Dissipation of Residues in Livestock Manure" because TCVP is used primarily as a feed additive for controlling flies associated with
liv estock, thereby leaving TCVP residues in the feces. A manure dissipation study (MRID 42848501) was conducted to assess the dissipation of TCVP under simulated field conditions. The study measured TCVP ( Z

- isomer) and its residues bearing the phenyl moiety (radiolabel ed location) present in manure from one treated cow treated orally at 1.55x10

- 4 

### lb a.i./100 pounds bodyweight /day (1.55 mg a.i./kg bodyweight/day) for 14 days prior to analysis. Parent TCVP was not isolated in the compost samples at any samplin g interval. Total phenyl

- bearing residues of TCVP did not decline during 6 months in composted manure collected throughout treatment. Several degradates were identified in the compost samples. The degradate TCPEol was 69% of the recovered radioactivity a t day 0, and was 40% of the recovered radioactivity at both 4 and 6 months after the treatment period. The degradate TCCEol was 7.1 % of the recovered radioactivity at Day
0 and declined until not detected by 3 months after treatment. The degradate TCBA wa s not detected until 6 months after treatment, at which time it accounted for approximately 12% of the recovered radioactivity. Eight additional degradates were detect ed in the manure at 0.3 to 5.3 ppm (up to 10% of the recovered radioactivity) but were n ot identified. Unextracted radioactivity was up to 27.7% of the recovered radioactivity.

In a subsequent manure dissipation study (MRID 48956301), four female beef cattle received the test product (Rabon ® 

### , 97.3% TCVP) twice daily for 14 days via the concentrate feed at a dose level equivalent to 1.54 mg product per kg bodyweight per day. Manure was collected daily during the treatment period (14 days), with the bulk samples transferred to individual compost piles

, one for
each animal, which were main tained outside and allowed to weather naturally. Manure and compost samples were analyzed for TCVP and the degradates TCPEol, TCCEol, TCBA, and TCPEone (analyses was not conducted for des

- O

- methyl tetrachlorvinphos and 1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)ethanediol) . TCVP residues were stable in compost. Combining the data for all four animals, the calculated dissipation half

- lives for TCVP residues in compost were 152 days

. For the individual animals, the calculated half

- lives for TCVP residues in compost ranged from 133 to 232 days and 478 to 2013 days, respectively. These half

- lives are much longer than the
TCVP half

- lives estimated in soil (8

- 16 days), more than likely the result of the much higher organic matter content in the manure as compared to the soil.

3.2.1.4

. Bioaccumulation

As the Log K ow 

### for TCVP is slightly higher than 3 (3.52) , the potential for bioaccumulation is likely to be low

. Similarly, the likelihood of bioaccumulation of the degradates is expected to be- Page 22 of 74

- 

### low as most of the estimated Log K ow 

### value s are less than 4 ; EPISuite TM 

### estimates Log K ow 

### values for the TCVP degradates range from 2.6 to 3.8. No bioconcentration factor (BCF) studies have been submitted for TCVP or its degradates (conditional requirement for residential outdoor uses when there is the potential for exposure to fish ). Result s from the KABAM model (Total BCFs and BAFs < 165 μg/kg

- ww/μg/L) and those obtained form the PBT profiler (www. pbtprofiler.net

, BCF of 15) suggest that the potential for bioaccumulation of TCVP is low.

3.2.1.5. Transformation Products

Major aerobic meta bolism degradates of TCVP include TCPEol (SD 15509, [l

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)ethanol])

, TCCEol (SD 15125, [1

- (2,4,5

- trichloropheny1)

- 2

- chloroethanol])

, TCPEone (CO300, 2,4,5

- trichloroacetophenone ), and TCBA (2,4,5

- trichlorobenzoic acid )

. A major degrada te in the hydrolysis study includes des

- O

- methyl tetrachlorvinphos

. A sixth degradate, identified as a minor degradete in an aerobic soil metabolism study, is 1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)ethanediol

. C hemical names and structures for the residues of concern are tabulated in Table 3.3

.

The OPP Health Effects Division ( HED ) Metabolism Committee identified the residues of

concern , depicted in Table 3.3

, to human health for TCVP metabolism in animals (USEPA,
1993 a ), which have since been generally used for die tary risk assessment (USEPA, 2006 b ). The residues of concern for acute and chronic dietary exposure included cholinesterase

- inhibiting compounds, which were determined to be TCVP parent only. Chemical structures, physical/chemical properties, and a summa ry of detections of the degradates in the fate studies are provided in Table 3.3

. Appendix A contains a comparison of aquatic toxicity estimates for TCVP and its degradates generated using ECOSAR, a structure

- activity relationship model designed to provid e a rapid screen of chemicals for ecotoxicity hazards. Results from ECOSAR indicate the degradates are as toxic or less toxic than TCVP, so this ecological risk assessment focuses on only the parent TCVP.

Table 3. 2 . Table of Transformation Products Formed in Environmental Fate Studies.

Chemical Name Structure Physical/Chemical Properties 1 Presence in
Fate Studies

Des

- O

- methyl tetrachlorvinphos

IUPAC: ( Z )

- 2

- chloro

- 1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)vinyl methyl phosphate

CAS: ( 1Z )

- 2

- chloro

- 1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)ethenyl methyl phosphate

COP(= O)(O)OC(=CCl)c1cc(Cl)c(Cl)cc1Cl O

O P O

O H Cl

Cl

Cl Cl MW : 351.94 g/mol
VP: 4.27E

- 08 torr Solubility: 3.768 mg/L Log Kow: 3.75
Koc: 702

- 827 L/kg
oc Hydrolysis: 28%, pH 9 (MRID 41929101)
Aerobic soil: 3% (MRID 00077821)

1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)ethanediol

C(O)(CO)c1cc(Cl)c(Cl)cc1Cl O H Cl

Cl Cl O H MW : 241.5 g/mol
VP: 4.37E

- 06 torr Solubility: 250 mg/L Log Kow: 2.37
Koc: 29

- 36 L/kg
oc Aerobic soil: 0.7% (MRID 00077821)- Page 23 of 74

- Chemical Name Structure Physical/Chemical Properties 1 Presence in
Fate Studies

TCPEol (SD 15509, AA849)

1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)ethanol

1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)ethan

- 1

- ol

CC(O)c1cc(Cl)c(Cl)cc1Cl O H Cl

Cl Cl MW : 225.5 g/mol
VP: 2.37E

- 04 torr Solubility: 123 mg/L Log Kow: 3.43
Koc: 319

- 359 L/kg
oc Aerobic soil: 25% (MRID 00077821)
Aerobic soil: 31.1% (MRID 42082401)
Aerobic soil: 40.8% (MRID 48879901)
Manure: 69.2 % (MRID 42848501) Manure: 11.8 ppm (MRID 48956301)

TCPEone (CO300)

2,4,5

- trichloroacetophenone

CC(=O)c1cc(Cl)c(Cl)cc1Cl O Cl

Cl Cl MW : 223.5 g/mol
VP: 6.32E

- 03 torr Solubility: 27.4 mg/L Log Kow: 3.61
Koc: 492

- 1,828 L/kg
oc Aerobic soil: 11% (MRID 00077821)
Aerobic soil: 51.4% (MRID 42082401)
Aerobic soil: 23.2% (MRID 48879901) Manure: 2.00 ppm (MRID 48956301)

TCCEol (SD15125, AA576)

l

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)

- 2

- chloroethanol

C(Cl)C(O)c1cc(Cl)c(Cl)cc1Cl MW : 260 g/mol
VP: 2.11E

- 05 torr Solubility: 48.44 mg/L Log Kow: 3.68
Koc: 494

- 608 L/kg
oc Aerobic soil: 37% (MRID 00077821)
Aerobic soil: 14.3% (MRID 42082401)
Aerobic soil: 51% (MRID 48879901)
Manure: 7.1% (MRID 42848501) Manure: 0.75 ppm (MRID 48956301)

TCBA (SD 15917)

2,4,5

- Trichlorobenzoic acid

C(=O)(O)c1cc(Cl)c(Cl)cc1Cl MW : 225.5 g/mol
VP: 5.52E

- 04 torr Solubility: 35.3 mg/L Log Kow: 3.47
Koc: 157

- 166 L/kg
oc Aerobic soil: 18.5% (MRID 42082401)
Aerobic soil: 31.8% (MRID 48879901)
Manure: 12.1% (MRID 42848501) Manure: 2.57 ppm (MRID 48956301) 1. Physical and chemical properties for degradates obtained through EPISuite 4.11.



### 3.2.2

. Measures of Aquatic Exposure

3.2.2. 1. Aquatic Exposure Modeling

Screening

- level EECs of TCVP (parent only) in surface water were generated based on maximum labeled use rates ( Table 3.4 )

. Using EFED’s Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC, v 1.106, May, 2014) E EC s that may occur in sur face water were generated . The SWCC simulates pesticide runoff from an agricultural field to an adjacent water body following applications to crops, in addition to direct loadings to water from spray drift. As routinely employed in ecological
risk assess ment, the receiving water body is assumed to be a static, 1

- hectare pond of 2

- meter depth (the “standard pond”), into which a 10

- hectare cropped field drains (USEPA 2009b ).- Page 24 of 74

- 

### 3.2.2. 2

. Development of Application Rates and Selection of Crop Scenarios

For spot treatment uses around kennels, yards, and recreation areas, the maximum application rate is 3.3 lbs a.i./A applied once per year. Spot treatment applications to poultry droppings, manure piles, and garbage piles have a maximum single application rate of 34.8 lbs a.i./A. Applications to residual surfaces, garbage dumps, and corrals have a maximum single application rate of 13.9 lbs a.i./A. However, unlike pesticides applied to agricultural crops, these appli cations are to
limited area s ( i.e.

, spot treatments applied with a back pack sprayer ) and are not expected to be
used on the entire standard farm of 25 acres. It is assumed that an applicator would likely only apply, in the course of a year, a container’s

- worth of product to a farm when treating spot treatments, even in the case of the application to residual surfaces, garbage dumps, and corrals which currently have no specified number of uses. The largest container currently on the market is a 5 gallon container (Reg. No. 11556

- 16 2 , 10 lbs a.i./container ). A container of this size is expected to treat approximat ely 2.9 acres for kennels, ya rds, and recreational areas, 0.7 acres for residual surfaces, garbage dumps, and corrals, and 0. 3 acres for poultry droppings and manure (see
A ppendix H for detailed calculations). Taking this acreage into account, the area

- averaged actual application rates to a 25 acre farm are approximately 0. 4 lbs a.i./A for all three uses . The California rangeland and Barton Springs (Texas) rangeland scenar ios were selected for modeling these uses

, as these seemed most representative of livestock farmland. An application date of March 21 , the first day of s pring

, was selected for modeling as this is when flies would be expected to begin appearing.

Manure u sed as a soil amendment/organic fertilizer could be a source of pesticide residues that are
contained in the manure excreted from treated livestock. For modeling purposes, an “a pplication” rate of TCVP was estimated based on dry weight of manure application for crop production. The following steps were used to calculate the application rate of TCVP. The methodology used for the estimation of manure application is based on equations and tables provided in the USDA Part 651 Agricultural Waste Mana gement Field Handbook (USDA, 2009). The technique is described on pages 11

- 25 to 11

- 27 of the manual. The following analysis evaluates the use of cow manure as a soil amendment. EFED conducted a similar analysis for swine, poultry, and horse manure,
how ever cow manure generates the highest TCVP application rates and is considered protective for all manure amendment applications.

Step 1 : Estimate nutrients in excreted manure

From Table 4

- 8 of the Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook (USDA, 200 9) , the

t otal n itrogen (TN) excreted per day

- cow is 0.42 lb s TN/d

- cow. The total excreted manure per day

- cow is 15 lb s manure/d

- cow, assuming the wet weight of manure is 125 lbs/d

- cow and that the moisture content is 88% (taken from Table 4

- 8 of the manua l). Dividing the T N per day

cow by the total excreted manure per day

- cow and multiplying by the conversion factor of 2000 lbs /ton yields 56 lb s TN/ton manure.- Page 25 of 74

- 

### Step 2 : Estimate nutrients in wastewater, dropped feed, and added bedding

It is assumed that there is no contribution of nutrients from wastewater, dropped feed, and added bedding

, to the field and therefore, the only contribution of nitrogen would come from
the manure.

Step 3 : Estimate nutrients lost during storage

Based on Table 11

- 5 of the Ag ricultural Waste Management Field Handbook , it is assumed
that 50% of the T N is lost during storage, based on storage in an open area that is hot and arid (conservative assumption) . Multiplying the results from Step 1 by 50% yields 28 lbs TN/ton

manure.

Step 4 : Estimate plant available nutrients contained in manure

Based on Table 11

- 9 of the Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook , for manure stored on an open lot that is hot and arid, 45% of the TN is available the first year. Multiplying this by the estimate in Step 3 yields 12.6 lb TN/ ton manure.

Step 5: Determine nutrients required by the crop and soil to produce the yield goal

The manual indicates that “ Manure nutrient analysis, soil tests, and State Cooperative
Extension Service recommendations are the best basis for managing nutrients .” As analysis and soil tests are currently unavailable, EFED consulted the Texas Agriculture Extension Service’s Crop Nutrient Needs in South and Southwest Texas ( Stichler et al. , 2001 ) for nutrient requirements consistent with hot, arid environments. The following crops have typical nitrogen recommendations.

Nitrogen Requirements for Different Crops

Crop N Requirement (lb TN/A) Crop N Requirement (lb TN/A)

Corn 240 Wheat 105 Sorghum 185 Grass hay 250 TN: Ton (2,000 lbs), A: Acre

Alternatively, the manual recommends consulting the Crop Nutrient Tool in the USDA PLANTS Crop Database ( http://plants.usda.gov/npk/AboutNutrient ) to estimate crop nutrient needs. Use of this tool provides similar results to those obtained from Stichler et al

. 2001.

Step 6 : Compute increased nitrogen to compensate for application loss

Based on Table 11

- 6 of the manual, it is assumed that 70% of t he T N is retained during application, where the soil conditions are warm and dry and there is 1 day between application and incorporation. Multiplying this by the estimate in Step 4 yields 8.82 lb TN/ ton manure.- Page 26 of 74

- 

### Step 7: Select nutrient for calculation o f manure application rates

Nitrogen is the selected nutrient.

Step 8: Compute the acres on which manure can be applied to use the nutrients available

Manure will be applied on all acres that are modeled.

Step 9: Determine application rate of manure

Dividing the nutrient requirements of the various crops described in Step 5 (lb s TN/A) by the available nitrogen in the manure (lb s TN/ton manure) yields the amount of manure to be applied for each crop. Manure applications rates are provided in the table below.

Appl ication Rates for Manure Applied as Soil Amendment Crop TN Manure /A Crop T N manure/A

Corn 27.2 Wheat 11.9 Sorghum 21.0 Grass hay 28.3 TN: Ton (2,000 lbs)

Step 10: Estimate application rate of TCVP TRC

In the manure dissipation field study ( MRID 489563

- 01 ) , manure composted for 0 to 180 days had a 90 percent upper confidence limit on the mean concentration of TCVP of 40.64 mg ai per kg dry matter in manure. Multiplying this concentration by the manure per acre provide in Step 9 yields
the following TCVP application rate.

TCVP Residues in Manure Applied as Soil Amendment Crop lb TCVP/ A 1 

### Crop lb TC VP/A

Corn 2.21 Wheat 0.97 Sorghum 1.70 Grass hay 2.30

1 lb TCVP /A = ton dry manure/A x mg TCVP /kg dry manure x 907 kg dry manure/ton dry manure x 2.205x10

- 6 lb TCVP/mg TCVP



### Lastly, based on communications with the registrant ( Appendix I , communications with Dr. Bruce Bernard, Authorized Representative of Bayer HealthCare, 7/22/14), approximately 2% of cattle in
feedlots are fed an oral larvicide and less than 1% of cattle in feedlots are fed a TCVP product. Beef feedlot managers are typically most concerned with control of house flies ( Musca domestica) and stable flies. Although TCVP products are registered for control of several flies ( Stomoxy s calcitrans ) , they are primarily used to control face flies ( Musca autumnalis ) and horn flies ( Haematobia irritans )

. TCVP oral larvicide is designed to kill larva eggs that may be laid in manure and mature during composting. As a result, not all animals need to receive the larvicide in order for it to be effective in composted manure. If 2% is used to represent an upper bound for animals receiving oral larvicides within a given feedlot and for composted manure that can contain TCVP, the application rate s would range from 0.019 to 0.046 lbs a.i./A.- Page 27 of 74

- 

### The scenarios listed in Table 3. 4 are those currently approved for Tier II modeling which most closely represent the uses for soil amendment applications of manure containing TCVP residues

.

3.2.2. 3

. Aquatic Modeling Inputs

Chemical property and model input values ( Table 3. 5 ) were chosen according to the current Input Parameter Guidance, ( USEPA 200 9). A pplications of TCVP are assumed to have 100% efficiency and 0% spray drift

. Based on th e potential crops w here soil amendments of manure are likely to

occur , a variety of locations and SWCC scenarios were run to simulate national use of the pesticide.

Table 3. 3

. Aquatic Exposure Inputs in TCVP Ecological Exposure Assessment ( SWCC ) 1

Use SWCC Scenario App Rate (lbs a.i./A) 1 App Dates 2 Comments

Kennels, yards,

recreational

areas Residual surfaces, garbage dumps,

and corrals

Poultry droppings, and

manure and garbage piles CArangelandhayRLF_V2 RangeBSS 0.4 3/21 Spring application

Wheat CAWheatRLF_V2
NDwheatSTD
ORwheatOP
TXwheatOP 0.019 12/1 Fall/winter application,

no cover crop

Corn CA_corn IA_corn IL_Corn IN_Corn KS_Corn MN_Corn MS_corn NC_cornE NC_cornW

ND_corn NE_Corn OH_Corn PA_corn STX_corn TX_corn 0.044 12/1 Fall/winter application,

no cover crop

Sorghum KS_sorghum TX_sorghum 0.034 12/1 Fall/winter application,

no cover crop

Grass Hay CArangelandhayRLF_V2 RangeBSS 0.046 12/1 Fall/winter application,

no cover crop
1. See discussion above for details on how application rates for manure applications were developed.
2. For manure amendment applications, as the application is scheduled to occur in the fall/winter timeframe after crops have been harvested, and application date of December 1 st was selected.- Page 28 of 74

- Table 3. 4

. Environmental Fate Data Used for Aquatic Exposure Inputs in TCVP Ecological Exposure
Assessment.
Input Parameter Value Source/comment

Molecular weight (g/mol) 365.96 MRID 41222503
Vapor pressure ( torr @ 25 oC) 2.6 x 10

- 7 MRID 41222503

Solubility in water (mg/L @ 20oC) 11.6 MRID 41222503

Henry’s Law Constant ( atm

m 3 /mol) 1.08 x 10

- 8 Calculated from vapor pressure and solubility
where HENRY = (VAPR/760)/(SOL/MWT),
Hydrolysis half

- life (t 1⁄2 in days) 29.8 MRIDs 41929101 & 43663501

Aqueous Photolysis half

- life (t 1⁄2 in days) Stable No data, assume stable 1

Aerobic Soil metabolism half

- life (t 1⁄2 in days) 13.3 MRIDs 42082401, 00077821, and 48879901. Represents the 90 percent upper confidence
limit on the mean of 4 aerobic soil metabolism
half

- life values ( 10.4 ) 1

. Anaerobic aquatic metabolism
half

- life (t 1⁄2 in days) Stable No data, assumed stable 1

Aerobic Aquatic metabolism
half

- life (t 1⁄2 in days) 26.6 2 x aerobic soil half

- life 1

Soil partition coefficient K FOC (mL/g
oc ) 873 MRID 41681301. Average of four K FOC values.
Coefficient of variance for K FOC data indicate more appropriate than K F

. 1

1 EFED input parameter guidance is located at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm



### 3.2.2.4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations in Surface
W ater

The EECs listed in Table 3. 6 refle ct 1

- in

- 10 year return frequency surface water concentrations based on maximum application rates for labeled uses of TCVP

. In some instances, the 1

- in

- 10 year 21

- day average concentration is higher than the 1

- in

- 10 year “ peak ” concentration. This is

an a rtifact of roll

- over of EECs from one year to the next as the application date is close to the end of the year. For instance, for the California corn scenario, the maximum concentration ( 0.18 μg/L)

occurs in the first year, resulting in a 21

- day concentration of 0.24 μg/L, which is the 1

- in

- 10 year
21

- day average concentration. The 1

- in

- 10 year peak concentration happens to occur in a different year and is lower than the 1

- in

- 10 year 21

- day average concen tration.

Table 3. 6 . Surface Water EECs for TCVP

.

Crop Scenario 1

- in

- 10 year
Peak EEC (μg/L) 1

- in

- 10 year
21

- day average (μg/L) 1

- in

- 10

- year 60

- day average (μg/L) Kennels, yards,
recreational areas Residual surfaces,

garbage dumps,

and corrals Poultry droppings,

and manure and

garbage piles CArangelandhayRLF_V2 0.80 0.49 0.28

RangeBSS 1.68 1.11 0.58- Page 29 of 74

- Crop Scenario 1

- in

- 10 year
Peak EEC (μg/L) 1

- in

- 10 year
21

- day average (μg/L) 1

- in

- 10

- year 60

- day average (μg/L)

Wheat CAWheatRLF_V2 0.09 0.08 0.05

NDwheatSTD 0.002 0.002 0.001

ORwheatOP 0.08 0.06 0.04

TXwheatOP 0.15 0.11 0.06

Corn CA_corn 0.18 0.24 0.15

IA_corn 0.16 0.1 0 0.06

IL_Corn 0.14 0.11 0.07

IN_Corn 0.35 0.24 0.16

KS_Corn 0.23 0.23 0.12

MN_Corn 0.03 0.02 0.01

MS_corn 0.62 0.64 0.39

NC_cornE 0.1 8 0.14 0.09

NC_cornW 0.17 0.15 0.09

ND_corn 0.002 0.002 0.001

NE_Corn 0.0 5 0.03 0.02

OH_Corn 0.28 0.18 0.11

PA_corn 0.10 0.08 0.05

STX_corn 0.21 0.16 0.07

TX_corn 0.65 0.44 0.25

Sorghum KS_sorghum 0.10 0.11 0.06

TX_sorghum 0.51 0.34 0.20

Grass hay CArangelandhayRLF_V2 0.11 0.12 0.07

RangeBSS 0.28 0.19 0.12



### 3.2.2.5. Monitoring Data

Limited monitoring data are available for TCVP and its degradates. EFED conducted a search of the United States Geological Services (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program database ( http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/nawqa_queries/index.jsp ), the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (CDPR’s) surface water and sediment database ( http://cdpr.ca.gov/ docs/emon/surfwtr/surfcont.htm ), and the USEPA STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) database ( http://www.epa.gov/STORET/ ). The NAWQA database did not list TCVP or its degradates as sampled constituents. The CDPR surfa ce water database had 2,097 records for surface water samples collected and sampled from the years 2000 to 2011 for TCVP, with just

2 of these values at or above the detection limit (0.089 μg/L in 2007 and 0.05 μg/L in 2001). STORET data for TCVP, in surf ace water and sediment monitoring samples from 1990 to the
present, included a number of detections, which are summariz ed in Table 3. 7

.- Page 30 of 74

- 

### A review of available groundwater monitoring data for TCVP was also conducted. An analysis of
EPA’s Pesticides in Groun d Water Database (USEPA, 1992) indicates TCVP was not detected in well water (level of detection not reported ; degradates not reported ). Twelve samples were collected in California between 1984 and 1991 and 161 samples were collected in Indiana between
19 87 and 1988. STORET data for groundwater wells from 2006 to 2008 in Florida are presented
in Table 3. 7 . Neither the USGS NAWQA database nor the CDPR groundwater sampling site list TCVP as a sampled pesticide.

Monitoring data are not available on the degradates of TCVP.

Table 3. 7 . Surface Water , Groundwater, and Sediment Monitoring Data

Location Sampling Media Concentration Range Number of Samples Number of Sample Sites Time Span

Ventura, CA Water, River 0.05 μg/L 1 1 2001 Bartholomew, IN Water, River 0.10 μg/L 1 1 1997 Collier, FL Water, Well 0.05

– 0.23 μg/L 261 70 2006

- 2008 Glades, FL Water, Well 0.05

– 0.21 μg/L 5 1 2006

- 2008

Multnomah, OR Sediment, River,
Portland Harbor Superfund Site 51.4

- 60.1 μg/kg 2 2 2006



### 3.2.2.6 Aquatic Exposure from Indoor Uses

The down

- the

- drain component of the E

- FAST model is u sed to estimate exposure in water bodies that receive residential drainage that may contain disposed or washed

- off pet dip. Estimate assumptions include : no waste water treatment effic iency and

, 100% of the applied TCVP is washed off the pet and entrain ed in the waste water or directly disposed of down the drain.

The label for Hartz Rabon ® 

### Flea & Tick Dip for Dogs & Cats (EPA Reg. No. 2596

- 1 19) directs users to dilute 2 (fluid) ounces (fl oz) of dip per one gallon of water, but does not advise how much solution to prepare per animal specific to size. Applications are to be repeated as necessary. Assuming 2 fluid o unces of dip (0.059 L) are prepared per application and assuming that the application is subsequently washed off or that the dip is poured down the drain for disposal, at
3.06% v / v active ingredient (a

. i

. ), 0.0 018 L a

. i

. may flow into waste water per use. With a bulk density of approximately 7 lb s /gal (840 g/L) , this would represent 1.5 1 2 g a

. i

. per use. Wash off of greater solution volumes or disposal of a full container's contents ( 0.236 L ) would produce larger amounts of active ingredient per use in was te water.

The 50 th 

### percentile per capita daily indoor water usage is estimated for the E

- FAST model at 388 L per person ( i. e. , 1552 L per day for a family of four). The daily concentration of TCVP in a household's waste stream given the above conditions would be 978 μg a

. i

. / L (ppb). However, this estimated daily concentration would be diluted by the wastewater flows from other households that do not have pets and/ or do not use the Rabon ® 

### dip and / or are not washing off or disposing of
Rabon ® 

### into the drain on a given day.- Page 31 of 74

- 

### In a typical 50,000 person municipality, the numb er of 2 fl oz uses that must be washed off on a given day to equal the acute risk to listed species LOC (RQ≥0.05) for freshwater invertebrates (1.9 μg/L x 0.05 = 0.095 μ g/L) and fis h (530 μg/L x 0.05 = 26.5 μg/L) would be:

Aquatic Invertebrates : Number of uses = [(0.095 μg/L)(388 L/person)(50,000 people)]/l.5 x 10 6 

### μg/use)
Number of uses = 1.2
Fish : Numb er of uses = [(26.5 μg/L)(388 L/ person)(50,000 people)]/l.5 x 10 6 

### μg/use)
Number of uses = 350

This analysis indicates that in a municipality of 50,000 people, there would be sufficient TCVP in the untreated municipal waste water discharge from treatment facilities to exceed the acute risk to listed species LOC for invertebrat es if just two pets were washed concurrently

. For fish, 350 pets
would need to b e washed for concentrations of TCVP in the untreated wastewater to exceed the
acute risk to listed species LOC.

3.2.3. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure

3.2.3.1

. Ingestion of Surface Residues by Birds and Mammals

Terrestrial wildlife exposure estimates are typically calculated for birds and mammals by

e mphasizing the dietary exposure route of uptake of pesticide active ingredients. These exposures
are considered to be surrogates for exposures to terrestrial

- phase amphibians and reptiles. For

exposure s to terrestrial organisms

, such as birds and mammals, pesticide residues on food items are estimated based on the assumption that organisms are exposed to pesticide resid ues as a function of the pesticide use pattern. For TCVP

, the outdoor use sites include spot treatment of kennels, yards and recreational areas, poultry dropppings, manure piles, garbage piles, residual surfaces (barns, farm buildings, around garbage dump s and corrals), livestock (feed additive, salt lick). The indoor use sites include pet or livestock treatment with a dust, dip, sponge, spray formulation or with a collar impregnated with TCVP. The potential dietary exposure for terrestrial
wildlife in thi s assessment is based on consumption of TCVP residues on food items following spray applications.

T

- REX (v. 1. 5 ) is used to calculate dietary and dose

- based EECs of TCVP residues on food items for mammals and birds generated by spray applications for the labeled uses . Input values for deriving EECs using T

- REX are located in Table 3.8

. The default foliar dissipation half

- life of 35 days was used in the modeling, as foliar dissipation half

- life data for TCVP were not available

. Upper

- bound Kenaga nomogr am values are used to derive EECs for TCVP exposures to terrestrial mammals and birds ( Table 3.9

- 3.11 ) , based on a 1

- year time period. Consideration is given to different types of feeding strategies for mammals, including herbivores, insectivores and

gran ivores. D ose

- based exposures are estimated for three weight classes of birds (20 g, 100 g, and 1000 g) and three weight classes of mammals (15 g, 35 g, and 1000 g).- Page 32 of 74

- 

### There are four outdoor uses registered for TCVP at this time (See Table 3.1 ): 1) Kennels, yards and recreational areas; 2) r esidual surfaces; 3) p oultry droppings; and 4) l ivestock. E xcept for the
use on livestock which is a feed additive or salt lick, all are intended to be spot treatments. In order to estimate exposure resultin g from the livestock use, m anure from this use can be collected and broadcast to agricultural fields (“soil amendment”)

. However, the use of manure as a soil amendment is not expected to result in exposure to non

- target plants which could consumed by

terre strial animals as food items . Therefore, a n assessment of terrestrial plant exposure and resulting risk for the soil amendment use was not performed. The maximum application rate for manure soil amendment applications is 0.046 lbs a.i./A (grassland, Table 3.4 ). For the other uses,
exposure to non

- target plants is expected to be possible and was assessed.

For those remaining outdoor uses that are spot treatments, these are assumed to be uses where TCVP is sprayed in places as needed (such as on a manure pil e) and not as a broadcast application over an entire acre of land. However, for modeling purposes, the application rates are given on a

per

- acre basis and estimates of exposure are made using the application r ate in terms of lb s a.i./acre. HED defines a s pot treatment as an area not to exceed more than 1000 ft 2 

### and EFED does not expect an entire contiguous acre to be broadcast sprayed with TCVP ; however, as a conservative exposure scenario, EFED assumed that multiple spot treatments could add up to an

acre or more within a somewhat larger area of surrounding acreage

.

Table 3. 8 . Input Parameters for Deriving Screening

- Level Terrestrial EECs for TCVP ( T

- REX v. 1.5 ) 1



### .

Use(s) Maximum Single App. Rate (lbs a

. i

. /A) 2 Minimum Reapplication
Interval (days) Maximum No. of App. Foliar Dissipation

Half

- Life (days) Kennels, y ards and
recreational a reas 2 3.3 N/A 1

35 Residual s urfaces 1 13.9 Not specified Unlimited

Poultry d roppings, manure piles, garbage piles 2 34.8 N /A 1

1 Residual surfaces include: barns, farm buildings, around garbage dumps and corrals.

2 Most labels indicate these uses are spot treatments (1000 ft 2 ) and that only one application per year should occur outdoors.- Page 33 of 74

- Table 3. 9

. Screening

- level Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg bw) as Food Residues for Birds , Reptiles, and Terrestrial

- Phase Amphibians from Labeled Uses of
TCVP (T

- REX v. 1.5 )

.

Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Small Med Large Small Med Large Small Med Large

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.

Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc

.
Use(s) 

Kennels 902 413 507 56 514 236 289 32 230 106 130 14 353 201 90 13 7 3

Resid ual Surfac es 1 3799 1741 2137 237 2167 993 1219 135 970 445 546 61 1488 849 380 53 30 13

Poultry Dr oppings 2 9512 4359 5350 595 5424 2486 3051 339 2428 1113 1366 152 3725 2124 951 132 75 34

1 Res idual surfaces include: barns, farm buildings, around garbage dumps and corrals.

2 Poultry droppings include: p oultry droppings, manure piles, garbage piles.

Table 3. 1 0 . Screening

- level Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg bw) as Food Residues for Mammals from Labeled Uses of TCVP (T

- REX v. 1.5 ).

Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Small Med Large Small Med Large Small Med Large

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.

Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc

.
Use(s) 

Kennels 755 346 425 47 522 239 294 33 121 55 68 8 296 204 47 10 7 2

Residual Surface s 1 3181 1458 1789 199 2198 1008 1237 137 510 233 287 32 1246 861 200 44 31 8

Poultry Droppings 2 7963 3650 4479 498 5503 2522 3096 344 1276 584 718 80 3119 2156 500 111 76 18

1 Residual surfaces include: barns, farm buildings, around garbage dumps and corrals.

2 Poultry droppings include: p oultry droppings, manure piles, garbage piles.- Page 34 of 74

- Table 3. 11 . Screening

- level Dietary

- based EECs ( mg/kg

- diet ) as Food Residues for Birds, Reptiles,
Terrestrial

- phase Amphibians, and Mammals from Labeled Uses of TCVP (T

- REX v. 1.5 ).

Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and
Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Arthropods

Use(s) 

Kennels 792 363 446 50 310

Residual Surfac es 1 3336 1529 1876 209 1307

Poultry Droppings 2 8352 3828 4698 522 3271

1 Residual surfaces include: barns, farm buildings, around garbage dumps and corrals.

2 Poultry droppings include: p oultry droppings, manure piles, garbage piles.



### 3.2.3. 2

. Runoff and Spray Drift to Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic
Plants

Exposure of non

- target terrestrial and semi

- aquatic (wetland) plant species is estimated using
OPP’s TerrPlant (v

. 1.2.2 ) model. Given the application methods of TCVP, l oading via spray drift to dry, non

- target , adjacent areas is assumed not to occur

. Ru noff is expected to be the only source of pesticide loading to non

- target areas. TerrPlant calculates EECs as a function of application rate, solubility

, and default assumptions regarding incorporation

. The EECs for terrestrial and
semi

- aquatic plants for a single application of TCVP at the maximum label ed rate s for representative uses are presented in Table 3

. 1 2 (see example output in Appendix D ). A pplications to kennels, residual surfaces, and poultry droppings are spot treatments ; therefore, the application

rates attributed to runoff from semi

- aquatic areas are proportioned, as in the aquatic modeling to 0.38, 0.39, and 0.8 lbs a.i./A, respectively . This was done to account for the 10:1 watershed ratio
used in the semi

- aquatic model.

Table 3. 1 2 . EECs for Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants Near TCVP Use Areas (TerrPlant v. 1.2.2)

.

Use Site Single Max. Application
Rate (lbs a

. i

. /A) EECs (lbs a

. i

. /A)
Runoff Only

Dry Areas Semi

- Aquatic Areas

Kennels 3.3 0.066 0.076

Residual Surfaces 1 13.9 0.278 0.078

Poultry Droppings 2 34.8 0.696 0.16

Soil Amendment 3 0.046 0.00092 0.0092

1 Residual surfaces include: barns, farm buildings, around garbage dumps and corrals.

2 Poultry droppings include: p oultry droppings, manure piles, garbage piles.

3 Soil amendment is the application to fields of manure containing TCVP from livestock oral additives

.



### 3.3

. Ecological Effects Characterization

The ecological effects characterization for TCVP is based up on registrant

- submitted toxicity data
for the TGAI and for specified formulations

. The ecotoxicity data for TCVP and its associated- Page 35 of 74

- 

### products have been reviewed previously in multiple ecological risk assessments ( e.g., USEPA 2006, 2002, 2000 ) and in a Prel iminary Problem Formulation for Registration Review (USEPA 2008). These data are summarized briefly in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2

. Various studies with terrestrial and aquatic plant s, birds, and aquatic animals exposed to either the TGAI or formulated
TCVP have been received since the Problem Formulation was issued; the results of these studies
are described briefly in this section

. Ecotoxicity data recently submitted for TCVP degradates indicate that these degradates are generally equally or less toxic tha n parent TCVP

.

T he results of a 201 4 review of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) are described
in Section 3.3.3 ( USEPA 20 12 )

. A sear ch of t he ECOTOXicology database i n December , 201 3

, yielded no new data from suitable studies with more sensitive toxicity endpoints than those from
the registrant

- submitted guideline studies described below

. The endpoints from the ECOTOX

catalogued open literature studies are provided in Attachment 2 , for reference.

3.3.1. Aquatic Toxicity Assessment

A summary of the most sensitive aquatic toxicity data for TCVP , based on a current Agency review of all submitted data, is provided in Table 3.13 and discussed further in Sections 3.3.1.1 through
3.3.1.5

. The available data indicate that TCVP technical grade active ingredient ( TGAI ) is highly toxic to freshwater fish and moderately toxic to marine/estuarine fish on an acute exposure basis. TCVP is very highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates and highly toxic to marine/estuarine invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. Studies on the t oxicity of f ormulated TCVP to aquatic organisms have not been submitted.

3.3.1.1. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

TCVP is classified as highly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute exposure basis. In 96

- hr acute toxicity studies summarized in Mayer and Ell ersieck (1986; MRID 40 0 98001), bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ) and channel catfish ( Ictalurus punctatus ) were exposed to technical grade TCVP. The reported LC 50 

### w as 0.53 mg a

. i

. /L for bluegill under static conditions and >0.50 mg

a

. i

. /L for channel catfish under flow

- through conditions.

Chronic toxicity to freshwater fish was evaluated i n a 33

- day toxicity of technical grade TCVP (98.7% a.i.) to the early life stage of fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) under flow

- through
conditions

. The NOAEC for juvenile survival

, wa s 0.047 mg a.i./L based on a statistically significant (p<0.05) difference in larval survival at treatment concentrations greater than or equal to 0.15 mg a.i./L. The NOAEC and LOAEC values for growth (mean dry weight a nd mean length at 28 days post

- hatch) were 0.047 and 0.15 mg a.i./L respectively. The NOAEC and LOAEC for time to hatch are 0.15 and 0.47 mg a.i./L, respectively.- Page 36 of 74

- 

### 3.3.1.2. Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

TCVP is classified as very highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. An
acute 48

- hour static toxicity study was conducted to determine the effect of technical grade TCVP to daphnia ( Daphnia magna ; MRID 41257101). The 48

- h EC 50 

### value was 1.9 μ g a

. i ./L and the 48

- h NOAEC wa s 0.72 μ g a

. i

. /L.

Chronic toxicity of TCVP was evaluated in a 21

- day static

- renewal toxicity study on D

. magna with technical grade TCVP. Based upon statistically significant (p<0.05) decreases in reproduction (total number of offspring) at exposure level s of 0.250 μg a.i./L and greater, the NOAEC and LOAEC were 0.125 and 0.250 μg a.i./L, respectively.

3.3.1.3. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Fish

TCVP is classified as moderately toxic to estuarine/marine fish on an acute exposure basis. The toxicity of T CVP to spot ( Leiostomus xanthurus ) is reported in Mayer (1986; MRID 40228401). The reported LC 50 

### is >1.0 mg a.i./L. Although acute toxicity tests are typically conducted to the limit concentration of 100 mg a.i./L, the solubility limit of TCVP (11.6 mg/L) combined with the salinity of the test system precluded testing to concentrations higher than 1 mg a

. i./L.

3.3.1. 4

. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

The reported EC 50 

### for technical grade TCVP to pink shrimp ( Penaeus duorarum ) is 0.28 mg a.i./L (Mayer 1986; MRID 40228401). Based on this endpoint, TCVP is classified as highly toxic to
estuarine/ m arine invertebrates on an acute exposure basis



## .

3.3.1.5. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants

In a 7

- day toxicity study, the freshwater vascular plant duckweed ( Lemna gibba G3) w as exposed
to TCVP TGAI ( 100.5% a.i.) The NOAEC and EC 50 

### /IC 50 

### values based on all endpoints (frond number yield, frond number growth rate, final biomass, and biomass growth rate) were 1158 and >4625 μg a.i./L, respectively, in terms of ti me weighted average ( TWA ) concentrations. The percent growth inhibition of frond number (the most sensitive endpoint) in the treated culture as compared to the control ranged from 4 to 43% relative to the negative control. The following abnormalities (phy totoxicity) were noted: chlorosis, necrosis, and curled fronds.

In a 96

- hour static toxicity study, cultures of freshwater green alga ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ), a non

- vascular aquatic plant, were exposed to TCVP TGAI under static conditions.
The NOAEC and EC 50 

### /IC 50 

### values based on cell density were 594 and 3200 μg/L, respectively.
The NOAEC and EC 50 

### /IC 50 

### values based on growth rate were 594 and >4947μg/L, respectively.
The NOAEC and EC 50 

### /IC 50 

### values based on yield w ere 594 and 3200 μg/L, respectively.- Page 37 of 74

- 

### 3. 3.2

. Terrestrial Effects Characterization

A summary of the most sensitive terrestrial animal toxicity data for TCVP , based on a current Agen cy review of all submitted data

, is provided in T able 3.1 3 and is discuss ed further in Sections
3.3.2.1 to 3.3.2.3

. The available data indicate that TCVP TGAI is practically non

- toxic to birds
and is slightly toxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis. Subacute avian toxicity data are
not available for TCVP. TCVP i s highly toxic to adult honey bees ( Apis mellifera ) on an acute

contact exposure basis.

On a chronic exposure basis, adult female mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos ) that consumed feed containing TCVP had lower body weight gain relative to controls, but no m ortality or overt signs of toxicity were observed. Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) fed die ts containing TCVP had fewer live embryos per eggs set and reduced eggshell thickness relative to controls, but no mortality or overt signs of toxicity were observed. On a chronic dietary exposure basis, there were no adverse effects on growth, survival or reproduction observed in mammals at the highest dose tested (100 mg a.i./kg

- diet).

The available data for terrestrial plants exposed to the the formulated product Rabon ® 

### ( 49.14% a.i.) provided in Section 3.3.2.4
, indicate that TCVP exposure resulted in no dose

- related adverse
effects on seedling emergence or vegetative vigor in ten species of plants (see Table 3.1 3 )

.

3.3.2.1. Toxicity to Birds

Avian toxicity data are summarized in Table 3.1 3 below. Based on results of toxicity testing with

an upland game species

, mallard duck

, TCVP technical is categorized as practically non

- toxic to birds on an acute oral exposure basis (MRID 00160000 )

. There were no mortalities observed in the acute oral toxicity study. A n avian reproduction study with the mallard duck (MRID 48951301 )
demonstrated statistically significant (p<0.05) reductions in adult female body weight and the weight of 14

- day old survivors when parental ducks were exposed to measured concentrations of
290 mg a

. i

. /kg diet (NOAEC = 96 mg ai/kg diet). In the avian reproduction study with bobwhite quail, there were red uctions in the number of live embryos per eggs set and reductions in eggshell
thickness at 979 mg a.i./kg

- diet (NOAEC=290 mg a.i./kg

- diet).

3.3.2.2. Toxicity to Mammals

Technical grade TCVP is classified as moderately toxic to rats ( Rattus norvegicus ) w ith an acute
oral LD 50 

### value of 1480 mg a

. i ./kg

- bw (MRID 41222504). Based on the results of this study, TCVP
is classified as slightly toxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis. Acute toxicity testing
with formulated tetrachlorvinp hos (75% ai) resulted in an LD 50 

### of 2686 mg a

. i ./ kg

- bw (MRID 41223601).

A 2

- generation rat reproduction study (MRID 00077802 ) identified a NOAE C of 330 mg a.i./kg

diet based on increased liver size. However, this sublethal effect is not considered relevant to wild

ma mmals. Therefore, th e chronic NOAE C for mammals is the highest dose tested ( 1 00 0 mg/kg

diet )

.- Page 38 of 74

- 

### 3.3.2.3. Toxicity to Beneficial Insects

TCVP is classified as highly toxic to honeybees on an acute contact exposure basis. In an acute contact toxicity study (Atkins et al . 1975; MRID 00036935), honey bees were found to have an
LC 50 

### for TCVP of 1.4 μ g a

. i

. /bee.

3.3.2.4. Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants

Terrestrial plant toxicity studies are required for pesticides that have terrestrial use patterns or may

move off of the application site

. The NOAEL and I C 25 

### (concentration that causes an inhibitory effect in 25% of the population for the monitored endpoint) values are established for markers of seedling emergence and vegetative vigor.

Two studies evaluating TC VP exposure in terrestrial plants have been submitted. Both seedling

emergence (MRID 48728101) and vegetative vigor (MRID 48719901) tests were conducted with
a formulated TCVP product (Rabon ® 

### containing 49.14% a.i.) applied at 6.09 lb a.i./acre (5.7 lb
a.i./acre for corn ( Zea mays ) and wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) in the vegetative vigor study). In the seedling emergence test, n o reductions of 25% or more were observed in any treatment group
relative to the controls fo r any measured parameter of the ten plant species tested. However, statistically significant differences ( p <0.05) were observed in mean height of ryegrass

, emergence of wheat

, and dry weight of tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum ) but these significant reduc tions were not accompanied by adverse effects in other measured parameters (such as height, weight, percent emergence or survival) of the species and were not considered to be biologically significant. The NOAEC for seedling emergence was not established. The EC 25 

### /IC 25 

### and the
EC 05 

### /IC 05 

### were > 6.09 lb a.i./acre for se edling emergence. In the vegetative vigor study, t here were no differences in percent survival between plants treated with TCVP and controls. Mean height of
beans ( Phaseolus vulgaris ) treated with Rabon ® 

### was 48% lower than control height and mean height for treated wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) seedlings were significantly different (p<0.05) from control means. Mean dry weight of bean and tomato plants were significantly different (p<0.05 ) compared to control means (

- 24% and

- 18% reductions, respectively). For monocots, the NOAEC
is 5.7 lb a.i./ a cre for corn and wheat and 6.09 lb a.i./ a cre for all other monocots. For dicots, the
NOAEC is 6.09 lb a.i./Acre.

The terrestrial plant toxicity studies were conducted at an application rate (6.09 lb a.i./acre) that
was well below the highest application rate on TCVP labels (34.8 lb a.i./acre) . Therefore, there is uncertainty surrounding the potential toxicity of TCVP to plants at application rate s between 6.09
and 34.8 lb a.i./acre.

Table 3.1 3

. Endpoints Used in the TCVP Preliminary Risk Estimation

Taxonomic

Group Surrogate Species Type of
Risk Type of Endpoint Endpoint MRID Acute Toxicity
Classification Aquatic

Freshwater Fish Bluegill Su nfish Lepomis
macrochirus Acute LC 50 530 μ g a.i./L 4098001 Highly Toxic

Fathead Minnow Chronic NOAEC 47 μ g a.i./L 48732301 N/A- Page 39 of 74

- Taxonomic

Group Surrogate Species Type of
Risk Type of Endpoint Endpoint MRID Acute Toxicity
Classification Pimephales

promelas (growth)

Freshwater
Invertebrates Daphnid Daphnia magna Acute EC 50 1.9 μg a.i./L 41257101 Very Highly Toxic

Chronic NOAEC 0.125 μg a.i./L (reproduction) 48792801 N/A

Estuarine/Marine
Fish Spot

Leiostomus
xanthurus Acute LC 50 >1

, 0 00 μ g a.i./L 40228401 Moderately Toxic

Chronic NOAEC No Data

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrates Mysid Acute EC 50 28 0 μ g a.i./L 40228401 Highly Toxic

Chronic NOAEC No Data

Aquatic Plants Duckweed Lemna gibba N/A EC 50 >4625 μg
a.i./L 48792401 N/A

NOAEC 1158 μg a.i./L Freshwater Algae

(Non

- vascular aquatic plant) Green alga
Pseudokirchnerie

lla subcapitata N/A EC 50 3200 μg a.i./L 48654101 N/A

NOAEC 594 μg a.i./L

Terrestrial

Avian Mallard

Anas platyrhynchos Acute LD 50 >2000 mg a.i./kg

- bw 00160000 Practically Non

- Toxic

Chronic NOAEC 96 mg a.i./kg

diet 1 48951301 N/A

Northern
Bobwhite

Colinus virginianus Chronic NOAEC 290 mg a.i./kg

diet 2 48952701 N/A

Mammalian Rat Acute LD 50 1480 mg a.i./kg

- bw 41222504 Slightly Toxic

Chronic NOAEC 100 0 mg a.i./kg /diet (no effects) 00077802 4 N/A

Terrestrial
Invertebrates Honeybee Acute LD 50 1.4 μg a.i./bee 00036935 Highly Toxic

Terrestrial Plants Seedling Emergence 10 Species 3 N/A NOAEC Not
Established 48728101 N/A

Vegetative Vigor 10 Species 3 N/A NOAEC >6.09 lb
a.i./Acre 48719901 N/A

1. Endpoint based on reductions in adult female body weight and reductions in 1 4

- day survivor weight compared to the control

. 2. Endpoint based on number of l ive embryos per eggs set and reductions in eggshell thickness compared to
the control.
3. Five species of monocot yledonous plants include: onion, Allium cepa ; r yegrass, Lolium perenne ; wheat,

Triticum aestivum ; corn, Zea mays and five species of dicot yledonous plants include: oilseed rape, Brassica

napus ; cabbage, Brassica oleracea ; soybean, Glycine max ; lettuce, L atuca sativa ; tomato, Lycopersicon
esculentum ; bean, Pha s eolus vulgaris

. 4. No effects at the highest concentration tested.



### 3.3.3. Review of Incident Data- Page 40 of 74

- 

### The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS)
, which is maintained by the Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs, was searched to determine if ecological incidents have been reported for TCVP. Based on a search of EIIS conducted in July, 2014, t he Agency has received one report of
adverse effects to a red

- tailed hawk ( Buteo jamaicensis ) that has been linked to the use of TCVP. The incident is considered highly probable, where the bird apparently died from tetrachlorvinphos toxicity after a feather treatment for lice. A search of the American Bird Conse rvancy (ABC) AIMS incident database in July, 2014 did not yield any reported incidents for TCVP and birds.

A lack of reported incidents does not necessarily mean that incidents have not occurred. In addition, incident reports for non

- target plants and ani mals typically provide information on mortality events only. Reports for other adverse effects, such as reduced growth or impaired reproduction, are rarely received.



## 4

. Risk Characterization

4.1. Screening

- Level Risk Quotient (RQ) Values

This screening

- level ass essment of the labeled use s of TCVP relies on the deterministic RQ method to provide a metric of potential risks. The RQ provides a comparison of exposure estimates to toxicity endpoints ( i.e. , estimated exposure s divided by acute and /o r chronic toxicity endpoint s expressed in the same units as exposures , respectively ). The resulting unitless RQ values are compared to the Agency’s LOCs, as shown in Table s 4.1 through Table 4. 9

. The LOCs are used by the Agency to indicate when the use of a pesticide, as directed by the label, has the potential to
cause adverse effects to nontarget organisms. F or endangered species, LOC exce e dances require

an additional in

- depth listed species evaluat ion to characterize risks for the potential co

- occurrence of listed species and areas in which new use crops are grown

. In this approach , RQ s that exceed

non

- listed species LOC s necessarily also exceed the corresponding listed species LOC s

. Note that
with plants, unlike with animals, RQ values are not presented for acute versus chronic risk; instead, RQ values are presented for listed and nonlisted species based on a comparison of a given EEC to
NOAEL and E C 25 

### values (for terrestrial plants) and EC 50 

### value s (for aquatic plants) , respectively. A discussion of the RQ values for TCVP and of other information that provides context for the interpretation of potential risk to various taxa is presented in the Risk Description in Section 4.2

.

4.1.1. RQ Values for Aquatic Organisms

Freshwater fish serve as surrogates for aquatic

- phase amphibians. RQ values for freshwater fish exposed to TCVP are below the LOCs for acute risk for listed (0.05) and non

- listed species (0.5) ( Table 4.1 ). Similarly, chronic RQ values for freshwater fish are below the chronic risk LOC (1.0). Therefore, the likelihood of acute mortality or chronic adverse effects in freshwater fish and aquatic

- phase amphibians from the registered uses of TCVP is considered low.- Page 41 of 74

- Tabl e 4.1. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Freshwater Fish from TCVP TGAI

.

Use (s) App

. Rate (lbs a.i. /A) Peak EECs (μg a.i. /L) Freshwater Fish
EC 50 = 5 3 0 μ g

a

. i

. /L 60

- Day EECs (μg a.i. /L) Freshwater Fish NOAEC = 47 μ g a.i./L

Acute RQs Chronic RQs

Kennels Residual surfaces, garbage dumps,
and corrals 1 Poultry droppings,
and manure and garbage piles 0.4 1.68 (RangeBSS) 0.003 0.58 (RangeBSS) 0.01

Manure as soil
amendment 0.046 0.654 (TX_corn) 0.001 0.39 (MSCorn) 0.008

Abbreviations: App. Application.

1 Residual surfaces include: barns, farm buildings, around garbage dumps and corrals.



### RQ values for freshwater aquatic invertebrates exposed to TCVP on an acute basis exceed LOCs for listed (LOC=0.05) and non

- listed (LOC=0.5) species ( Table 4.2 ). TCVP use in kennels and on residual surfaces, poultry droppings, garbage dumps, corrals and manure piles exceed acute risk
to listed and non

- listed species LOCs, and TCVP in manure (from oral larvicide) use d as a soil amendment exceeds the acute risk to listed species LOC. RQ values for freshwater aquatic invertebrates based on chronic exposure to TCVP exceed LOCs for chronic risk to aquatic invertebrates for all of the registered uses assessed.

Table 4

. 2

. Acute and Chronic RQs for Direct Effects to Freshwater Invertebrates from TCVP TGAI

.

Use (s) App

. Rate (lbs a

. i

. /A) Peak EECs (μg ai /L) Freshwater
Invertebrates

E C 50 = 1.9 μg ai /L 21

- day EECs ( μg ai /L ) Freshwater
Invertebrates

NOAEC =
0.125 μg ai /L

RQs RQs

Kennels Residual surfaces, garbage dumps,
and corrals 1 Poultry droppings,
and manure and garbage piles 0.4 1.68 (RangeBSS) 0.8 8 4 1.11 (RangeBSS) 9 5

Manure as soil
amendment 0.046 0.654 (TX_corn) 0.34 3 0.64 (MS_corn) 5 5

Abbreviations: App. Application.

1 Residual surfaces include: barns, farm buildings, ar ound garbage dumps and corrals.

3 Exceeds acute risk to listed species LOC (RQ≥0.05).

4 Exceeds acute risk to listed species LOC (RQ≥0.05) and non

- listed species LOC (RQ≥0.50).

5 Exceeds the chornic risk LOC ( RQ≥1.0)



### The acute toxicity endpoint for estuarine/marine spot is indeterminate ( i.e ., LC 50 

### >1000 mg a.i./L ); therefore, RQ values reported in Table 4.3 are indeterminate (<) as well. RQ values for freshwater fish exposed to TCVP are b elow the LOCs for acute risk to listed (0.05) and non

- listed species- Page 42 of 74

- 

### (0.5). No chronic toxicity data are available for estuar ine/marine fish; therefore, chro nic RQ values
could not be estimated.

Table 4.3. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine Fi sh from TCVP TGAI.

Use (s) App

. Rate (lbs a.i. /A) Peak EECs (μg a.i. /L) Estuarine/Marine Fish

L C 50 >1,000 μ g ai/L

Acute RQs

Kennels Residual surfaces, garbage dumps, and corrals 1 Poultry droppings, and manure and garbage piles 0.4 1.68 (RangeBSS) < 0.002

Manure as soil amendment 0.046 0.654 (TX_corn) <0.001



### Acute RQs for marine/estuarine invertebrates exposed to TCVP are below the LOCs for acute risk for listed (0.05) and non

- listed species (0.5) ( Table 4.4 ). Therefore, the likelihood of adverse effects to marine/estuarine invertebrates from the registered uses of TCVP is considered low. Chronic RQ values for marine/estuarine invertebrates were not calculated as chronic toxicity data
were not available.

Table 4. 4

. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates from TCVP TGAI

.

Use (s) Application Rate (lbs ai /A) Peak EECs (μg ai /L) Estuarine/Marine
Invertebrates
EC 50 = 28 0 μ g ai /L

RQs

Kennels Residual surfaces, garbage dumps, and
corrals Poultry droppings, and manure and garbage piles 0.4 1.68 (RangeBSS) 0.006

Manure as soil
amendment 0.046 0.654 (TX_corn) 0.002



### RQs for aquatic vascular and non

- vascular plants exposed to TCVP did not result in exceedance s of risk to listed or non

- listed plant LOCs for any of the registered uses ( Table 4.5 ) . Therefore, the
likelihood of adverse effects to aquatic plants from exposure to TCVP in surface water is
considered low.

Table 4. 5

. RQ Values for Direct Effects to Aquatic Vascular and Nonvascular Plants from TCVP TGAI

.

Use (s) Applicatio
n Rate (lbs a

. i

. /A) Peak EECs (μg a

. i

. /L) Aquatic Vascular Plants

E C 50 >4625 μg a

. i

. /L
NOAEL = 1158 μg a

. i

. /L Aquatic Nonvascular Plants

E C 50 = 3200 μg a

. i

. /L
NOAEL = 594 μg a

. i

. /L

Listed RQs Nonlisted RQs Listed RQs Nonlisted RQs

Kennels 0.4 1.68 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01- Page 43 of 74

- Use (s) Applicatio
n Rate (lbs a

. i

. /A) Peak EECs (μg a

. i

. /L) Aquatic Vascular Plants

E C 50 >4625 μg a

. i

. /L
NOAEL = 1158 μg a

. i

. /L Aquatic Nonvascular Plants

E C 50 = 3200 μg a

. i

. /L
NOAEL = 594 μg a

. i

. /L

Listed RQs Nonlisted RQs Listed RQs Nonlisted RQs

Residual surfaces, garbage dumps, and
corrals Poultry droppings, and
manure and garbage piles (RangeBSS)

Manure as soil
amendment 0.046 0.654 (TX_corn) <0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### 4.1.2. RQ Values for Terrestrial Organisms

Birds are the surrogate species for reptiles and terrestrial

- phase amphibians. Acute dose

- based RQs
for birds were not estimated as the acute oral toxicity endpoint for birds is non

- definitive in a study conducted up to the limit test dose without any mortality at the highest dose ( i.e

., LD 50 

### >2,000 mg a.i./kg).

Screening

- level chronic RQ values for the uses of TCVP in kennels and on residual surfaces, poultry droppings, garbage dumps, corrals and manure piles exceed the LOC for chronic risk to birds, reptiles, and terrestrial

- phase amphibians exposed to TCVP in the diet ( Table 4.6 ). Estimates
of risk from the soil am endment use were not calculated as exposure to plants from this use are not expected. C hronic mammalian RQs exceeded the LOC for listed and non

- listed mammals for uses on residual surfaces and poultry droppings

.

Table 4. 6

. Chronic Dietary

- Based RQs for Birds , Reptiles, and Terrestrial

- phase Amphibians of Different Feeding Classes (T

- REX v. 1.5)

. Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Arthropods

Use(s) 

Kennels 1 8 .3 3 3.8 3 4.6 3 0.5 3 .2 3

Residual Uses 2 35 3 16 3 20 3 2 .2 3 14 3

Poultry Dro p pings 87 3 40 3 49 3 5.4 3 34 3

1 Residual surfaces include: barns, farm buildings, around garbage dumps and corrals.

2 Poultry droppings include: p oultry droppings, manure piles, garbage piles. Dietary

- based RQ values are based on the mallard duck NOAEC value of 96 mg/kg

- diet (LOAEC=290 mg/kg

- diet ).

3 A dark shaded cell indicates that the RQ exceeds the LOC for chronic risk to listed and non

- listed birds, reptiles, and terrestrial phase amphibians (LOC = 1).



### Screening

- level a cute RQs for mammals for the uses of TCVP in kennels and on residual surfaces, poultry droppings, garbage dumps, corrals and manure piles exceed the acute risk to listed LOC- Page 44 of 74

- 

### (0.1) and non

- listed LOC (0.5) ( Table 4.7 )

. Screening

- level RQ values for chronic exposures to listed and non

- listed mammals exceeded the LOC for chronic risk (1) for residual uses and the use on poultry droppings ( Tabl e 4.8 )

RQ values for terrestrial plants exposed to TCVP through run

- off did not result in exceedances of
listed or non

- listed plant LOCs for any of the registered uses ( Table 4. 9 ). Therefore, the likelihood
for adverse effects to terrestrial and semi

- aquatic plants from exposure to TCVP is considered low.

Finally , as a screening measure, the KABAM model was used to estimate potential bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic pesticides in freshwater aquatic food webs and subsequent risks to mammals and birds via consumption of aquatic prey contaminated with TCVP ( Appendix G ). RQ values calculated by the KABAM model for birds and mammals do not exceed acute or chronic LOCs. Therefore, the risk to birds and mammals that consume aqutic prey
contaminated by TCVP is low.- Page 45 of 74

- Table 4.7

. Acute Dose

- based RQ values for Mammals Exposed to TCVP (T

- REX v. 1. 5 ). Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.

Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc

.
Use(s) 

Kennels 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Residual Uses 1 3.7 1.7 2.1 0.2 1.6 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.3 <0.1 1.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Poult ry Droppings 2 9.2 4.2 5.2 0.6 4.1 1.9 2.3 0.3 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.1 3.6 1.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 <0.1

1 Residual surfaces include: barns, farm buildings, around garbage dumps and corrals.

2 Poultry droppings include: p oultry droppings, manure piles, garbage piles

. Acute RQ values for mammals are based on the LD 50 value of 1480 mg a.i. /kg bw.

A bolded number indicates that the RQ meets or exceeds the LOC for acute risk to listed mammals only (LOC = 0. 1 ) , a bolded number in a shaded cell indicates that the RQ meets or exceeds the LOC for acute risk to non

- listed mammal species (LOC=0.5) (the L OC for listed species is also met or exceeded)

.- Page 46 of 74

- Table 4. 8 . Screening

- level Dietary

- based Chronic RQs for Mammals from Labeled Uses of TCVP (T

- REX v. 1.5). Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Arthropods

Use(s) 

Kennels 0.79 0.36 0.45 0.05 0.31

Residual Uses 1 3.34 1.53 1.88 0.21 1.31

Poultry Droppings 2 8.35 3.83 4.7 0.52 3.27

1 Residual surfaces include: barns, farm buildings, around garbage dumps and corrals.

2 Poultry droppings include: p oultry droppings, manure piles, garbage piles.
Bolded RQ values exceed the chronic mammalian LOC for chronic risk (1).- Page 47 of 74

- Table 4. 9

. RQs for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants Adjacent to TCVP Use Areas (Ground Spray)

.

Crop Single Max. Application
Rate (lbs ai /A) Monocot RQ Values Dicot RQ Values

Runoff ( Dry Areas ) Runoff ( Semi

- Aquatic Areas ) Runoff ( Dry Areas ) Runoff ( Semi

- Aquatic Areas ) 1

Nonlisted

Species Listed Species Nonlisted Species Listed Species Nonlisted Species Listed Species Nonlisted Species Listed Species

Kennels 3.3

N/A <0.1

N/A N/A

N/A <0.1

N/A <0.1

Residual
Surfaces 13.9 <0.1 N/A <0.1 <0.1

Poultry Droppings 34.8 <0.1 N/A <0.1 <0.1

Soil
Amendment 0.046 <0.1 N/A <0.1 <0.1

1 As applications to kennels, residual surfaces, and poultry droppings are spot treatments, the application rates for runoff fr om semi

- aquatic areas is proportioned, as in the aquatic modeling to 0.38, 0.39, and 0.8 lbs a.i./A, respectively, to account for the 10:1 watershed ratio used in the semi

- aquatic model. Runoff RQ values for nontarget monocot plants are based on the NOAEC of 5.7 lbs a

. i

. /A from the vegetative vigor study

. Runoff RQ values for nontarget dicot plants are b ased on the NOAEC of 6.09
lbs a

. i

. /A from the seedling emergence study

.- Page 48 of 74

- 

### 4. 2

. Risk Description

This screening

- level ass essment of the labeled uses of TCVP relies on the deterministic RQ method to provide a metric of potential risks. RQ values for freshwater aquatic invertebrates exposed to TCVP on an acute and chronic basis exceed LOCs for listed and non

- listed species ( Table 4.2 ).

For terrestrial organisms exposed to TCVP, screening

- level chronic RQ values for the uses of
TCVP excee d the LOC for chronic risk to listed and non

- listed birds ( Table 4.6 ). Screening

- level acute RQs for mammals for the uses of TCVP in kennels and on residual surfaces, poultry droppings, garbage dumps, corrals and manure piles exceed the acute risk to liste d and non

- listed species ( Table 4.7 ). Finally, screening

- level RQ values for chronic exposures to listed and non

listed mammals exceeded the LOC for chronic risk for residual uses and the use on poultry droppings ( Table 4.8 ). Risks to all other organisms did not exceed LOCs.

4. 2 .1. Risks to Aquatic Organisms

4. 2 .1.1. Freshwater Fish , Amphibians, and Invertebrates

TCVP is characterized as highly toxic to freshwater fish (and aquatic

- phase amphibians for which fish serve as surrogates) on an acute exposure basis; however, RQ values for freshwater fish are
below the LOCs for both listed and non

- listed species. The RQ values are based on application rates (maximum of 0.4 lbs a.i./A) that have been adjusted based on the assumption that sp ot treatments are not uniform across the entire farm. In order to exceed the acute RQs for listed and

non

- listed species, the application rates would need to be approximately 6.2 and 62 lbs a.i./A, respectively , or 3 and 31 gallons of product per acre, wh ich could treat a maximum area of 1.7 and 17 acres, respectively , if 5 gallons of product is expected to treat a maximum of 2.9 acres (see Appendix H )

. For chronic exposures, the application rate would need to be around 32 lbs a.i./A

, or 16 gallons of product per acre, in order to exceed the listed and non

- listed RQs. This would treat a maximum of 9 acres, assuming 5 gallons of product is expected to treat a maximum of 2.9 acres (see Appendix H ).

On an acute exposure basis, TCVP is very highly toxic t o freshwater invertebrates

. TCVP use in kennels and on residual surfaces, poultry droppings, garbage dumps, corrals and manure piles
exceed s acute risk to listed and non

- listed species LOCs

, and TCVP use as a soil amendment
exceeds the acute risk to liste d species LOC. RQ values for freshwater aquatic invertebrates exposed to TCVP on a chronic basis exceed LOCs for chronic risk to aquatic invertebrates for all of the registered uses. Although this assessment provides a conservative, screening

- level estima te of risk, risk to these organisms is likely given the high acute toxicity of TCVP to freshwater aquatic
invertebrates.

4. 2 .1.2

. Estuarine/Marine Fish and Invertebrates

TCVP is moderately toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute exposure bas is; however,
the LC 50 

### from the acute toxicity study with L

. xanthurus is a non

- definitive value and no chronic toxicity data were available ; therefore, acute RQ values are non

- definitive as well . To characterize the potential for acute risk to estuarine/marine fish from TCVP, the highest peak surface water- Page 49 of 74

- 

### EEC ( 3.45 μg a.i./L) was compared to the non

- definitive acute toxicity endpoint for spot (LC 50 

### >10 00 μ g a.i./L). The EEC is less than 4 % of the non

- definitive LC 50 

### . For aquatic animals, an acute EEC that exceeds 5% of the effects endpoint would exceed the Agency’s acute risk LOC for listed species, and an acute EEC that exceeds 50% of that effects endpoint would exceed the
acute risk LOC for nonl isted species. T herefore, the likelihood for acute mortality of marine/estuarine fish from exposure to TCVP in surface water is considered low

. The acute RQ values are based on application rates (maximum of 0.4 lbs a.i./A) that have been adjusted based

o n the assumption that spot treatments are not uniform across the entire farm. In order to exceed the acute RQs for listed and non

- listed species, the application rates would need to be approximately 12 and 117 lbs a.i./A, respectively , or 5.8 and 58 gallo ns per product per acre, which could treat a maximum of 3.3 and 33 acres, respectively , assuming 5 gallons of product is expected to treat a maximum of 2.9 acres (see Appendix H ).

A lthough TCVP is characterized as highly toxic to estuarine/marine inverteb rates on an acute exposure basis, a cute RQs for marine/estuarine invertebrates exposed to TCVP are below the
LOCs for acute risk to listed and non

- listed species. Therefore, the likelihood of mortality in
marine/estuarine invertebrates from the registered uses of TCVP is considered low. Chronic RQ values for marine/estuarine invertebrates were not calculated as chronic toxicity data were not available. The acute RQ values are based on application rates (maximum of 0.4 lbs a.i./A) that have been adjusted based on the assumption that spot treatments are not uniform across the entire farm. In order to exceed the acute RQs for listed and non

- listed species , the application rates would need to be approximately 3.3 and 33 lbs a.i./A, respectively , or 1.6 and 16 gallons of product per acre, which could treat a maximum of 0.9 and 9 acres, respectively , assuming 5 gallons of product is expected to treat a maximu m of 2.9 acres (see Appendix H )

.

4. 2 .1.3

. Aquatic Plants

Since TCVP is moderately mobile it may reach surface water where aquatic plants could potentially be expos ed

. RQ values though for aquatic vascular and non

- vascular plants exposed to TCVP did not result in exceedances for any of the registered uses. Therefore, the likelihood of
adverse effects on aquatic plants from exposure to TCVP in surface water is considered low.

4. 2 .2. Ris ks to Terrestrial Organisms

4. 2 .2.1. Birds , Reptiles, and Terrestrial

- phase Amphibians

TCVP is characterized as practically non

- toxic to birds on an acute oral exposure basis; however, data are not available to assess the subacute dietary toxicity of TCVP to birds. Screening

- level RQ values for acute exposure s were not calculated in the Ris k Estimation section of this

asses sment b ecause no mortality was observed at the highest treatment levels tested in the avian

acute oral toxicity studies

. T o gain a better understanding of how the EECs for the maximum
TCVP application rate s for the assess ed uses relate to the toxicity data currently available for birds, dietary

- and dose

- based EECs from the T

- REX model we re compared to the highest treatment concentrations in the avian acute toxicity tests, where no mortality was observed.- Page 50 of 74

- 

### T he maximum avia n dose

- based EE C is 3,799 mg a.i. /kg bw (small birds consuming short grass)
for the use on poultry droppings. This EEC is approximately 190% of the maximum dose tested (2,000 mg a.i. /kg bw ) in the acute oral toxicity tests with mallard duck, a lthough no mo rtality was observed in the study (LD 50 

### > 2,000 mg a.i./kg bw).

No mortality was observed in the acute toxicity test for TCVP up to the limit dose (2,000 mg
a.i. /kg

- bw). No ecological incidents with birds, reptiles, or amphibians have been reported (AB C 2007, USEPA 2014). Therefore, risk of acute mortality to birds, reptiles or amphibians from the currently registered uses of TCVP is likely low. Additionally, it is unknown whether passerine species may be more sensitive to TCVP exposure than the malla rd duck; although acute toxicity testing with a passerine species is now required per 40 CFR Part 158.630 (2008), a data call

- in for passerine testing was not issued at the time of Problem Formulation for TCVP.

Screening

- level chronic RQ values for the uses of TCVP in kennels and on residual surfaces, poultry droppings, garbage dum ps, corrals and manure piles and TCVP residues in manure used

as soil amendment exceed the LOC for chronic risk to birds, reptiles, an d terrestrial

- amphibians exposed to TCVP in the diet

. However, as explained earlier in this assessment, the T

- REX model was used to estimate exposure and risk from TCVP uses. While T

- REX is designed to provide screening level estimates of exposure from lar ge scale pesticide applications to crop fields, it is not ideal for assessing exposure from spot treatment uses, such as is the case with TCVP uses. Further, T

- REX assumes that 100% of an animal’s diet comes from food items obtained from within the large treated area, while spot treatments generally treat much smaller areas. These uncertainties are important considerations for understanding potential terrestrial exposure from
TCVP. The T

- REX default foliar dissipation half

- life of 35 days was used.

Given the non

- standard use patterns assessed herein, it is uncertain to what extent the T

- REX model exposure estimates reflect actual exposure to birds (and reptiles, and terrestrial amphibians for which birds are surrogate species) who may feed on plant f ood items near treated TCVP use
sites.

4. 2 .2.2. Mammals

TCVP is characterized as moderately toxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis. Screening

- level a cute RQs for mammals for the uses of TCVP in kennels and on residual surfaces, poultry dropp ings, garbage dumps, corrals and manure piles exceed the acute listed and non

- listed
LOC s

. Screening

- level RQ values for chronic exposure s also exceeded the LOC for listed and

non

- listed mammals for the residual uses and for use on poultry droppings. Howe ver, as explained earlier in this assessment, the T

- REX model was used to estimate exposure and risk from TCVP
uses. Given the non

- standard use patterns assessed herein, it is uncertain to what extent the T

- REX model exposure estimates reflect actual expos ure to mammals who may feed on plant food items
near treated TCVP use sites.- Page 51 of 74

- 

### 4. 2 .2.3. Terrestrial Invertebrates

RQs for terrestrial invertebrates were not calculated. While TCVP is classified as highly toxic to adult honey bees, the use pattern for TCVP (application to manure piles, poultry droppings, etc .) is likely to preclude exposure to honey bees

. However, t he re i s uncertainty regarding the effect of treated manure on fields where ground

- nesting solitary and social bees may be located.

4. 2 .2.4. Terrestrial Plants

RQs for terrestrial plants exposed to TCVP did not result in exceedances for any of the register ed uses. Therefore, the potential risk to terrestrial plants from exposure to TCVP in runoff is
considered low.



## 5. 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 general or systemic toxicity. These studies include endpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influence, 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, developmental and reproductive effects in different taxonomic groups. As part of this preliminary risk assessment,

EP A reviewed these data and selected the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment scenarios from the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p)

, TCVP is subject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disrup tor Screening Program (EDSP).

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whether certain 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 effects as the Administrator may designate.” The EDSP employs a two

- tiered approach to making the statutorily required determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a
chemical sub stance 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 interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDS P where EPA will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2 testing is designed to identify any adverse endocrine

- related effects caused by the substance, and establish
a dose

- response relationship betwee n 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 ingredi ents. A second list of chemicals- Page 52 of 74

- 

### identified for EDSP screening was published on June 14, 2013 [1] and includes some pesticides scheduled for registration review and chemicals found in water

. Neither of these lists should be
construed as a list of known or l ikely endocrine disruptors. TCVP is not on List 1. For further information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the lists of chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and Tier 1 screening battery, please visit EPA’s EDSP website [2]

.



## 6

. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of Concern

Consistent with the Agency’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Agency will evaluate risks to listed species from registered uses of pesticides in R egistration

R ev iew . The process for evaluating potential risks to listed species is further described at http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/litstatus/riskasses.htm

.

6

. 1

. Taxonomic Groups Pote ntially at Risk

Based on this screening

- level assessment, there are potential risks of direct effects to listed freshwater invertebrates, birds, reptiles, terrestrial

- phase amphi bi ans and mammals from the use
of TCVP on some of its registered use sites. Listed species of all taxa may also be affected through indirect effects because of the potential direct effects on listed and non

- listed species. Potential
direct effects on listed freshwater invertebrates, birds, r eptiles, terrestrial

- phase amphi bi ans and
mammals from the use of TCVP may be associated with modification of P rimary C onstituent

E lements (PCEs) of designated critical habitats, where such designations have been made. However, a t this current stage of the Registration Review process, it is premature to make effects determinations for listed species until further scientific analysis and refinements are conducted

, based on recommendations received from the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) National

Researc h Council (NRC) April 2013 report, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18344 . The NAS report outlines recommendations on specific scientific and technical issues related to t he development of pesticide risk assessments that are compliant with the ESA and FIFRA.

The EPA along with the USFWS, the NMFS (collectively, the Services), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), released a summary of their implementation plan for assessing risks of pesticides to listed species ahead of the stakeholder workshop held on November 15, 2013. This plan was developed in response to the NAS’ recommendations, including a common approach to risk assessment as a way of addressing scientific differences between EPA and the Services. During the workshop, the agencies received feedback from the public on the interim scientific approaches that were developed as part of the initial implementation of the NAS recommendations. These approaches wil l be jointly implemented and vetted as part of a phased iterative process. Once fully vetted, EPA will further refine the listed species effects determination portion of this
risk assessment.

[1] See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2009

- 0477

- 0074 for the final second list
of chemicals. [2] Available: http://www.epa.gov/endo/- Page 53 of 74

- 

### To make effects determinations for individual listed species , useful refinements may include, but are not limited to, analyses of: 1) more detailed, species

- specific ecological and biological data; 2)
more detailed and accurate information on TCVP use patterns; and 3) sub

- county level spatial proximity data for the co

- occurrence of potential effects areas and listed species and any designated critical habitat. Examples of such refinements are described below.

EFED is currently developing tools that are expected to further refine the assessment and are designed to support effects determinations for individual federally listed species and their designated critical habitats (where applicable). Scientific information obtained from the Services

, and other reliable sources is being collated by EFED to address all curren tly listed species. Th is
information is be ing stored in an OPP P esticide R egistration I nformation S yste M (PRISM) listed species knowledgebase. The listed species knowledgebase consist s of an information repository that houses biological and behavioral information relevant to individual species ( e.g. , habitat, diet, and life history, including specific temporal and spatial associations) and a document repository that contains supporting documents ( e.g ., USFWS recovery plans) and electronic information ( e.g ., GIS data files). For terrestrial taxa, biological information relevant to the assessment ( e.g ., diet and body weight) will be used to parameterize exposure estimates using a method c onsistent with currently used methods in the T

- REX and T

- HERPS models.

Refinements will also include more detailed analyses of the registered uses and specific use patterns that result in either “Likely to Adversely Affect” (LAA) or “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) determinations for federally listed species. The analyses may include more information on where, when, and how TCVP is used on all use sites

. Actual usage data (when

av ailable) and national land

- cover datasets that indicate potential use sites [ e.g ., N ational L and
C over D ataset (NLCD), C rop land D ata L ayer (CDL)] may be used to support a more refined analysis of where TCVP is reasonably expected to be used. Similarly, re finements on the timing of applications and a more in

- depth exploration of agronomic practices for TCVP may be included as part of the refinement.

The refinements based on individual species data; additional, detailed usage information, when available; an d recommendations from the NRC report are expected to help to more accurately identify potential areas of effect and to better inform effects and habitat determinations for listed species and a ny designated critical habitats.

Table 6. 1 . Preliminary Conclusions for Potential Direct Effects to Federally Listed Taxa Associated with the Registered Uses of TCVP , Based on Best Available Data

.

Listed Plant Taxon Potential Direct Effects

Terrestrial and semi

- aquatic plants

– monocots and dicots No

Aquatic vascular plants No

Terrestrial Plants No- Page 54 of 74

- Listed Plant Taxon Potential Direct Effects

Listed Animal Taxon Potential Direct Effects

Acute Notes Chronic Notes

Terrestrial invertebrates No Highly toxic to honeybees Uncertain No data on chronic exposure to honeybees

Mammals Yes Exceeds acute
LOC Yes Exceeds chronic
LOC

Birds

No No effects Yes All uses except
soil amendment Reptiles

Amphibians

Freshwater fish No No exceedances No No exceedances

Freshwater invertebrates Yes Exceeds LOC Yes Exceeds LOCs

Molluscs Yes No exceedances No data

Estuarine/marine fish No No exceedances No No exceedances

Estuarine/marine invertebrates Yes No exceedances No data

ND Not determined.- Page 55 of 74

- 

## 7

. Conclusions

The risk hypothesis identified in the problem formulation stated , “Given the uses of TCVP and its environmental fate properties, there is a likelihood of acute and chronic exposure to non

- target aquatic organisms. Therefore, when used in accordance with the label, TCVP may result in adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of non

- target aquatic plants and
animals.” After reviewing the most recent environmental fate and effects data for TCVP , the screening

- level assessment concludes that registered uses of the insectici de TCVP may result in
risk s to both listed and non

- listed species of wildlife ; however, direct effects on aquatic organisms
are limited to freshwater invertebrates

.

TCVP is expected to be slightly to moderately mobile in the environment, and its primary route of degradation is expect ed to be aerobic soil metabolism. The compound is not volatile, but is likely
to move off

- site via a combination of runoff and leaching. TCVP that enters surface waters is expected to degrade via hydrolyis. As TCVP is expected to be slightly to moderately mobile, significant partitioning of TCVP to benthic sediments in most aquatic habitats is not expected. Instead, TCVP is likely to remain primarily in the water column, where dilution and degradation
act to decrease concentrations o ver time.

When estimates of TCVP exposure in aquatic environments are compared to the available ecotoxicity data, the results of the screening

- level assessment indicate a potential for acute and
chronic risk to listed and non

- listed species of freshwater aquatic invertebrates

. Although mortality was not observed in the acute avian studies, acute risks to birds could not be precluded, as the EECs exceeded the highest dose tested. Screening

- level chronic RQ values for the uses of
TCVP exceed the LOC for c hronic risk to birds, reptiles, and terrestrial

- phase amphibians exposed

to TCVP in the diet

. R esults of the screening

- level assessment indicate a potential for acute risk to
listed and non

- listed species mammals. Chronic risk to mammals are also anticipat ed, as the screening

- level assessment indicates a potential for chronic risk to listed and non

- listed mammals
for some of the uses.



## 8

. References

American Bird Conservancy (ABC). 20 1 0 . Avian Incident Monitoring System. Available online

at http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/toxins/aims/aims/login.cfm.

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 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.

Hoerger, F., and E.E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues 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.

Kashuba, R., Spatz, D. 2006 Memorandum to Steven Bradbury, Subject: Standard Soil Mobility
Classification Guidan ce- Page 56 of 74

- 

### Stichler, C.; McFarland, M. 2001. Crop Nutrient Needs in South and Southwest Texas. Texas A&M University, Texas Agricultural Extension Service. (http://publications.tamu.edu/SOIL_CONSERVATION_NUTRIENTS/PUB_soil_Crop% 20Nutrient%20Needs.pdf)

Urban, D.J., and N. Cook. 1986. Ecological Risk Assessment . EPA 540/9

– 85

- 001. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. Part 651, Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. USDA. Natural Resources Conservation Service. July 2009

.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Ecological Incident Information System, v. 2.1 . Accessed on 7 November 2012. Description online at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm

.

-- 2009a. Pesticides; Data Requirements for Conventional Chemicals, Technical Amendments, and Data Requirements for Biochemical and Microbial Pesticides; Final Rule. FR 72(207):60933

- 60988.

-- 2009 b . Water models. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/

.

-- 2009 c . ECOTOXicology Database, v. 4.0. Accessed on 12 April 2012 . Ava ilable online at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/

.

-- 2009d . Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides, Version 2.1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, October 22, 2009. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm

-- 2008 a

. Registration Review

– Preliminary Problem Formulation for the Ecological Risk
Assessment of TCVP

- ammonium. Office of Pesticide Programs. Environmental Fate and
Effects Division. 5 J une 2008. DP Barcode 346879

.

-- 2008b. Alsadek, J. Tetrachlorvinphos (Z

- isomer) Usage on Livestock, 1997

- 2006. U.S.
Environmental P rotection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Biological and Economic Analysis Division. January 23, 2008

-- 2006a , TerrPlant v. 1.2.2 User’s Guide. Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Washington, D.C. December 26, 2006.

-- 2006b . Interim Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision and Reregistration Eligibility Decision Addenda for Tetrachlorvinphos, Case 0321. September, 2002.

-- 2004

. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs,- Page 57 of 74

- 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Endangered and Threatened Species Effects Determinations. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pest icide Programs, Washington, D.C. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/consultation/ecorisk

- overview.pdf

.

-- 2003. SCIGROW: Users Manual. Online a t: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/#scigrow

-- 2000. Kiely, T. Quantitative Usage Analysis for Tetrachlorvinphos. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Pro grams, Biological and Economic Analysis Division. May 12, 2000

-- 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R

- 95/002F. Published in 63 FR 26846; May 14, 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. April,
1998.

-- 1993a . Abbotts, J. Results of the HED Metabolism Committee Meeting Held on 9/8/93: Tetrachlorvinphos Metabolism in Animals. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Memorandum to HED Metabolism Committee, Hea lth Effects Division.

-- 1993 b . Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/R

- 13/187a. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.

-- 1992. Pesticides in Ground Water Database: A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971

- 1991: National Summary. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Willis, G.H. and L.L. McDowell. 1987. Pesticide persistence on foliage. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 100: 23

- 73.

8 .1

. Submitted Product Chemistry and Environmental Fate S tudies

MRID 00077821 Beynon, K.I., A.N. Wright. 1968. The Breakdown of the Insecticide Gardona (SD 8447,2

- Chloro

1

- (2',4',5'

- trichloropheny1)

- v inyl Dimethyl Phosphate) on Plants and in Soils. WP

- 193

- 68. Unpublished study received Aug 17, 1968 under 9F0739; submit

- ted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; CDL:091273

- F.

MRID 41222503 Silveira, E. 1989. Technical Rabon Insecticide: Physical and Chemical Characteristics. Project ID Y2033.B. Unpublished study prepared by Du Pont de Nemours and Co. 6 5 p.

MRID 41681301 Blumhorst, M. 1990. Adsorption/Desorption Studies

- Batch Equilibrium for Rabon. Lab Project
Number: 149

- 001. Unpublished study prepared by EPL Bio

- Analytical Services, Inc. 119 p.- Page 58 of 74

- 

### MRID 41929101 Blumhorst, M. 1991. Aqueous Hydrolysis of Rabon. Lab Project Number: 149

- 003. Unpublished study prepared by EPL Bio

- Analytical Services, Inc. 88 p.

MRID 42082401 Blumhorst, M. 1991. Aerobic Soil Metabolism Study of Rabon. Lab Project Number: 149

- 002. Unpublished study prepared by EPL Bio

- Analyt ical Services, Inc. 190 p.

MRID 42848501 Krautter, G. 1993. The Dissipation of (carbon 14)Tetrachlorvinphos and Its Metabolites in Manure from a Beef Cow Following Oral Administration for 14 Consecutive Days. Lab Project Number: 71 0: 1520. Unpublished st udy prepared by PTRL East, Inc. 101 p.

MRID 43663501 Blurnhorst, M. 1995. Aqueous Hydrolysis of Rabon: Supplement No. 1. Lab Project Number: 149

- 003. Unpublished study prepared by EPL Bio

- Analytical Services, Inc. 70 p.

MRID 48879901 Turk, R. (2012) [Ca rbon 14]Tetrachlorvinphos

- Soil Transformation Study Under Aerobic Conditions Following OPPTS Guideline 835.4100 and OECD Guideline 307. Project Number: 14020/6100, 110923/01/TCVPTF, 110923/A/TCVPTF. Unpublished study prepared by Smithers
Viscient Laborat ories. 81p.

MRID 48956301 Dias, N. (2012) Dissipation of Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) and its Metabolites in Manure from Beef Cattle Following Oral Administration for 14 Consecutive Days: Final Report. Project Number: 120911/01/KMG UBL0001. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 151p.

8 .2. Submitted Ecotoxicity Studies

MRID: 48951301 Stafford, J. (2012) Tetrachlorvinphos: Reproductive Toxicity Test with the Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). Project Number: 14020/4102, 110802/01/TCVPTF, 110802/A/TCVPTF. Unpublished study prepared by Smithers Viscient. 360p.

MRID: 48952701 Stafford, J. (2012) Tetrachlorvinphos: Reproductive Toxicity Test with the Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). Project Number: 14020/4101, 110802/02/TCVPTF, 11 0802/B/TCVPTF. Unpublished study prepared by Smithers Viscient. 360p.

MRID: 48728101 Porch, J.; Krueger, H.; Martin, K. (2012) Rabon WP: A Tier I Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the Test Substance on Seedling Emergence of Ten Species of Plant s: Final Report. Project Number: 699/101A, 111027/01/TCVPTF, 111027/A/TCVPTF. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 68p.- Page 59 of 74

- 

### MRID: 48719901 Porch, J.; Krueger, H.; Martin, K. (2012) Rabon WP: A Tier I Toxicity Test to Determine the
Ef fects of the Test Substance on Vegetative Vigor of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report. Project Number: 699/102, 111/27/02/TCVPTF, 111027/B/TCVPTF. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 70p.

MRID: 48792401 Dobbins, L.; Kendall, T.; Porch, J. (2012) Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP): A 7

- Day Static

- Renewal Toxicity Test with Duckweed (Lemna gibba G3) Tier II: Final Report. Project Number: 699P/101, 120201/01/TCVPTF, 120201/A/TCVPTF. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International,

L td. 64p.

MRID: 48654101 Arnie, J.; Porch, J.; Kendall, T. et al. (2011) Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP): A 96

- Hour Toxicity Test with the Freshwater Alga (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata): Final Report. Project Number: 699A/104, 111012/01/TCVPTF, 111012/A/TCVP TF. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 61p.

MRID: 48688401 Schneider, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2011) Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP): Amphibian Metamorphosis Assay for the Detection of Thyroid Active Substances: Final Report. Proje ct Number: 699A/102, 110727/01/TCVPTF, 110727/A/TCVPTF. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 151p.

MRID: 48838201 Schneider, S.; Martin, K.; Kendall, T.; et al. (2012) Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP): Fish Short

- Term Reproduction Assay w ith the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas): Final Report. Project Number: 699A/101, 110701/01/TCVPTF, 110701/A/TCVPTF. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 171p.- Page 60 of 74

- 

### Appendix A . Chemical Names and Structures of TCVP and its Degradates

Chemical Name Structure Physical/Chemical Properties 1 Presence in Fate
Studies
Tetrachlorvinphos

IUPAC: ( Z )

- 2

- chloro

- 1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)vinyl dimethyl phosphate

CAS: ( 1Z )

- 2

- chloro

- 1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)ethenyl dimethyl phosphate

CAS Reg. No. 22248

- 79

- 9

COP(=O)(OC)OC(=CCl)c1cc(Cl)c(Cl)cc1Cl O

O P O

O Cl

Cl

Cl Cl MW: 365.96 g/mol
VP: 2.6E

- 07 torr Solubility: 11.6 mg/L Log Kow: 3.53
Koc: 520

- 1100 L/kg oc LC 50 (fish): 2.31 mg/L
LC 50 (daphnid): 0.004 mg/L Chronic (fish): 0.011 mg/L Chronic (daphnid): 0.11 mg/L

Des

- O

- methyl tetrachlorvinphos

IUPAC: ( Z )

- 2

- chloro

- 1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)vinyl methyl phosphate

CAS: ( 1Z )

- 2

- chloro

- 1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)ethenyl methyl phosphate

COP(=O)(O)OC(=CCl)c1cc(Cl)c(Cl)cc1Cl O

O P O

O H Cl

Cl

Cl Cl MW: 351.94 g/mol
VP: 4.27E

- 08 torr Solubility: 3.768 mg/L Log Kow: 3.75
Koc: 702

- 827 L/kg oc LC 50 (fish): 1.75 mg/L
LC 50 (daphnid): 1.60 mg/L Chronic (fish): 0.23 mg/L Chronic (daphnid): 0.09 mg/L Hydrolysis: 28%, pH 9 (MRID 41929101)
Aerobic soil: 3% (MRID 00077821)

1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)ethanediol

C(O)(CO)c1cc(Cl)c(Cl)cc1Cl O H Cl

Cl Cl O H MW: 241.5 g/mol
VP: 4.37E

- 06 torr Solubility: 250 mg/L Log Kow: 2.37
Koc: 29

- 36 L/kg oc LC 50 (fish): 34.5 mg/L
LC 50 (daphnid): 28.3 mg/L Chronic (fish): 3.31 mg/L Chronic (daphnid): 5.16 mg/L Aerobic soil: 0.7% (MRID 00077821)

TCPEol (SD 15509, AA849)

1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)ethanol

1

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)ethan

- 1

- ol

CC(O)c1cc(Cl)c(Cl)cc1Cl O H Cl

Cl Cl MW: 225.5 g/mol
VP: 2.37E

- 04 torr Solubility: 123 mg/L Log Kow: 3.43
Koc: 319

- 359 L/kg oc LC 50 (fish): 4.33 mg/L
LC 50 (daphnid): 3.85 mg/L Chronic (fish): 0.52 mg/L Chronic (daphnid): 0.0.92 mg/L Aerobic soil: 25% (MRID 00077821)
Aerobic soil: 31.1% (MRID 42082401)
Aerobic soil: 40.8% (MRID 48879901)
Manure: 69.2 % (MRID 42848501) Manure: 11.8 ppm (MRID 48956301)

TCPEone (CO300)

2,4,5

- trichloroacetophenone

CC(=O)c1cc(Cl)c(Cl)cc1Cl O Cl

Cl Cl MW: 223.5 g/mol
VP: 6.32E

- 03 torr Solubility: 27.4 mg/L Log Kow: 3.61
Koc: 492

- 1,828 L/kg oc LC 50 (fish): 6.58 mg/L
LC 50 (daphnid): 4.33 mg/L Chronic (fish): 0.77 mg/L
Chronic (daphnid): 0.64 mg/L Aerobic soil: 11% (MRID 00077821)
Aerobic soil: 51.4% (MRID 42082401)
Aerobic soil: 23.2% (MRID 48879901) Manure: 2.00 ppm (MRID 48956301)- Page 61 of 74

- Chemical Name Structure Physical/Chemical Properties 1 Presence in Fate
Studies

TCCEol (SD15125, AA576)

l

- (2,4,5

- trichlorophenyl)

- 2

- chloroethanol

C(Cl)C(O)c1cc(Cl)c(Cl)cc1Cl MW: 260 g/mol
VP: 2.11E

- 05 torr Solubility: 250 mg/L Log Kow: 3.68
Koc: 494

- 608 L/kg oc LC 50 (fish): 2.61 mg/L
LC 50 (daphnid): 2.36 mg/L Chronic (fish): 0.26 mg/L Chronic (daphnid): 0.42 mg/L Aerobic soil: 37% (MRID 00077821)
Aerobic soil: 14.3% (MRID 42082401)
Aerobic soil: 51% (MRID 48879901)
Manure: 7.1% (MRID 42848501) Manure: 0.75 ppm (MRID 48956301)

TCBA (SD 15917)

2,4,5

- Trichlorobenzoic acid

C(=O)(O)c1cc(Cl)c(Cl)cc1Cl MW: 225.5 g/mol
VP: 5.52E

- 04 torr Solubility: 35.3 mg/L Log Kow: 3.47

Koc: 157

- 166 L/kg oc LC 50 (fish): 88.6 mg/L
LC 50 (daphnid): 57.6 mg/L Chronic (fish): 10.2 mg/L Chronic (daphnid): 8.2 mg/L Aerobic soil: 18.5% (MRID 42082401)
Aerobic soil: 31.8% (MRID 48879901)
Manure: 12.1% (MRID 42848501) Manure: 2.57 ppm (MRID 48956301)- Page 62 of 74

- 

### Appendix B

. SWCC Sample Input/Output Data

Kennel

**Variable Volume Water Model, SWCC Compatible Version**

***********************************************
**Performed on: 9/18/2014 at 13: 6**

**Peak 1**

**- in** 

**- 10 = 1.68 ppb** 
**Chronic 1**

**- in** 

**- 10 = 0.120**  **ppb Simulation Avg = 0.442E** 

**- 01 ppb** 

**4**

**- day avg 1** 

**- in** 

**- 10 = 1.56 ppb** 

**21**

**- day avg 1** 

**- in** 

**- 10 = 1.11 ppb** 

**60**

**- day avg 1** 

**- in** 

**- 10 = 0.581 ppb** 

**90**

**- day avg 1** 

**- in** 

**- 10 = 0.423 ppb** 

**Benthic Pore Water Peak 1**

**- in** 

**- 10 = 0.357 ppb** 
**Benthic Pore Water 21** 

**- day avg 1** 

**- in** 

**- 10 = 0.352 ppb** 
**Benthic Conversion Factor = 35.3**

**- Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry**  **sed mass,kg)**
**Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.105E**

**- 01** 

**YEAR Peak 4**

**- day 21** 

**- day 60** 

**- day 9**  **0**

**- day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21** 

**- day** 

**1 5.51E**

**- 02 4.90E** 

**- 02 3.23E** 

**- 02 1.82E** 

**- 02 1.33E** 

**- 02 3.92E** 

**- 03 1.16E** 

**- 02 1.14E** 

**- 02** 

**2 2.77E**

**- 01 2.51E** 

**- 01 1.69E** 

**- 01 1.16E** 

**- 01 9.16E** 

**- 02 2.68E** 

**- 02 6.99E** 

**- 02 6.89E** 

**- 02** 

**3 2.02E+00 1.79E+ 00 1.16E+00 5.93E** 

**- 01 4.29E** 

**- 01 1.21E** 

**- 01 3.64E** 

**- 01 3.59E** 

**- 01** 

**4 7.23E**

**- 02 6.43E** 

**- 02 4.25E** 

**- 02 2.98E** 

**- 02 2.63E** 

**- 02 1.04E** 

**- 02 2.70E** 

**- 02 2.97E** 

**- 02** 

**5 2.34E**

**- 01 2.13E** 

**- 01 1.57E** 

**- 01 9.47E** 

**- 02 7.08E** 

**- 02 2.12E** 

**- 02 6.21E** 

**- 02 6.11E** 

**- 02** 

**6 3.36E**

**- 01 2.99E** 

**- 01 2.11E** 

**- 01 1.15E** 

**- 01 8.43E** 

**- 02 2.47E** 

**- 02 7.26E** 

**- 02 7.16E** 

**- 02** 

**7 3.25E**

**- 01 3.02E** 

**- 01 2.29E** 

**- 01 1.32E** 

**- 01 9.69E** 

**- 02 2.82E** 

**- 02 7.92E** 

**- 02 7.85E** 

**- 02** 

**8 1.85E**

**- 01 1.64E** 

**- 01 1.27E** 

**- 01 7.85E** 

**- 02 6.17E** 

**- 02 1.91E** 

**- 02 5.36E** 

**- 02 5.28E** 

**- 02** 

**9 1.16E+00 1.04E+00 6.98E**

**- 01 4.72E** 

**- 01 3.60E** 

**- 01 1.06E** 

**- 01 2.95E** 

**- 01 2.91E** 

**- 01** 

**10 2.83E**

**- 01 2.49E** 

**- 01 1.71E** 

**- 01 9.02E** 

**- 02 6.54E** 

**- 02 2.14E** 

**- 02**  **6.04E**

**- 02 5.95E** 

**- 02** 

**11 1.15E**

**- 01 1.03E** 

**- 01 6.71E** 

**- 02 3.53E** 

**- 02 2.64E** 

**- 02 8.22E** 

**- 03 2.26E** 

**- 02 2.23E** 

**- 02** 

**12 4.77E**

**- 01 4.20E** 

**- 01 2.93E** 

**- 01 1.53E** 

**- 01 1.11E** 

**- 01 3.17E** 

**- 02 9.46E** 

**- 02 9.32E** 

**- 02** 

**13 2.82E**

**- 01 2.53E** 

**- 01 1.75E** 

**- 01 1.47E** 

**- 0**  **1 1.12E**

**- 01 3.37E** 

**- 02 9.17E** 

**- 02 9.05E** 

**- 02** 

**14 4.35E**

**- 01 3.88E** 

**- 01 2.65E** 

**- 01 1.90E** 

**- 01 1.51E** 

**- 01 4.52E** 

**- 02 1.15E** 

**- 01 1.13E** 

**- 01** 

**15 5.34E**

**- 01 4.77E** 

**- 01 3.09E** 

**- 01 1.85E** 

**- 01 1.36E** 

**- 01 3.98E** 

**- 02 1.11E** 

**- 01 1.10E** 

**- 01** 

**16 1.13E+00 1.02E+ 00 6.84E** 

**- 01 4.35E** 

**- 01 3.25E** 

**- 01 9.57E** 

**- 02 2.70E** 

**- 01 2.66E** 

**- 01** 

**17 8.80E**

**- 01 7.95E** 

**- 01 5.75E** 

**- 01 3.06E** 

**- 01 2.34E** 

**- 01 7.06E** 

**- 02 2.05E** 

**- 01 2.02E** 

**- 01** 

**18 4.25E**

**- 01 3.78E** 

**- 01 2.47E** 

**- 01 1.85E** 

**- 01 1.39E** 

**- 01 4.14E** 

**- 02 1.12E** 

**- 01 1.12E** 

**- 01** 

**19 4.77E**

**- 01 4.28E** 

**- 01 3.40E** 

**- 01 2.12E** 

**- 01 1.79E** 

**- 01 5.46E** 

**- 02 1.26E** 

**- 01 1.24E** 

**- 01** 

**20 2.89E+00 2.58E+00 1.70E+00 9.34E**

**- 01 6.88E** 

**- 01 1.96E** 

**- 01 5.50E** 

**- 01 5.43E** 

**- 01** 

**21 1.78E**

**- 01 1.57E** 

**- 01 1.10E** 

**- 01 6.82E** 

**- 02 5.09E** 

**- 02 1.88E** 

**- 02**  **4.87E**

**- 02 4.79E** 

**- 02** 

**22 4.74E**

**- 01 4.26E** 

**- 01 2.83E** 

**- 01 1.80E** 

**- 01 1.35E** 

**- 01 4.16E** 

**- 02 1.18E** 

**- 01 1.16E** 

**- 01** 

**23 1.74E+00 1.61E+00 1.20E+00 6.68E**

**- 01 5.03E** 

**- 01 1.46E** 

**- 01 3.93E** 

**- 01 3.89E** 

**- 01** 

**24 1.44E**

**- 02 1.44E** 

**- 02 1.51E** 

**- 02 1.74E** 

**- 02**  **1.98E**

**- 02 4.11E** 

**- 03 3.16E** 

**- 02 3.48E** 

**- 02** 

**25 7.78E**

**- 02 6.93E** 

**- 02 4.55E** 

**- 02 2.53E** 

**- 02 2.10E** 

**- 02 6.27E** 

**- 03 1.45E** 

**- 02 1.43E** 

**- 02** 

**26 3.27E**

**- 01 2.89E** 

**- 01 2.48E** 

**- 01 1.39E** 

**- 01 1.01E** 

**- 01 2.86E** 

**- 02 8.58E** 

**- 02 8.46E** 

**- 02** 

**27 9.59E**

**- 02 8.42E** 

**- 02 6.60E** 

**- 02 3.48E** 

**- 02 2.53E** 

**- 02 8.30E** 

**- 03 2.36E** 

**- 02 2.32E** 

**- 02** 

**28 5.14E**

**- 02 4.58E** 

**- 02 3.37E** 

**- 02 3.15E** 

**- 02 2.57E** 

**- 02 7.89E** 

**- 03 2.07E** 

**- 02 2.04E** 

**- 02** 

**29 2.84E**

**- 01 2.54E** 

**- 01 1.71E** 

**- 01 1.46E** 

**- 01 1.15E** 

**- 01 3.46E** 

**- 02**  **9.04E**

**- 02 8.90E** 

**- 02** 

**30 3.82E**

**- 01 3.39E** 

**- 01 2.64E** 

**- 01 1.43E** 

**- 01 1.03E** 

**- 01 2.97E** 

**- 02 8.88E** 

**- 02 8.75E** 

**- 02** 

****************************************************************************************************- Page 63 of 74

- Corn Scenario

Variable Volume Water Model, SWCC Compatible Version

*******************************************
Performed on: 8/17/2014 at 12:38

Peak 1

- in

- 10 = 0.648 ppb
Chronic 1

- in

- 10 = 0.327E

- 01 ppb Simulation Avg = 0.137E

- 01 ppb

4

- day avg 1

- in

- 10 = 0.583 p pb

21

- day avg 1

- in

- 10 = 0.440 ppb

60

- day avg 1

- in

- 10 = 0.254 ppb

90

- day avg 1

- in

- 10 = 0.190 ppb

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1

- in

- 10 = 0.162 ppb
Benthic Pore Water 21

- day avg 1

- in

- 10 = 0.160 ppb
Benthic Conversion Factor = 35.3

- Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg)
Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.105E

- 01

YEAR Peak 4

- day 21

- day 60

- day 90

- day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21

- day

1 2.55E

- 02 2.29E

- 02 1 .26E

- 02 4.42E

- 03 2.95E

- 03 7.59E

- 04 4.03E

- 03 1.85E

- 03

2 3.78E

- 01 3.39E

- 01 2.40E

- 01 1.10E

- 01 7.35E

- 02 1.97E

- 02 9.32E

- 02 7.67E

- 02

3 1.44E

- 01 1.50E

- 01 1.82E

- 01 1.56E

- 01 1.20E

- 01 2.07E

- 02 9.79E

- 02 9.69E

- 02

4 5.97E

- 02 5.37E

- 02 3.68E

- 02 2.37E

- 02 1.90E

- 02 6.18E

- 03 1.49E

- 02 1.48E

- 02

5 9.36E

- 01 8.36E

- 01 5.62E

- 01 2.38E

- 01 1.59E

- 01 4.63E

- 02 1.94E

- 01 1.72E

- 01

6 2.29E

- 01 2.38E

- 01 3.49E

- 01 3.13E

- 01 2.37E

- 01 3.35E

- 02 1.96 E

- 01 1.94E

- 01

7 2.87E

- 01 2.58E

- 01 1.55E

- 01 5.44E

- 02 3.63E

- 02 1.03E

- 02 4.87E

- 02 2.59E

- 02

8 1.23E

- 01 1.28E

- 01 1.75E

- 01 1.07E

- 01 8.19E

- 02 1.61E

- 02 6.27E

- 02 6.21E

- 02

9 7.14E

- 01 6.43E

- 01 4.54E

- 01 1.83E

- 01 1.2 2E

- 01 3.20E

- 02 1.56E

- 01 1.30E

- 01

10 2.23E

- 01 2.33E

- 01 3.31E

- 01 2.62E

- 01 2.00E

- 01 3.12E

- 02 1.62E

- 01 1.60E

- 01

11 6.77E

- 01 6.11E

- 01 4.50E

- 01 1.93E

- 01 1.29E

- 01 3.28E

- 02 1.56E

- 01 1.34E

- 01

12 1.96E

- 01 2.04E

- 01 3.06E

- 01 2.56E

- 01 1.93E

- 01 2.65E

- 02 1.58E

- 01 1.57E

- 01

13 3.32E

- 02 3.03E

- 02 2.24E

- 02 1.43E

- 02 1.10E

- 02 3.89E

- 03 1.04E

- 02 1.03E

- 02

14 6.18E

- 02 5.58E

- 02 3.83E

- 02 1.39E

- 02 9.33E

- 03 4.49E

- 03 1.23E

- 02 8.89E

- 03

15 1.14E

- 01 1.03E

- 01 3.56E

- 02 2.27E

- 02 1.81E

- 02 5.57E

- 03 1.36E

- 02 1.35E

- 02

16 1.54E

- 01 1.39E

- 01 9.81E

- 02 4.06E

- 02 3.06E

- 02 1.35E

- 02 3.40E

- 02 2.51E

- 02

17 5.82E

- 02 6.07E

- 02 9.21E

- 02 6.01E

- 0 2 4.67E

- 02 7.87E

- 03 3.68E

- 02 3.65E

- 02

18 1.57E

- 01 3.83E

- 02 7.32E

- 03 2.59E

- 03 1.75E

- 03 1.39E

- 03 1.94E

- 03 1.67E

- 03

19 1.49E

- 01 1.42E

- 01 1.06E

- 01 6.25E

- 02 4.75E

- 02 1.77E

- 02 3.71E

- 02 3.68E

- 02

20 8.08E

- 02 8.49E

- 02 7.17E

- 02 5.06E

- 02 3.92E

- 02 9.63E

- 03 3.21E

- 02 3.18E

- 02

21 1.89E

- 02 1.74E

- 02 2.30E

- 02 1.73E

- 02 1.40E

- 02 2.81E

- 03 1.07E

- 02 1.07E

- 02

22 4.89E

- 02 4.39E

- 02 3.38E

- 02 1.49E

- 02 9.97E

- 03 2.67E

- 03 1.22E

- 02 9.91E

- 03

23 3.70E

- 02 3.38E

- 02 2.71E

- 02 2.62E

- 02 2.11E

- 02 4.61E

- 03 1.60E

- 02 1.59E

- 02

24 1.64E

- 01 1.47E

- 01 8.81E

- 02 3.09E

- 02 2.07E

- 02 7.11E

- 03 2.74E

- 02 1.45E

- 02

25 8.20E

- 02 7.88E

- 02 1.02E

- 01 6.03E

- 02 4.58E

- 02 1.13E

- 02 3.59E

- 02 3.56E

- 02

26 2.71E

- 01 2.45E

- 01 1.86E

- 01 6.88E

- 02 4.60E

- 02 1.50E

- 02 5.96E

- 02 3.36E

- 02

27 1.67E

- 01 1.75E

- 01 1.91E

- 01 1.24E

- 01 9.46E

- 02 1.89E

- 02 7.56E

- 02 7.49E

- 02

28 4.00E

- 02 3.59E

- 02 3.34E

- 02 1.92E

- 02 1.46E

- 02 4.47E

- 03 1.29E

- 02 1.27E

- 02

29 1.75E

- 02 1.61E

- 02 2.20E

- 02 1.64E

- 02 1.35E

- 02 2.84E

- 03 1.01E

- 02 9.96E

- 03

30 7.28E

- 03 6.54E

- 03 4.56E

- 03 2.95E

- 03 2.24E

- 03 7.52E

- 04 1.93E

- 03 1.91E

- 03

************************* ******************************************* ****************************- Page 64 of 74

- 

### Appendix C

. Example T

- REX (v. 1.5) Input and Output for TCVP
Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Avian Dose

- Based EECs and Risk Quotients from T

- REX
TCVP

- Application Rate=34.8 lb ai/Acre and HL=13.3 days

Summary of Risk Quotient Calculations Based on Upper Bound Kenaga EECs

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Avian Dose

- Based Risk Quotients

Size
Class (grams) Adjusted
LD50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

20 1038.45 9512.09 9.16 4359.71 4.20 5350.55 5.15 594.51 0.57 3725.57 3.59 132.11 0.13

100 1322.00 5424.20 4.10 2486.09 1.88 3051.11 2.31 339.01 0.26 2124.48 1.61 75.34 0.06

1000 1867.37 2428.49 1.30 1113.06 0.60 1366.02 0.73 151.78 0.08 951.16 0.51 33.73 0.02

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Subacute Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

LC50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

0 8352.00 N/A 3828.00 N/A 4698.00 N/A 522.00 ##### 3271.20 N/A

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

NOAEC (ppm) EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

96 8352.00 87.00 3828.00 39.88 4698.00 48.94 522.00 5.44 3271.20 34.08

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dose

- Based Risk Quotients

Size
Class (grams) Adjusted
LD50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods Granivore- Page 65 of 74

- EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

15 3252.79 7962.99 2.45 3649.70 1.12 4479.18 1.38 497.69 0.15 3118.84 0.9588 110.6 0.034

35 2631.85 5503.49 2.09 2522.43 0.96 3095.71 1.18 343.97 0.13 2155.53 0.819 76.437 0.029

1000 1138.36 1276.00 1.12 584.84 0.51 717.75 0.63 79.75 0.07 499.768 0.439 17.722 0.0156

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

LC50 (ppm) EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

0 8352.00 N/A 3828.00 N/A 4698.00 #DIV/0! 522.00 ##### 3271.20 N/A

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

NOAEC (ppm) EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds/Large
Insects Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

330 8352.00 25.31 3828.00 11.60 4698.00 14.24 522.00 1.58 3271.20 9.91

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dose

- Based Risk Quotients

Size
Class (grams) Adjusted
NOAEL EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

15 0.00 7962.99 N/A 3649.70 N/A 4479.18 ##### 497.69 N/A 3118.84 ##### 110.60 #####

35 0.00 5503.49 N/A 2522.43 N/A 3095.71 ##### 343.97 N/A 2155.53 ##### 76.44 #####

1000 0.00 1276.00 N/A 584.84 N/A 717.75 ##### 79.75 N/A 499.77 ##### 17.72 #####

Broadcast applications

Liquid

Intermediate Calculations

mg ai/ft2: 362.37

LD50 ft

- 2

wgt class (grams)

Avian 20 17.45

100 2.74

1000 0.19

Mammal 15 7.43

35 3.93

1000 0.32- Page 66 of 74

- 

### Appendix D . Example Terrplant (v. 1.2.2) Input and Output for TCVP

TerrPlant v. 1.2.2
Green values signify user inputs (Tables 1, 2 and 4).
Input and output guidance is in popups indicated by red arrows.

Chemical Identity.

Chemical Name TCVP

PC code 83702

Use Poultry Droppings

Application Method Spray

Application Form Spray

Solubility in Water (ppm) 11.6

Input parameters used to derive EECs.

Input Parameter Symbol Value Units

Application Rate A 34.8 lb ai/A

Incorporation I 1 none

Runoff Fraction R 0.02 none

Drift Fraction D 0.01 none

EECs for TCVP. Units in lb ai/A.

Description Equation EEC

Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.696

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 6.96
Spray drift A*D 0.348

Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 1.044

Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 7.308

Seedling Emergence

Plant type EC25 NOAEC EC25

Monocot x x x

Dicot >6.09 x >6.09

Plant Type Listed Status Dry Semi

- Aquatic

Monocot non

- listed #VALUE! #VALUE!

Monocot listed #VALUE! #VALUE!

Dicot non

- listed #VALUE! #VALUE!

Dicot listed #VALUE! #VALUE!- Page 67 of 74

- 

### Appendix E

. STIR Results

.


# Input

Application and Chemical Information

Enter Chemical Name TCVP

Enter Chemical Use insecticide Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) n If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) ground Enter Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mole) 365.96 Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 1.08E

- 08 Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 0.7

Toxicity Properties

**Bird**

Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD 50 (mg/kg bw) 2000 Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15 Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 1.58

**Mammal**

Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD 50 (mg/kg bw) 1480

Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC 50 (mg/L) 3.61 Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4 Enter Rat Weight (kg) 0.35 

# Output

Results Avian (0.020 kg ) Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m 3 ) 2.13E

- 04

Maximum 1

- hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.67E

- 05

Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 1.96E+01

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 1.36E

- 06 Exposure not Likely Significant

Maximum Post

- treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) not applicable Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation
LD 50 not applicable not applicable 

### Results Mammalian (0.015 kg ) Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m 3 ) 2.13E

- 04

Maximum 1

- hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 3.36E

- 05

Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 2.15E+02

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 1.56E

- 07 Exposure not Likely Significant

Maximum Post

- treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) not applicable Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation
LD 50 not applicable not applicable- Page 68 of 74

- 

### Appendix F

. SIP Results

. Table 1. Inputs

Parameter Value

Chemical name
Solubility (in water at 25 o C; mg/L) 11.6

Mammalian LD 50 (mg/kg

- bw) 1480 Mammalian test species laboratory rat Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg

- bw) 0 Mammalian test species Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Avian LD 50 (mg/kg

- bw) 2000 Avian test species mallard duck Body weight (g) of "other" avian species Mineau scaling factor 1.15

Mallard NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) 96 Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) 290

NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) for other bird species Body weight (g) of other avian species NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) for 2nd other bird species Body weight (g) of 2nd other avian species

Table 2. Mammalian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic Upper bound exposure (mg/kg

- bw) 1.9952 1.9952 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg

- bw) 1138.3576 0.0000 Ratio of exposure to toxicity 0.0018 0.0000

Conclusion* Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potential

concern for mammals Due to insufficient data,
risk cannot be precluded

Table 3. Avian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic Upper bound exposure (mg/kg

- bw) 9.3960 9.3960 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg

- bw) 1038.4508 4.7628 Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 0.0090 1.9728

Conclusion* Drinking water exposure
alone is NOT a potential
concern for birds Exposure through drinking water alone is a

potential concern for
birds

*Conclusion is for drinking water exposure alone. This does not combine all routes of exposure. Therefore, when aggregated with other routes ( i.e ., diet, inhalation, dermal), pesticide exposure through drinking water may contribute to a total exposure that has potential for effects to non

- target animals.- Page 69 of 74

- 

### Appendix G. KABAM Results

Estimated concentrations of TCVP in ecosystem components.

Ecosystem Component Total
concentration

(μg/kg

- ww) Lipid
normalized
concentration

(μg/kg

- lipid) Contribution
due to diet (μg/kg

- ww) Contribution
due to respiration (μg/kg

- ww) Water (total)* 2 N/A N/A N/A Water (freely dissolved)* 2 N/A N/A N/A Sediment (pore water)* 0 N/A N/A N/A Sediment (in solid)** 12 N/A N/A N/A Phytoplankton 261 13067 N/A 261.35 Zooplankton 192 6395 0.22 191.65

Benthic Invertebrates 201 6709 0.56 200.71

Filter Feeders 133 6642 0.36 132.49

Small Fish 260 6497 2.29 257.58

Medium Fish 262 6538 4.25 257.26 Large Fish 275 6873 7.62 267.32 * Units: μg/L; **Units: μg/kg

- dw

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Zooplankton Benthic
Invertebrates Filter Feeders Small Fish Medium Fish Large FishConcentration (μg/kg)

Trophic Level

Figure 1. Total pesticide concentration per trophic level Contribution due to respiration (μg/kg-ww)

Contribution due to diet (μg/kg-ww)- Page 70 of 74

- Total BCFand BAF values of TCVP in aquatic trophic levels.

Trophic Level Total BCF (μg/kg

ww)/(μg/L) Total BAF (μg/kg

ww)/(μg/L) Phytoplankton 160 156 Zooplankton 114 114

Benthic Invertebrates 120 120

Filter Feeders 79 79

Small Fish 154 155

Medium Fish 154 156 Large Fish 160 164

Lipid

- normalized BCF, BAF, BMF and BSAF values of TCVP in aquatic trophic levels.

Trophic Level BCF (μg/kg

lipid)/(μg/L) BAF (μg/kg

lipid)/(μg/L) BMF (μg/kg

lipid)/(μg/kg

lipid) BSAF (μg/kg

lipid)/(μg/kg

OC) Phytoplankton 7992 7778 N/A 42 Zooplankton 3803 3807 0.49 21

Benthic Invertebrates 3985 3993 1.04 22

Filter Feeders 3945 3954 1.03 21

Small Fish 3839 3867 0.99 21

Medium Fish 3839 3892 0.99 21 Large Fish 3996 4091 1.05 22

Calculation of EECs for mammals and birds consuming fish contaminated by TCVP.

Wildlife Species Biological Parameters EECs (pesticide intake) Body Weight

(kg) Dry Food Ingestion Rate (kg

- dry

food/kg

bw/day) Wet Food Ingestion Rate (kg

- wet

food/kg

bw/day) Drinking
Water
Intake (L/d) Dose Based (mg/kg

bw/d) Dietary
Based (ppm)

Mammalian

fog/water shrew 0.02 0.140 0.585 0.003 0.118 0.20

rice rat/star

- nosed
mole 0.1 0.107 0.484 0.011 0.096 0.20

small mink 0.5 0.079 0.293 0.048 0.077 0.26

large mink 1.8 0.062 0.229 0.168 0.060 0.26

small river otter 5.0 0.052 0.191 0.421 0.050 0.26- Page 71 of 74

- large river otter 15.0 0.042 0.157 1.133 0.043 0.27

Avian sandpipers 0.0 0.228 1.034 0.004 0.2057 0.20

cranes 6.7 0.030 0.136 0.211 0.0271 0.20

rails 0.1 0.147 0.577 0.010 0.1334 0.23

herons 2.9 0.040 0.157 0.120 0.0365 0.23

small osprey 1.3 0.054 0.199 0.069 0.0522 0.26

white pelican 7.5 0.029 0.107 0.228 0.0294 0.27

Calculation of toxicity values for mammals and birds consuming fish contaminated by TCVP.

Wildlife Species Toxicity Values
Acute Chronic

Dose
Based (mg/kg

bw) Dietary
Based (mg/kg

- diet) Dose Based (mg/kg

- bw) Dietary
Based (mg/kg

- diet)

Mammalian fog/water shrew 3107.85 N/A 105.00 1000

rice rat/star

- nosed
mole 2108.26 N/A 71.22 1000

small mink 1389.87 N/A 46.96 1000

large mink 982.79 N/A 33.20 1000

small river otter 761.27 N/A 25.72 1000

large river otter 578.44 N/A 19.54 1000

Avian sandpipers 1038.45 0.00 N/A 96

cranes 2483.95 0.00 N/A 96

rails 1253.13 0.00 N/A 96

herons 2190.74 0.00 N/A 96

small osprey 1930.94 0.00 N/A 96

white pelican 2526.33 0.00 N/A 96- Page 72 of 74

- Calculation of RQ values for mammals and birds consuming fish contaminated by TCVP.

Wildlife Species Acute Chronic
Dose
Based Dietary
Based Dose Based Dietary
Based

Mammalian fog/water shrew 0.000 N/A 0.001 0.000

rice rat/star

- nosed
mole 0.000 N/A 0.001 0.000

small mink 0.000 N/A 0.002 0.000

large mink 0.000 N/A 0.002 0.000

small river otter 0.000 N/A 0.002 0.000

large river otter 0.000 N/A 0.002 0.000

Avian sandpipers 0.000 N/A N/A 0.002

cranes 0.000 N/A N/A 0.002

rails 0.000 N/A N/A 0.002

herons 0.000 N/A N/A 0.002

small osprey 0.000 N/A N/A 0.003

white pelican 0.000 N/A N/A 0.003- Page 73 of 74

- 

### Appendix H . Application Rate Estimation, Spot Application

The following estimates were made considering Reg. No. 11556

- 162, Ravap EC, which appeared to have the largest container size of 5 gallons that an applicator might use.

For applications to kennels, yards and recreational areas, Reg. No. 1155 6

- 162 indicates to mix 1 gallon of product with 50 gallons of water and that 1 gallon of diluted mixture treats 500 square feet. Based on this information, 5 gallons of product would be mixed with 250 gallons of water and the mixture would treat approxima tely 125,000 square feet, or roughly 2. 9 acres. Given an application rate of 3. 3 lbs a.i./A, the adjusted application rate over a 25 acre field would be 0. 4 lbs a.i./A (3. 3 lbs a.i./A x 2. 9 A/25A).

For applications to residual surfaces, garbage dumps, an d corrals, Reg. No. 11556

- 162 indicates
to mix 1 gallon of product with 12.5 gallons of water and that 1 gallon of dilut ed mixture treats 500 sq uare f ee t . Based on this information, 5 gallons of product would be mixed with 62.5 gallons of water and the mi xture would treat approximately 31

, 2 50 square feet, or roughly 0.7 acre. Given an application rate of 13. 9 lbs a.i./A, the adjusted application rate over a 25 acre
field would be 0. 4 lbs a.i./A (13. 9 lbs a.i./A x 0.7 A/25A).

For applications to residual surfaces, garbage dumps, and corrals, Reg. No. 11556

- 162 indicates
to mix 1 gallon of product with 25 gallons of water and that 1 gallon of dilut ed mixture treats

1 00 sq uare f ee t . Based on this information, 5 gallons of produc t would be mixed with 125 gallons of water and the mixture would treat approximately 1 2

, 500 square feet, or roughly 0. 3 acres. Given an application rate of 33.3 lbs a.i./A, the adjusted application rate o ver a 25 acre
field would be 0.4 lbs a.i./A (3 4

. 8 l bs a.i./A x 0. 3 5 A/25A).- Page 74 of 74

- 

### Appendix I . Communication with Registrant Re: Use of TCVP Oral Larvicide at Feedlots

From: Bruce Bernard [ mailto:bernard@sra

- intl.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 8:24 PM
To: Ballard, Kelly Subject: TCVP Manure Issue

Dear Kelly,

With regard to your issue 2, we have investigated your question concerning the use of Rabon Oral Larvicide (ROL) in cattle housed in feedlots. This is what we found:

1. Only 2% of cattle in fee dlots are fed some sort of oral larvicide.

2. ROL market

- share of that 2% is less than 1%. (The reason for this is easy to determine. Beef feedlot managers are typically most concerned with house flies and stable flies. Although the product is registered f or control of several flies, ROL is primarily used to control face flies and horn flies; control of house and stable flies can be achieved more economically through methods other than ROL, like pour

- ons and sprays).

3. Confined beef producers typically use m ore corn and forage than they can produce. It would be safe to assume that 99% of the manure from confined beef farms is applied to land producing crops intended to be fed back to their animals.

4. In a previous submission (discussed at the meetings with Lois Rossi), the previous registrant (KMG) evaluated over 20 years of USDA and FDA survey data and in all that time there have never been any detections of residues of TCVP or its metabolites in meat.

I trust this is the information you were looking for.

Sincerely,

Bruce Bernard Authorized Representative of Bayer HealthCare (202.422.5920)