UN IT ED S T A T ES ENV I RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, O

. C. 20460

MEMORANDUM

Date: March 29

. 20 1 6 OFF I CE OF

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND

POLLUTION PREVENTION

U BJECT: Di camba

. Acute and C hr onic Di e tar y Expos ure Assessments of Foo d and Drinking

Water to S upp o rt the Use of Dicamba o n Dicamba-Tolerant Co 11 o n and Soybean for

Amended Sec tion 3 Registrati on, and R eg i s tration of the New N.N-Bis-(3-ami n o pr opy l ) methylamine (BAPMA) Salt Formulation.

P C Co de: 02980 I. 029802. 029806, 128931. 1 28944 & DP B a rcode 0410346, 0429869, 04 2996 2 & 0429963

129 043

Deci s ion No.: 432752. 463710. 4 67977 Regi st ra t i on No.: 524-582 &7969-GUL

Petition No.: 2F8067 & OF7725 Regu l atory Ac ti on: Amended Sect i on 3 R egis tr ations & R 1 70

New Food

- Use Registrati ons

Ri s k Assessme nt Type: Sin11. le Chemical. Dietar y Case No .: 0065

TX R N o.: NA CAS No.: 1918

- 00

- 9

MRID No.: None -40 CFR:**18 0.227** 

FROM: Pet e r Savo i a

, Che mi st \_

# :J~**-t;_~ ~-..._.,......,~**  Ri s k A ssess m ent Branch YN ll

THR U : He a lth Effects Division

### (7509~)**~** 

# t.**t~** 

# )

Danell e Dr ew

. C hemi s t

, and 

# L \.

Michael S

. Metzger

, Branch <t h1 f v' 

### i 

# 1-

tL

Ri sk Assessment Branch V N II

H

ealth Effec t s Divi s ion ( 7509P )

And

### Dou~la**s** D o t so n.' Ph.D

., Chei:nist. a nd

. 

# 1.**J~** Sum1tra B ose B1 sw as

, Chemist**~** (!,

.**~** · Di etary Expos ure Science Advi so r y Council

H

ealth Effec t s Di v i s ion ( 7509P )

TO: William A. Ir win

, Ri s k Assessor

Ri s k Assessment Branch YNll

Health Effects Di visio n · (7509 P )

A nd

Kathr y n M o ntague

, Ri s k Manager

Grant Rowland

, Ri s k Review Manager

H

erbicide Branch

Re g i s trati o n Divi s ion ( 7505P )

Execut i ve S umm ary

Acute and chronic aggrega t e dietary food and drinking water exposure and ri s k assess m e nt s were

co nducted u si n g the Di e tary Ex posure Eva lu ation Model softwa re with the F ood Commodity

Pag e l o f27

### Page 2 of 27

Intake Database (DEEM

- FCID) Version 3.16 . This software uses 2003

- 2008 food consumption

da ta from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). The se analyses were

conducted in support of a human health risk assessment for the amended Section 3 uses of di camba

on dicamba

- tolerant cotton and soybeans proposed by Monsanto

. It will also be used to support the requested new use registration of the Engenia herbicide, a N,N

- Bis

- (3

- aminopropyl) methylamine (BAPMA) salt formulation of dicamba developed by BASF. This memorandum was reviewed by two peer reviewers of the DESAC as per the current DESAC SOP.

Attached are the acute and chronic aggregate dietary risk assessments made to support all of the newly proposed registrations requested for dicamba , as well as its existing uses . These dietary risk

assessments included all the residues of concern for d icamba risk assessment which include dicamba, and depending in the matrix, one or more of the following metabolites expressed as parent equivalents; 5

- OH dicamba

, 3,6

- dichloro

- 2

- hydroxybenzoic acid (DCSA) , and 2,5

- dichloro

3,6

- dihydroxybenzoic acid (DCGA) metabolites, expressed as parent dicamba equivalents.

Tolerance

- level residues, DEEM

- FCID  (ver. 7.81 ) default processing factors, as well as 100 percent crop treated (%CT) data for the acute determination along with average residues from field

trial studies for crops and %CT refinements for the chronic analysis were used. Modeling estimates for ground wa ter (PRZM

- GW ) were used to estimate residue concentrations in drinking

water for both the acute and chronic assessments.

Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment The acute analysis was an unrefined determination which used tolerance levels and 100 %CT for

all existing and proposed uses . The population subgroup of females 13

- 49 years was concluded

not to have a toxicological endpoint for dietary risk assessment. The dietary exposure analyses that were performed result in acute dietary risk estimates that are b elow the Agency’s level of

concern for both food and water. For the U.S. population the exposure was 0.0 427 6 0 mg/kg/day,

which utilized 15 % of the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) at the 9 5 th 

### percentile. The highest exposure and risk estimates were for all infants . At the 9 5 th 

### percentile, the exposure for all

infants was 0.0 887 33 mg/kg/day, which utilized 31 % of the aPAD.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment The chronic analysis was a refined determination which used average residues based on field trial

studies for crops, tolerance levels for livestock commodities, and relevant %CT data for several existing uses. The chronic risk estimates for dicamba are below the Agency’s level of concern for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups. The most highly exposed population subgroup is children ages 1

- 2 with a risk estimate for dicamba for food and water of 42 % of the

cPAD.

Cancer Dietary Exposure Assessment Dicamba is classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans ; therefore, a cancer dietary assessment was not performed.

I. Introduction

Dietary risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a given pesticide. For acute and chronic assessments, the risk is expressed as a percentage of a maximu m acceptable dose (i.e., the
dose that HED has concluded will result in no unreasonable adverse health effects). This dose is referred to as the population adjusted dose (PAD). The PAD is equivalent to the point of departure (POD, NOAEL, LOAEL, e.g.) div ided by the required uncertainty or safety factors.

For acute and non

- cancer chronic exposures, HED is concerned when estimated dietary risk

exceeds 100% of the PAD. References that discuss the acute and chronic risk assessments in more

### Page 3 of 27

detail are availa ble on the EPA/pesticides web site: “Available Information on Assessing Exposure from Pesticides, A User’s Guide,” 21

- JUN

- 2000, web link: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA

- PEST/ 2000/July/Day

- 12/6061.pdf ; or see SOP 99.6 (20

- AUG

1999).

The most recent dietary exposure analysis was conducted in support of the Section 3 registration of dicamba on sweet corn (D347355, S. J. Levy, 01/16/2008).

II. Residue Information

Monsanto has submitted petitions PP#2F8067 and PP#0F7725 requesting Section 3 registration for

the amended use of dicamba on dicamba

- tolerant cotton and soybeans, respectively. In addition, BASF has also requested registration of its Engenia herbicide, a new N,N

- Bis

- (3

- aminopropyl) methylamine (BAPMA) salt formulation of dicamba on conventional crops, as well as on dicamba

tolerant cotton and soybeans. Dicamba is registered for pre

- plant application on conventional crops but not for post

- emergence treatm ent because injury could occur if it were to come in contact with the roots, stems, or foliage of these plants. To enable post

- emergence application, Monsanto has developed a dicamba

- tolerant variety of cotton and soybean capable of receiving treatment up to seven days before harvest.

Dicamba is a selective benzoic acid herbicide registered for controlling a wide variety of broadleaf

weeds and woody plants prior to their emergence. Dicamba is available in a number of forms with registered uses maintained on a wide variety of crop and livestock commodities. Permanent

t olerances are e stablished under 40 CFR §180. 227(a)(1) for dicamba and its 3,6

- dichloro

- 5

- hydroxybenzoic acid (5

- OH dicamba) metabolite. Additional tolerances are established under 40
CFR §1 80. 227(a)(2) for dicamba and its 3,6

- dichloro

- 2

- hydroxybenzoic acid (also known as 3,6

- diclorosalicyclic acid or DCSA) metabolite, as well as under 40 CFR §180. 227(a)(3) for dicamba,

5

- OH dicamba, and the DCSA metabolite. HED has recommended for the follo wing tolerances on
the human foods of the subject commodities which calls for the cotton tolerance to be increased from 0.2 to 0.3 ppm and the soybean tolerance to remain at 10.0 ppm based on the residue data

submitted.

Cotton, undelinted seed

................................ ................................ .... 3.0 pp m Soybean, seed

................................ ................................ ................. 10.0 ppm

In consultation with the HED Residues of Concern Knowledgebase Subcommittee (ROCKS) co

chairs on March 18, 2013, the residues of concern were determined for both tolerance setting and risk assessment purposes (D410934, A. Kamel, 0 6 / 03 /2013) . Newly submitted metabolism studies

for dicamba

- tolerant cotton and soybean supports including parent, 5

- OH dicamba, as well as the

DCSA metabolite as the residues of concern for tolerance expression in these crops

. For ri sk

assessment , the residues of concern in cotton will be those which are being established for tolerance expression. However, s oybean will include parent, 5

- OH dicamba, DCSA

, as well as the

DCGA metabolite for risk assessment. The residues of concern for dicamba are summarized

below in Table 1.

### Page 4 of 2 7

Table 1

. Dicamba Residue s of Concern

. Matrix Tolerance Expression Residues for Risk Assessment

Barley, corn, grasses, oats, proso millet, sorghum, sugarcane, and

wheat Dicamba + 5

- OH dicamba Dicamba + 5

- OH dicamba

Asparagus Dicamba + DCSA 1 Dicamba + DCSA

Cotton Dicamba + 5

- OH dicamba + DCSA Dicamba + 5

- OH dicamba + DCSA

S oybeans

, and aspirated grain
fractions (AGFs) Dicamba + 5

- OH dicamba + DCSA Dicamba + 5

- OH dicamba + DCSA

+ DCGA 2

Livestock Dicamba + DCSA Dicamba + DCSA
Drinking Water NA 3 Dicamba + DCSA

1 DCSA also referred to as 3,6

- dichloro

- 2

- hydroxybenzoic acid or as 3,6

- dichlorosalicylic acid.

2 DCGA is also referred to as 2,5

- dichloro

- 3,6

- di hydroxybenzoic acid

. 3 N A

– Not Applicable.



### Residue Data used for Acute and Chronic Assessments:

For the acute assessment, tolerance

- level residues

, 100% CT data, and DEEM

- FCID  (ver. 7.81 ) default processing factors were used. The chronic analysis did require refinement so average residue values were used for crops

, as well as relevant %CT data. Monsanto has submitted adequate crop field trial data to support the registration of the requested amended uses of dicamba

on dicamba

- tolerant cotton (D408384, P. Savoia, 03 / 29 /201 6 ) and soybeans (D384422, A. Kamel,
04/17/2013)

. In regard to the registration of the new BAPMA salt formulation, BASF has submitted adequate bridging data for demonstrat ing product equivalency (D402514 & D421306, P.
Savoia, 03 / 29 /201 6 )

. The tolerance lim its established for dicamba are presented below along with corresponding average residue values derived from the supporting field trials studies

. It is important to note that translated field trial residue data were used for a few of the cereal grains
(mi llet, oat, rye, and teff).

180.227 Dicamba; tolerances for residues.

(a) General . (1) Tolerances are established for the residues of the herbicide dicamba (3,6

- dichloro

- o

- anisic acid), including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commod ities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the sum
of the residues of dicamba (3,6

- dichloro

- o

- anisic acid) and its metabolite, 3,6

- dichloro

- 5

- hydroxy

o

- anisic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of dicamba, in or on the following

commodities:

Commodity Tolerance (ppm) Average Residue

(ppm) 1

Barley, grain 6.0 1.3

Corn, field, grain 0.1 0.01

Corn, pop, grain 2 0.1 0.01

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.04 0.02

Millet, proso, grain 3 2.0 0.4

Oat, grain 3 2.0 0.4

Rye, grain 3 2.0 0.4

Sorghum, grain, grain 4.0 1.5

Sugarcane, cane 0.3 0.14

Sugarcane, molasses 5.0 3.4

### Page 5 of 27 Commodity Tolerance (ppm) Average Residue

(ppm) 1

Teff, grain 4 6.0 1.3

Wheat, grain 2.0 0.4

1 Residue Values are based on the field trial datasets used for tolerance reassessment as cited in the Residue Chemistry Chapter made in support of the 2005 RED (D317699, C. Olinger, 12/20/2005).

2 Field corn data are used for translation.

3 Wheat data are used for translation

. 4 Barley data are used for translation

.



### (2) Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide dicamba, 3,6

- dichloro

- o

- anisic acid, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the residues of
dicamba (3,6

- dichloro

- o

- anisic acid) and its metabol ite, 3,6

- dichloro

- 2

- hydroxybenzoic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of dicamba, in or on the following commodities:

Commodity Tolerance (ppm) Average

Residue (ppm) 1

Asparagus 4.0 1.0

Cattle, fat 0.3 ND 2

Cattle, kidney 25.0 ND

Cattle, meat 0.25 ND

Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney 3.0 ND

Goat, fat 0.3 ND

Goat, kidney 25.0 ND

Goat, meat 0.25 ND

Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney 3.0 ND

Hog, fat 0.3 ND

Hog, kidney 25.0 ND

Hog, meat 0.25 ND

Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney 3.0 ND

Horse, fat 0.3 ND

Horse, kidney 25.0 ND

Horse, fat 0.05 ND

Horse, meat 0.25 ND

Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney 3.0 ND

Milk 0.2 ND

Sheep, fat 0.3 ND

Sheep, kidney 25.0 ND

Sheep, meat 0.25 ND

Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney 3.0 ND

1 Residue Values are based on the field trial datasets used for tolerance reassessment as cited in the Residue Chemistry Chapter made in support of the 2005 RED (D317699, C. Olinger, 12/20/2005).

2 ND

– Not Determined.



### (3) Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide dicamba, 3,6

- dichloro

- o

- anisic acid, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the residues o f
dicamba (3,6

- dichloro

- o

- anisic acid) and its metabolites, 3,6

- dichloro

- 5

- hydroxy

- o

- anisic acid, and
3,6

- dichloro

- 2

- hydroxybenzoic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of dicamba, in or on the following commodities:

### Page 6 of 27 Commodity Tolerance (ppm) Average Residue

(ppm)

Soybean, seed 10.0 1.1 1 , 2

Cotton, undelinted seed 3 3.0 0.5 4

1 Residue Values are based on the field trial datasets made on conventional soybeans used for tolerance reassessment as cited in the Residue Chemistry Chapter made in support of the 2005 RED (D317699, C. Olinger, 12/20/2005).

2 The field trial data acquired for dicamba

- tolerant soybeans which include the additional DCGA required for risk assessment yield

total residue concentrations which are 10

- fold lower on average an d are not used for assessment since the conventional crop data provide a more conservative estimation (D384422, A. Kamel, 04/17/2013).

3 Recommended tolerance level (D408384, P. Savoia, 03 / 29 /201 6 ).

4 Residue Values are based on the field trial datasets us ed for tolerance establishment requested in the current petition (D408384, P.
Savoia, 03 / 29 /201 6 ).



### Fish: To determine whether or not residues are present in fish, HED now routinely checks USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring data regardless of the pesticide’s uses and physicochemical properties. For this assessment, a search of the USDA PDP databas e found that

there were no samples of catfish analyzed for the residues of dicamba from 2008 through 2010

, and no samples were analyzed for salmon in 2013

. As a result, residues in fish were not included

in th is dietary exposure and risk a ssessment.

III. Percent Crop Treated Information

For the existing uses attributed to dicamba, BEAD provided a compilation of percent crop treated (%CT) data presented in Attachment 1 to aid in the refinement of the chronic dietary risk
assessment ( D4 27534 , J. Alsadek, 0 6 / 25 /201 5 ). The following average percent crop treated estimates were used in the chronic dietary risk assessment for the following crops that are currently registered for dicamba: asparagus: 5%; barley: 5%; corn: 10 %; oats: 2.5%; sorghum: 1 5 %;

sugarca ne: 20 %; sweet corn: 1%; and wheat: 10%. One hundred percent crop treated was assumed for all other applicable crops (100 %CT).

IV. Drinking Water Data

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) provided the Attachment 2 updated drinking

water estimates for use in this dietary risk assessment (D 404824 , R. Baris, 03 / 28 /2013)

. This

assessment remains current since no new fate data have been submitted and it was derived with the latest models used by EFED for estimating pesticide residues in drink ing water (personal
communication, M. Corbin, 08/19/2015). For this determination, EFED conducted a Tier I PRZM GW drinking water assessment from ground water sources for the proposed new uses . Residues of concern for drinking water for risk assessment pu rposes were the parent and its DCSA metabolite

. Table 2 provides the modeling estimates for drinking water summarized from surface water and ground water sources. For the purposes of this assessment, the highest (most conservative) PRZM

GW values were us ed for the acute (329 ppb parent + 0.041 ppb DCSA) and chronic (187 ppb parent + 0.041 ppb DCSA) assessments

. The combined estimated drinking water residues for peak
concentration (used in the acute assessment) and c hronic were 329 and 187 u g/L (pp b ),

r es pectively. The model and its description are available at the EPA internet site: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/

.

Table 2. DICAMBA (parent only) Preliminary Cotton Runs for Dicamba (PCA corrected

– 0.87)

Model Use/Scenario Acute (ug/L) Chronic (ug/L) 30

- year average (ug/L)

SW
(PRZM/EXAMS) CAcotton_wirrgSTD.txt 7.72 6.62 1.07

MScottonSTD.txt 53.37 44.5 6.52

NCcottonSTD.txt 32.14 27.32 4.24

### Page 7 of 27

Table 2. DICAMBA (parent only) Preliminary Cotton Runs for Dicamba (PCA corrected

– 0.87)

Groundwater Peak Post breakthrough

average 30

- year average

PRZM

- GW (no pca applied) GAcoastal 41.9 28.2 24.9

DELMARVA 192 121 117

FLCitrus 238 161 155

FLPotato 56.8 19.2 18.1

NCcoastal 65.3 32.6 29.3

WIsands 329 187 158

SCIGROW

-- 0.0015

-- -- Note: the highest estimates are in bold.

Table 3

. DCSA (PCA corrected

– 0.87)

Model Use/Scenario Acute (ug/L) Chronic (ug/L) 30

- year average (ug/L)

SW
(PRZM/EXAMS) MScottonSTD.txt 2.97 2.59 0.63

Groundwater Peak Post breakthrough

average 30

- year average

PRZM

- GW (no pca applied) GAcoastal* 4.47E

- 5 3.93E

- 5 2.38E

- 5

DELMARVA 1.94E

- 4 1.65E

- 4 4.45E

- 5

FLCitrus 0.041 0.041 0.018

FLPotato* 5.71E

- 11 3.67E

- 11 3.114E

- 11

NCcoastal 7.31E

- 5 3.64E

- 5 2.59E

- 5

WIsands* 8.3E

- 4 7.66e

- 4 3.67E

- 4

SCIGROW

-- 0.0059

-- -- *100 year simulation Note: the highest estimates are in bold.



### In regard to the registration of the new Engenia herbicide, the BAPMA counter ion is known to have greater toxicity than the dicamba active ingredient. B ecause it is not possible to delineate exposure between the dicamba and BAPMA portion of the molecule when this end

- use product is applied, drinking water estimates must be adequately protective. To ensure the dicamba drinking water estimates are protective, EFED has examine d drinking water exposures for dicamba versus the BAPMA counter ion (personal communication, W. Eckel, 07/15/2015 ) . EFED used the Mississippi ( MS ) cotton scenario, a benchmark high

- runoff scenario, to compare exposures from applications of the BAPMA end

- use product. This modeling found t he 365

- day average

concentrations for dicamba

- acid and BAPMA were comparable at 11 ppb and 11.8 ppb, respectively , for the Index Reservoir. The drinking water estimates provided are considered to be protective since the lowest adverse effect doses were selected for assessment.

V. DEEM

- FCIDTM Program and Consumption Information

The dicamba acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database DEEM

- FCID, Version 3.16, which incorporates 2003

- 2008 consumption data from USDA’s NHANES/WWEIA.

The data are based on the reported consumption of more than 20,000 individuals over two non

consecutive survey days. Foods “as consumed” (e.g., apple pie) are linked to EPA

- defined food commodities (e.g., apples, peeled fruit

- cooked; fresh or N/S; baked; o r wheat flour

- cooked; fresh or N/S, baked) using publicly available recipe translation files developed jointly by USDA/ARS and EPA. For chronic exposure assessment, consumption data are averaged for the entire U.S. population and within population subgr oups. However, for acute exposure assessment, consumption data are retained as individual consumption events. Based on analysis of the 2003

- 2008 WWEIA consumption data, which took into account dietary patterns and survey respondents,

HED concluded that i t is most appropriate to report risk for the following population subgroups: the general U.S. population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1

- 2, children 3

- 5, children 6

- 12,

### Page 8 of 27

youth 13

- 19, adults 20

- 49, females 13

- 49, and adults 50

- 99 years old.

For a chr onic dietary exposure assessment, an estimate of the residue level in each food or food

form (e.g., orange or orange juice) on the food commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily consumption estimate for that food/food form to produce a resi due intake estimate. The resulting residue intake estimate for each food/food form is summed with the residue intake estimates for all other food/food forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total average estimated exposure. Exposure is expr essed in mg/kg body weight/day and as a percent of the cPAD. This procedure is performed for each population subgroup.

For an acute exposure assessment, individual one

- day food consumption data are used on an

individual

- by

- individual basis. The reported consumption amounts of each food item can be multiplied by a residue point estimate and summed to obtain a total daily pesticide exposure for a deterministic exposure assessment, or “matched” in multiple random pairings with residue values

and then summed in a probabilistic assessment. The resulting distribution of exposures is expressed as a percentage of the aPAD on both a user (i.e., only those who reported eating relevant commodities/food forms) and a per

- capita (i.e., those who reported eating the re levant commodities as well as those who did not) basis. In accordance with HED policy, per capita exposure and risk are reported for analyses performed at all levels of refinement. However, for deterministic assessments, any significant differences in us er vs. per capita exposure and risk are specifically identified and noted in the risk assessment.

V I

. Toxicological Information

The Risk Assessment Branch ( RAB ) V/VII toxicologists have re

- evaluated the dicamba database

and have updated the endpoints as necessary for this assessment

. For this action there are several compounds to consider which include dicamba acid, the dicamba metabolites ( DCSA

, 5

- OH
dicamba, and DCGA), and the dicamba BAPMA counter ion. The toxicological database is

sufficient for ass essing the toxicity of and characterizing the hazards of dicamba. Separate
assessments of dicamba acid, the dicamba metabolite s (DCSA, 5

- OH dicamba, and DCGA) , and

the dicamba BAPMA counter ion were not needed because the lowest adverse effect doses were

selected for assessment. The toxicological doses and endpoints for dicamba for use in the dietary

assessment are summarized in Table 4

.

Table 4

. Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Dicamba Used for Dietary Exposure

Assessment

. Exposure

Scenario Point of Departure FQPA SF* and Level of

Concern for Risk

Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects

Acute Dietary (General population including infants and

children N OAEL = 29 mg/kg/day

Acute RfD = 0.29 mg/kg/day UF A =10x

UF H =10x
FQPA SF = 1X

aPAD = acute RfD
FQPA SF

= 0.29 mg/kg/day Dicamba BAPMA Rat Developmental Study

Maternal NOAEL is 29 mg/kg/day in dams
(20 as acid form). LOAEL is 86 mg/kg/day in dams, based on ataxia, unsteady gait and
convulsions (60 as acid form).

Developmental NOAEL.288 mg/kg/day (200 as acid equivalent)

. Acute Dietary

(Females 13

- 49 years of

age) N/A N/A No developmental toxicity attributed

to acute exposure

### Page 9 of 27

Table 4

. Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Dicamba Used for Dietary Exposure

Assessment

. Exposure

Scenario Point of Departure FQPA SF* and Level of

Concern for Risk

Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects

Chronic Dietary (All populations) Offspring NOAEL= 4 mg/kg/day

Chronic RfD =

0.04 mg/kg/day UF A =10x

UF H =10x
FQPA SF = 1X

cPAD = chronic RfD
FQPA SF

= 0.04 mg/kg/day Reproductive study in rats

with DCSA metabolite

.

Offspring LOAEL = 37 mg/kg/day based on decreased pup weights in F1 generation on PND 14 and 21
(both sexes) and PND 18 (females)

.

Cancer (Oral, dermal,
inhalation) Dicamba is classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.

Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose

- response data and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no ob served adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. UF = uncertainty factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern. N/A = not applicable

.



### VII. Results/Discussion

As stated above, for acute and chronic assessments, HED is concerned when dietary risk exceeds

1 00% of the PAD. The following summari z es the DEEM

- FCID (ver. 3.16 ) chronic exposure analyses. Acute and c hronic aggregate (food + water) analys e s w ere performed using DEEM

FCID estimating the dietary exposure of the U.S. population and various population subgroups.

The results are summarized in Table 5

. The resulting acute food and water risk estimates were less

than HED’s level of concern ( <100% a PAD) for the general U.S. population and all population

sub

- groups ; All infants < 1 year old had the highest acute dietary risk at 31 % of the aPAD. The resulting chronic food and water exposure estimates were less than HED’s level of c oncern (<100% c PAD) for the general U.S. population and all population sub

- groups ; c hildren 1

- 2 years

old had the highest dietary risk at 42 % of the cPAD.

### Page 10 of 27

Table 5

. Summary of Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk for

Dicamba.

Population Subgroup Acute Dietary 1

(9 5 th Percentile) Chronic Dietary 2

Dietary Exposure (mg/kg/day) % aPAD Dietary Exposure (mg/kg/day) % cPAD

General U.S. Population 0.0427 6 0 15 0.0 0631 9 16

All Infants (< 1 year old) 0.0887 33 31 0. 01402 4 35

Children 1

- 2 years old 0.0752 95 26 0. 0169 88 42

Children 3

- 5 years old 0.065 788 23 0. 0119 48 30

Children 6

- 12 years old 0.0471 42 16 0. 0076 18 19

Youth 13

- 19 years old 0.032166 11 0. 0049 36 12

Adults 20

- 49 years old 0.0351 72 12 0. 0055 2 6 14

Adults 50

- 99 years old 0.0297 76 10 0. 0053 40 13

Females 13

- 49 years old N/A 3 N/A 0. 0054 65 14

1 Acute dietary analysis derived from a 0.29 mg/kg/day aPAD for the general population

. 2 Chronic dietary analysis derived from a 0. 04 mg/kg/day cPAD for the general population.

3 N/A

– not applicable, no endpoint was concluded for this population subgroup

. 4 Highest exposures found for each assessment are noted in bold.



### VI I I. Characterization of Inputs/Outputs

HED has conducted a highly conservative, health protective assessment for the requested amended

use of dicamba on dicamba

- tolerant cotton and soybean. Tolerance level residues for all commodities along with 100% CT were used in the acute dietary exposure assessments

. A refined chronic dietary exposure assessment was performed whic h used average residues from field trial

studies for crops, tolerance levels for livestock commodities

, and relevant %CT data. A critical commodity contribution analysis was conducted for the most highly exposed population subgroup,

children 1

- 2 years of age. This analysis shows that water and milk are the dietary risk drivers of

dicamba comprising approximately 35 %

, and 2 1 % of th e total chronic exposure

, respectively. T he use of anticipated residues, empirical processing factors, and additional %CT data would refine further HED’s exposure and risk estimates for dicamba.

I X

. Conclusions

Unrefined acute and refined chronic aggregate (food + water) dietary risk assessment s w ere
conducted for dicamba using D EEM

- FCID (ver. 3.16 ) modeling. The acute assessment used

tolerance

- level residues, 100% CT data, and DEEM

- FCID  (ver. 7.81 ) default processing factors for analysis. The chronic analysis did require refinement so average residue values from field trial

studies were used for crops as well as relevant %CT data. The resulting acute aggregate risk

estimate w as less than HED’s lev el of concern. For the general U.S. population and all population subgroups in the acute analys i s all dietary risk estimates were ≤ 31 % a PAD. The resulting chronic aggregate exposure estimate w as less than HED’s level of concern. For the general U.S.

pop ulation, the cPAD w as 16 % while the mo st highly

- exposed population subgroup in the chronic analys i s w as Children 1

- 2 years old ( 42 % cPAD).

### Page 11 of 27

References

DP No. : D 347355 Subject: Dicamba : Acute and Chronic Aggregate Dietary (Food and Drinking Water)

Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Proposed Section 3 Registration Action on
Sweet Corn.

From: S. J. Levy

To: M. Clock

- Rust and D. Rosenblatt

Dated: 0 1 / 1 6 / 200 8

MRID No. : None

DP No. : D 410934 Subject: Residues of Concern in Dicamba Tolerant Crops.

From: A. Kamel

To: M. Walsh

Dated: 06/13/2013

MRID No. : None

DP No. : D 408384 Subject: Dicamba. Section 3 Registration for the Amended Use of Dicamba on Di c amba

Tolerant Cotton. Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data.

From: P. Savoia

To: W

. Irw in , K. Montague, and M. Walsh

Dated: 03 / 29 /201 6

MRID No. : 48728701

- 48728704

DP No. : D 384422 Subject: Dicamba . New Use of Dicamba on Dicamba

- Tolerant Soybean. Petition fo r

Establishment of New Tolerances for Soybean Forage and Soybean Hay. Residue Chemistry Summary.

From: A

. Kamel

To: K. Montague, and M. Walsh

Dated: 04 / 17 /201 3

MRID No. : 47899501, 47899523, & 47899524

DP No. : D 402514 & D421306 Subject: Dicamba. Bridging Data Demonstrating DGA ( diglycola mine ) , BAPMA (N,N

- Bis

-

(3

- aminopropyl) methylamine) and DETA ( diethylenetriamine) Salt Product Equivalency, and the Independent Laboratory Validation of the BASF Method Developed for Determining Dicamba Residues in Crops. Abbreviated Residue Chemistry Revi ew.
From: P. Savoia

To: W. Irwin , K. Montague, and M. Walsh

Dated: 03 / 29 /201 6

MRID No. : 49379301

- 49379305

-

### Page 12 of 27

DP No. : D427534

Sub ject: U pdated Screening Level U sage Analysis (SLUA) Report for Dicamba Case, PC #

(029801, 029802, 029803, 029806, 12 8931

, 129043, and 128944 ), DP # 4 27534

. From: J

. Alsadek

To: K. Montague

Dated: 0 6 / 25 / 201 5

MRID No. : None

DP No. : D 404824 Subject: Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for the Section 3 New Use of Dicamba

Diglycolamine Salt (DGA) and its Degradate 3,6

- dichlorosa licylic acid (DCSA)

on Dicamba

- Tolerant Cotton.

From: R

. Baris

To: M. Walsh

Dated: 03 / 28 /20 13

MRID No. : None

X. List of Attachments

1. Attachment 1: BEAD Memo on Projected Percent Crop Treated Estimates for Dicamba

. 2. Attachment 2 : EFED Memo on the Estimation of D rinking Water Residues

. 3

. Attachment 3 : Acute Residue Data File of Inputs.

4

. Attachment 4 : Acute Dietary Assessment Results File.

5

. Attachment 5 : Chronic Residue Data File of Inputs.

6

. Attachment 6 : Chronic Dietary Assessment Results File.

7

. Attachment 7 : Critical Commodity Contribution Analysis for Children 1

- 2 yrs.

### Page 13 of 27 A TTACHMENT 1

UNITED STATES ENVI RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D

. C

., 20460



## JUN

. 2 5 2015



# .

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION



### MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Updated Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) Report for Dicamba Case, PC #

(029801, 029802, 029803, 029806, 128931, 129043, and 128944), DP # (427534)



### FROM: THRU:

Jihad Alsadek, Ph.D., Economist 

### A

- , Science and Information Analysis Branch

Diann Sims, Chief

Science Information and Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)



### TO: Kathryn Montague, Risk Manager

Herbicide Branch Registration Division (7505P)

This memorandum transmits an updated Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) report for the

dicamba case (previously completed in 2012). The usage data in the updated SLUA (2015) are

an amalgamation of USDA/NASS and Private Pesticide Market Research data from 2004 to

2013.

The current SLUA shows an increase in usage, in pounds a.i. and percent crop treated on several

crops (canola, com, 

### dry beans/peas, fallow, sorghum, soybeans, sugarcane

, and sunflowers) as
well as a decrease in pounds a.i. and percent crop treated, on peanuts only. The usage data for

the remaining crops did not change with the addition of the most recent usage data in the 2015

SLUA.

For questions, comments and other usage information requests, please contact me at 703..:308

- 8140.

cc. Grant Rowland

Pete Savoia

### Page 14 of 27

Dicamba Case (02980 1

, 029802, 029803, 029806, 1 289 3 1

, 1 29043, and 1

28944) Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

Date: June 24, 201 5

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?

• Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active ingredient that is used on 

### agricultural crops in the United States.

• Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources. The data are then merged, averaged, and

rounded so that the presented information is not proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.



### What does it contain?

• Pesticide usage data for a 

### single active ingredient only.

• Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used on.

• Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80% or more of a crop, in most

cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases, depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.



### • Annual percent of crop treated 

### (average & 

### maximum) for each agricultural crop.

• Average 

### annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).



### What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

• Average pounds of active ingredient applied

- Values are calculated by merging pesticide usage
data sources together; averaging across all observations, then rounding. Note: 

## If the estimated value

is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500. Estimated values between 500 & <1,000,000 are
rounded to 1 significant digit. Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant
digits.)



### • Average percent of crop treated

- Values are calculated by merging data sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, & rounding to the nearest multiple of 5

. Note: 

## If the

estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5. 

## If the estimated value is less than 1,

then the value is labeled <1.



### • Maximum percent of crop treated

- Value is the single maximum value reported across all data

sources, across all years, 

### & rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5. Note: 

## If the estimated value is

less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.



### What are the data

- sources used?

• USDA

- NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)

- pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2013.



### • Private pesticide market research

- pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2013.



### • California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) data for

2004 to 2012.



### What are the limitations to the data?

• Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the available surveys do not report

usage (e.g., small acreage crops).

• Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop 

### does not imply zero usage.

• Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but 

### not quantified. In these instances,

the site would not be reported in the SLUA.

• Non

- agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post

- harvest, mosquito control, etc.) are not reported in the

SLUA. A separate request must be made to receive these estimates.

• Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label. This usage could be due to

various factors, including, but not limited to Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical,

data collection errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

### Page 15 of 27 Date: June 24, 2015 Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Dicamba Case (029801, 029802,

0298 03

, 029806,

1 289 3 1

, 1 2904 3

, and 1

28944)*

Sorted Alphabetically Reporting

Years: 2004

- 2013

Annual Average Percent Crop Treated

Crop Lbs. A. I. Avera2e Maximum

1 Alfalfa+ 2,000 <1 <2.5



### 2 Asparagus <500 5 10



### 3 Barley 20,000 5 10



### 4 Canola+ 2,000 <2.5 10



### 5 Com 1,500,000 10 15



### 6 Cotton 200,000 5 15



### 7 Dry Beans/Peas+ 3,000 <2.5 <2.5



### 8 Fallow 500,000 15 35



### 9 Oats 6,000 <2.5 <2.5



### 1 0 Pasture 600,000 <2.5 5



### 11 Peanuts+ 1,000 <1 <2.5



### 1 2 Pecans+ 1,000 <2.5 <2.5



### 1 3 Rice 3,000 <1 <2.5



### 1 4 Sorghum 200,000 15 25



### 1 5 Soybeans 100,000 <2.5 <2.5



### 1 6 Squash+ <500 <2.5 <2.5



### 1 7 Sugarcane 40,000 20 25



### 1 8 Sunflowers+ 9,000 5 10



### 1 9 Sweet Com <500 <1 <2.5



### 20 Wheat 500,000 10 25

All numbers are rounded.

<500: less than 500 pounds ofactive ingredients.

<2.5: less than 2.5 percent of crop is treated.

< 1 : less than 1 percent of crop is treated.

* These PC codes (029804, 029805, 029807, 029808, 129042 and 408200) have no registered products.

+: Crops not known to be listed on active end use product registrations or as Section 18 emergency exemptions when

this report was

run.

SLUA data sources include:

USDA

- NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural
Statistics Service) Private Pesticide Market Research

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public.Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346



### Page 16 of 27 ATTACHMENT 2

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION



### PC Code: 128931

DP Barcode s : 404824

MEMORANDUM March 28, 2013

SUBJECT: Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for the Section 3 New Use of Dicamba

Diglycoamine Salt (DGA) and its Degradate 3,6

- dichlorosalicylic acid (DCSA) on

Dicamba

- toler ant Cotton

TO: Peter Salvia, Risk Assessor

William Irwin, Toxicologist Michael Metzger, Branch Chief

Risk Assessment Branch 5
Health Effects Division (7509P)

AND

Michael Walsh, Risk Manager Reviewer Kathryn Montague, Risk Manager ( RM23 ) Registration Division (7505P)

FROM: Reuben Baris, Environmental Scientist

Environmental Risk Branch 6 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

THROUGH: Mark Corbin, Chief

Environmental Risk Branch 6
Environmental Fate and Effects Division (750 7P)

This memo summarizes the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC) for dicamba diglycoamine salt (DGA) formulation and its degradate 3,6

- dichlorosalicylic acid (DCSA) in surface

water and groundwater in support of the human health dietary risk as sessment for the Section 3 New

Use on herbicide(dicamba)

- tolerant cotton

. Dicamba acid is formed by the dissociation of the following dicamba salts: dimethylamine, sodium, diglycolamine, isopropylamine, and potassium and as such this assessment presents al l results as dicamba acid

- equivalents (a.e.). All data for dicamba DGA salt were bridged from the acid supported by a dissociation study, field study, and TEP plantDicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346



### Page 17 of 27 data indicating that the salt is not significantly different than the acid. Results from an acceptable dissociation rate study ( MRID 43288001 ) showed that dicamba salts (sodium, potassium, dimethylamine, isopropylamine, and diglycolamine) reach essentially 100% dissociation within 75 seconds of the time of mixing with pure water. The EDWCs liste d in Table 1 summarize the results in surface water and groundwater resulting from a single pre

- emergent spray application and two over

the

- top foliar applications (a total of 2.0 lbs a.e./A) to cotton. The soybean use was previously assessed by EFED in US EPA (2010; D378447). The EDWCs for soybean are summarized from USEPA (2010) (D378447) and also included in Table 1 as a courtesy to HED; the cotton EDWCs

summarized in Table 1 are recommended for use in the HED huma n health dietary risk assessment

for the dicamba use

.

A Tier II screening

- level drinking water exposure assessment was conducted for the proposed Section 3 New Use of the diglycolamine salt (DGA) formulation, expressed as dicamba acid

- equivalent (ae),

on dicamba

- tolerant cotton. EDWCs in PRZM/EX AMS modeling resulting from use on cotton varied by the scenario used; acute 90 th 

### percentile 1

- in

- 10 year concentrations ranged from 7.72 to 53.37 μg/L, the highest concentration reported from the Mississippi cotton scenario. Similarly for soybean, the hig hest concentration reported in USEPA, 2010 (D378447) was from the Mississippi soybean scenario; although slightly lower than the cotton EDWC. Chronic and 30

- year average concentrations were also highest from the Mississippi scenarios for both soybean and c otton; results from additional scenarios are included in the Attachment to this memorandum. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the inputs used to conduct surface and groundwater modeling.

Surface water and groundwater monitoring data from the United States Geologic al Survey (USGS) NAWQA program 1 were reviewed to provide some context to the EDWCs presented in Table 1. Note that analyses were only performed for the parent dicamba acid. Of the samples analyzed for dicamba, 275 (3.3%) out of 8,301 surface water samples had positive detections of dicamba; 15 (<1%) out of 6,434 samples in groundwater. The maximum concentration detected in surface water samples was 1.76 μg/L in the Rocky Creek at State Hwy 587 at Citrus Park, Hillsborough County, Florida. The maximum estima ted concentration detected in the filter groundwater was 4.03 μg/L in urban area (SH:UR

- 18) in Shelby, Tennessee. The surface water concentrations ranged from 0.0094 to 1.76 μg/L, while groundwater concentrations ranged from
0.008 to 4.03 μg/L. Most of the data in NAWQA is non

- targeted 

### (i.e., study was not specifically designed to capture dicamba concentrations in high

- use areas). Typically, sampling frequencies employed in monitoring studies are insufficient to capture and report actual peak exposure value s. Coupled with the fact that these data are not necessarily temporally or spatially correlated with dicamba application times and/or areas limit the utility of these data in estimating drinking water
concentrations for risk assessment. However, the maximu m groundwater concentration reported is greater than the previously estimated concentration using SCIGROW, therefore EFED recommends

the use PRZM

- GW EDWC in the human health dietary risk assessment, reported in Table 1.

1 U.S. Geological Survey. 2001.Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346



### Page 18 of 27 Table 1. EDWCs for drinking water exposure assessment based on the proposed dicamba DGA

salt uses on dicamba

- tolerant soybean and cotton *



### Dicamba

Model Use/Scenario Acute (ug/L) Chronic

(ug/L) 30

- year average

(ug/L)

S urface W ater * *

(PRZM/EXAMS) MScottonSTD.txt 53.37 44.5 6.52

MSsoybeanSTD.txt † 36.8 † 5.16 † 1.88 †

Groundwater Peak (ug/L) Post

breakthrough

average (ug/L) 30

- year average

(ug/L)

PRZM

- GW (no pca applied) WIsands .scn 329 187 158

SCIGROW

-- 1.5E

- 3 †

-- --



### DCSA

Model Use/Scenario Acute (ug/L) Chronic

(ug/L) 30

- year average

(ug/L)

S urface W ater **

(PRZM/EXAMS) MScottonSTD.txt 2.97 2.59 0.63

Groundwater Peak (ug/L) Post

breakthrough

average (ug/L) 30

- year average

(ug/L)

PRZM

- GW (no pca applied) FLCitrus .scn 0.041 0.041 0.018

SCIGROW

-- 5.9E

- 3

-- --

* Bold values indicate maximum value of the scenarios run. Recommended for use in dietary risk assessment.

* * PCA corrected using all

- agriculture PCA = 87%.

† Results from USEPA, 2010 (D378447).

‡ 100 year simulation , throughputs were <1.0 for 30 year simulation.



### Table 2

. Environmental fate input parameters for Dicamba used in PRZM/EXAMS and

PRZM

- GW for calculating surface water and groundwater EDWCs.

Parameter Value Source/Reference Comments
Application rate 1.12 kg a.e./ha 0.56 kg a.e./ha 0.56 kg a.e./ha Proposed Label 1.0 lb a.e./A pre

- emergent (Apr. 16)

0.5 lb a.e./A (May 25, May 28)

Interval between applications 3 days Proposed Label

--

Application Method Ground spray Proposed Label

-- Molecular weight (g/mol) 221

Solubility @ 25oC (mg/L) 6100

Vapor Pressure (torr) 3.41x10

- 5

Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient
(K

oc , mL/g oc) 13.4 MRID 42774101 Mean K

oc . Also used as a groundwater input.

Aerobic Soil Metabolism

half

- life (days) 18 MRID 43245207 Upper 90 th Percentile on the mean . Ground water input.Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346



### Page 19 of 27 Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism half

- life (days) 72.9 MRID 43758509 3x a single half

- life of 24.3 days was used
(USEPA, 2009)

Anaerobic aquatic

metabolism half

- life (days) 423 MRID 43245208 A single acceptable value (141 days). 3x a single value was used (USEPA, 2009)

Hydrolysis half

- life (days, pH 7) 0 MRID 40547902 S table. Also used in groundwater modeling.

Aqueous photolysis half

life (days) 105 MRID 42774102

--



### Table 3. Environmental fate input parameters for DCSA used in PRZM/EXAMS and PRZM

GW for calculating surface water and groundwater EDWCs.

Parameter Value Source/Reference Comments
Application rate 0.18 kg a.e./ha 0.09 kg a.e./ha 0.09 kg a.e./ha Adjusted application

rate for formation of degradate. pre

- emergent (Apr. 16); (May 25, May 28)

[(MW degradate)/(MW parent)] x Max % formation x application rate = 207/221 x 0.174 x 1.12 kg/ha = 0.18

Interval between applications 3 days Proposed Label

--

Application Method Ground spray Proposed Label

-- Molecular weight (g/mol) 207

Solubility @ 25oC (mg/L) 112 MRID 43095301

Vapor Pressure (torr) 3.41x10

- 5

-- For dicamba

Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient
(K

oc , mL/g oc) 1208 MRID 43095301 Mean K

oc

. Also used as a groundwater input.

Aerobic Soil Metabolism

half

- life (days) 24.6 MRID 43245207 Single value of 8.2 days, multiplied by 3 to account for potential variability in degradation in different soil types. Also used as a groundwater input.

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism half

- life (days) 49.2

-- No acceptable data, therefore per USEPA, 2009, assumed 2x the ASM t 1⁄2 (24.6 days).

Anaerobic aquatic

metabolism half

- life (days) 0 MRID 43245208 Stable.

Hydrolysis half

- life (days, pH 7) 0 MRID 43245208 S table. Also used in groundwater modeling.

Aqueous photolysis half

life (days) 105 MRID 42774102 No data for DCSA, therefore assumed value is equal to dicamba.Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346



### Page 20 of 27 References:

USEPA. 2010. Drinking Water Assessment for Dicamba and its Degradate, 3,6

- dichlorosalicylic
acid (DCSA), for New Food Use on Dicamba

- Tolerant Soybean. (Tolerance # 

### 0F7725). Memorandum from I. Maher to C. Ollinger. DP Barcode: 378447. USEPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC 20460.

U.S. Geological Survey

. 2001

. National Water Information System (NWISWeb): U.S. Geological Survey database, accessed March 27, 2013, at http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/data

.

Attachment

.

Table A

- 1 . EDWCs for drinking water exposure assessment based on the proposed dicamba

DGA salt uses on dicamba

- tolerant soybean and cotton for all scenarios modeled *

Dicamba

Model Use/Scenario Acute (ug/L) Chronic

(ug/L) 30

- year average

(ug/L)

SW * *

(PRZM/EXAMS) CAcotton_wirrgSTD.txt 7.72 6.62 1.07

MScottonSTD.txt 53.37 44.5 6.52

NCcottonSTD.txt 32.14 27.32 4.24
MSsoybeanSTD.txt † 36.8 † 5.16 † 1.88 †

Groundwater Peak (ug/L) Post

breakthrough

average (ug/L) 30

- year average

(ug/L)

PRZM

- GW (no pca applied) GAcoastal 41.9 28.2 24.9

DELMARVA 192 121 117

FLCitrus 238 161 155

FLPotato 56.8 19.2 18.1

NCcoastal 65.3 32.6 29.3

WIsands 329 187 158

SCIGROW

-- 1.5E

- 3 †

-- -- DCSA

Model Use/Scenario Acute (ug/L) Chronic

(ug/L) 30

- year average

(ug/L)

SW **

(PRZM/EXAMS) MScottonSTD.txt 2.97 2.59 0.63

Groundwater Peak (ug/L) Post

breakthrough

average (ug/L) 30

- year average

(ug/L)

PRZM

- GW (no pca applied) GAcoastal ‡ 4.47E

- 5 3.93E

- 5 2.38E

- 5

DELMARVA 1.94E

- 4 1.65E

- 4 4.45E

- 5

FLCitrus 0.041 0.041 0.018

FLPotato ‡ 5.71E

- 11 3.67E

- 11 3.114E

- 11

NCcoastal 7.31E

- 5 3.64E

- 5 2.59E

- 5

WIsands ‡ 8.3E

- 4 7.66 E

- 4 3.67E

- 4

SCIGROW

-- 5.9E

- 3

-- --

* Bold values indicate maximum value of the scenarios run. Recommended for use in dietary risk assessment.

* * PCA corrected using all

- agriculture PCA = 87%.

† Results from USEPA, 2010 (D378447).

‡ 100 year simulation , throughputs were <1.0 for 30 year simulation.Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346



### Page 21 of 27 ATTACHMENT 3

Filename: E: \ Dicamba Dietary \ BAPMA Registration 2015 \ 128931_Dicamba_Acute_Input File_Unrefined_BAPMA Action_Sept 2015_Food and Drinking Water_.TXT

Chemical: Dicamba (029801, 029802, 02 9806, 128931, 128944, and 129043) RfD(Chronic): .04 mg/kg bw/day NOEL(Chronic): 4 mg/kg bw/day RfD(Acute): .29 mg/kg bw/day NOEL(Acute): 29 mg/kg bw/day

Date created/last modified: 10

- 15

- 2015/11:33:52 Program ver. 3.16, 03

- 08

- d
Comment: Ground Water Parent and Metabolite Residues Combined for all Crops; No Acute Endpt for

Females 13

- 49: Unrefined Tolerance Level Assessment for Acute_BAPMA Action_Sept 2015

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- EPA Crop Def Res Adj.Factors Comment Code Grp Commodity Name (ppm) #1 #2

---------- ---- ------------------------------- ---------- ------ ------ ------- 060 0347000 6 Soybean, seed 10.000000 1.000 1.000
0600349000 6 Soybean, soy milk 10.000000 1.000 1.000
0600349001 6 Soybean, soy milk

- babyfood or in 10.000000 1.000 1.000
0600350000 6 Soybean, oil 10.000000 1.000 1.000
0600350001 6 Soybean, oil

- babyfood 10.000000 1.000 1.000
0603348000 6C Soybean, flour 10.000000 1.000 1.000
0603348001 6C Soybean, flour

- babyfood 10. 000000 1.000 1.000
1500025000 15 Barley, pearled barley 6.000000 1.000 1.000
1500025001 15 Barley, pearled barley

- babyfood 6.000000 1.000 1.000
1500026000 15 Barley, flour 6.000000 1.000 1.000

1 500026001 15 Barley, flour

- babyfood 6.000000 1.000 1.000
1500027000 15 Barley, bran 6.000000 1.000 1.000

1500120000 15 Corn, field, flour 0.100000 1.000 1.000

1500120001 15 Corn, fiel d, flour

- babyfood 0.100000 1.000 1.000

1500121000 15 Corn, field, meal 0.100000 1.000 1.000

1500121001 15 Corn, field, meal

- babyfood 0.100000 1.000 1.000

1500122000 15 Corn, field, bran 0.100000 1.000 1.000

1500123000 15 Corn, field, starch 0.100000 1.000 1.000

1500123001 15 Corn, field, starch

- babyfood 0.100000 1.000 1.000
1500124000 15 Corn, field, syrup 0.100000 1.500 1.000
1500124001 15 Corn, field, syrup

- babyfood 0.100000 1.500 1.000

1500125000 15 Corn, field, oil 0.100000 1.000 1.000

1500125001 15 Corn, field, oil

- babyfood 0.100000 1.000 1.000
1500126000 15 Corn, pop 0.100000 1.000 1.000

1500127000 15 Corn, sweet 0.040000 1.000 1.000

1500127001 15 Corn, sweet

- babyfood 0.040000 1.000 1.000
1500226000 15 Millet, g rain 2.000000 1.000 1.000

1500231000 15 Oat, bran 2.000000 1.000 1.000

1500232000 15 Oat, flour 2.000000 1.000 1.000

1500232001 15 Oat, flour

- babyfood 2.000000 1.000 1.000 1500233000 15 Oat, groats/rolled oats 2.000000 1.000 1.000 1500233001 15 Oat, groats/rolled oats

- babyfood 2.000000 1.000 1.000
1500328000 15 Rye, grain 2.000000 1.000 1.000
1500329000 15 Rye, flour 2.000000 1.000 1.000
1500344000 15 Sorghum, grain 4.000000 1.000 1.000
1500345000 15 Sorghum, syrup 4.000000 1.000 1.000

1500401000 15 Wheat, grain 2.000000 1.000 1.000
1500401001 15 Wheat, grain

- babyfood 2.000000 1.000 1.000

1500402000 15 Wheat, flour 2.000000 1.000 1.000

1500402001 15 Wheat, flour

- babyfood 2.000000 1.000 1.000
1500403000 15 Wheat, germ 2.000000 1.000 1.000

1500404000 15 Wheat, bran 2.000000 1.000 1.000

2003128000 20C Cottonseed, oil 3.000000 1.000 1.00 0

2003128001 20C Cottonseed, oil

- babyfood 3.000000 1.000 1.000

3100044000 31 Beef, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000

3100044001 31 Beef, meat

- babyfood 0.250000 1.000 1.000

3100045000 31 Beef, meat, dried 0.250000 1.920 1.000
3100046000 31 Beef, meat byproducts 3.000000 1.000 1.000
3100046001 31 Beef, meat byproducts

- babyfood 3.000000 1.000 1.000

3100047000 31 Beef, fat 0.300000 1.000 1.000

3100047001 31 Beef, fat

- babyfood 0.300000 1.000 1.000
3100048000 31 Beef, kidney 25.000000 1.000 1.000

3100049000 31 Beef, liver 3.000000 1.000 1.000

3100049001 31 Beef, liver

- babyfood 3.000000 1.000 1.000

3200169000 32 Goat, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000
3200170000 32 Goat, meat byproducts 3.000000 1.000 1.000Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346



### Page 22 of 27 3200171000 32 G oat, fat 0.300000 1.000 1.000
3200172000 32 Goat, kidney 25.000000 1.000 1.000

3200173000 32 Goat, liver 3.000000 1.000 1.000

3300189000 33 Horse, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000

3400290000 34 Pork, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000

3400290001 34 Pork, meat

- babyfood 0.250000 1.000 1.000

3400291000 34 Pork, skin 3.000000 1.000 1.000
3400292000 34 Pork, meat byproducts 3.000000 1.000 1.000
3400292001 34 Pork, meat byproducts

- babyfood 3.000000 1.000 1.000

3400293000 34 Pork, fat 0.300000 1.000 1.000

3400293001 34 Pork, fat

- babyfood 0.300000 1.000 1.000
3400294000 34 Pork, kidney 25.000000 1.000 1.000

3400295000 34 Pork, liver 3.000000 1.000 1.000
3500339000 35 Sheep, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000
3500339001 35 Sheep, meat

- babyfood 0.250000 1.000 1.000
3500340000 35 Sheep, meat byproducts 3.000000 1.000 1.000
3500341000 35 Sheep, fat 0.300000 1.0 00 1.000
3500341001 35 Sheep, fat

- babyfood 0.300000 1.000 1.000
3500342000 35 Sheep, kidney 25.000000 1.000 1.000
3500343000 35 Sheep, liver 3.000000 1.000 1.000

3600222000 36 Milk, fat 0.200000 1.000 1.000

3600222001 36 Milk, fat

- baby food/infant formu 0.200000 1.000 1.000

3600223000 36 Milk, nonfat solids 0.200000 1.000 1.000

3600223001 36 Milk, nonfat solids

- baby food/in 0.200000 1.000 1.000

3600224000 36 Milk, water 0.200000 1.000 1.000

3600224001 36 Milk, water

- babyfood/infant form 0.200000 1.000 1.000
3600225001 36 Milk, sug ar (lactose)

- baby food/ 0.200000 1.000 1.000

8601000000 86A Water, direct, all sources 0.329041 1.000 1.000

8602000000 86B Water, indirect, all sources 0.329041 1.000 1.000
9500019000 O Asparagus 4.000000 1.000 1.000
9500362000 O Sugarcane, sugar 0.300000 1.000 1.000
9500362001 O Sugarcane, sugar

- babyfood 0.300000 1.000 1.000
9500363000 O Sugarcane, molasses 5.000000 1.000 1.000
9500363001 O Sugarcane, molasses

- babyfood 5.000000 1.000 1.000

9500373500 O Teff, flour 6.000000 1.000 1.000Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346



### Page 23 of 27 ATTACHMENT 4

US EPA Ver. 3.18, 03

- 08

- d

DE EM

- FCID ACUTE Analysis for DICAMBA (029801, 029802, 029806, 128931, 128944, AND 129043)

NHANES 2003

- 2008 2

- Day Residue file: 128931_Dicamba_Acute_Input File_Unrefined_BAPMA Action_Sept 2015_Food and
Drinking Water.R08 Adjustment factor #2 used.
Analysis Date: 10

- 15

- 2015/11:41:36 Residue file dated: 10

- 15

- 2015/11:33:52 NOEL (Acute) = 29.000000 mg/kg body

- wt/day

RAC/FF intake summed over 24 hours

Run Comment: "Ground Water Parent and Metabolite Residues Combined for all Cro
ps; No Acute Endpt for Females 13

- 49: Unrefined Tolerance Level Assessment for Acute_BAPMA Action_Sept 2015 "

================================================================== =============

Summary calculations

-- per capita:

--- 95th Percentile

---- --- 99th Percentile

---- --- 99.9th Percentile

---- Exposure % aRfD MOE Exposure % aRfD MOE Exposure % aRfD MOE

---------- ------- -------- ---------- ------- -------- ---------- ------- -------- Total US Population:

0.042760 14.74 678 0.070910 24.45 408 0.176225 60.77 164

All Infants:

0.088733 30.60 326 0.123532 42.60 234 0.430231 148.36 67

Childre n 1

- 2:

0.075295 25.96 385 0.185363 63.92 156 0.874135 301.43 33

Children 3

- 5:

0.065788 22.69 440 0.147118 50.73 197 0.466474 160.85 62

Children 6

- 12:

0.047142 16.26 615 0.073376 25.30 395 0.287964 99.30 100

Youth 13

- 19:

0.032166 11.09 901 0.050366 17.37 575 0.122480 42.23 236

Adults 20

- 49:

0.035172 12.13 824 0.058497 20.17 495 0.107617 37.11 269

Adults 50

- 99:

0.029776 10.27 973 0.051032 17.60 568 0.138606 47.80 209

Female 13

- 49:

0.032628 11.25 888 0.055286 19.06 524 0.112472 38.78 257Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346



### Page 24 of 27 ATTACHMENT 5

Filename: E: \ Dicamba Dietary \ BAPMA Registration 2015 \ 128931_Dicamba_Chronic_Input File_Refined with Avg Crop Residues_BAPMA Action_Sept 2015_Food and Drinking Water.R08

Chemical: Dicamba (029801, 029802, 029806, 128931, 128944, and 129043)

RfD(Chronic): .0 4 mg/kg bw/day NOEL(Chronic): 4 mg/kg bw/day RfD(Acute): .29 mg/kg bw/day NOEL(Acute): 29 mg/kg bw/day

Date created/last modified: 09

- 24

- 2015/13:25:16 Program ver. 3.16, 03

- 08

- d
Comment: Ground Water Parent and Metabolite Residues Combined for all Crops; No Acute Endpt

for Females 13

- 49; Refined Assessment Using Average Residues, %CT Data & 100%CT for Avg Crop Redisues & Livestock Tolerance Values_BAPMA Action_September 2015

---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA Crop Def Res Adj.Factors Comment Code Grp Commodity Name (ppm) #1 #2

---------- ---- - ------------------------------ ---------- ------ ------ ------- 0600347000 6 Soybean, seed 1.100000 1.000 1.000
0600349000 6 Soybean, soy milk 1.100000 1.000 1.000
0600349001 6 Soybean, soy milk

- b abyfood or in 1.100000 1.000 1.000
0600350000 6 Soybean, oil 1.100000 1.000 1.000
0600350001 6 Soybean, oil

- babyfood 1.100000 1.000 1.000
0603348000 6C Soybean, flour 1.100000 1.000 1.000
0603348001 6C Soybean, flour

- babyfood 1.100000 1.000 1.000
1500025000 15 Barley, pearled barley 1.300000 1.000 0.050
1500025001 15 Barley, pearled barley

- babyfood 1.300000 1.000 0.050

15000260 00 15 Barley, flour 1.300000 1.000 0.050
1500026001 15 Barley, flour

- babyfood 1.300000 1.000 0.050
1500027000 15 Barley, bran 1.300000 1.000 0.050

1500120000 15 Corn, field, flou r 0.010000 1.000 0.100

1500120001 15 Corn, field, flour

- babyfood 0.010000 1.000 0.100

1500121000 15 Corn, field, meal 0.010000 1.000 0.100

1500121001 15 Corn, field, meal

- babyfood 0.01000 0 1.000 0.100

1500122000 15 Corn, field, bran 0.010000 1.000 0.100

1500123000 15 Corn, field, starch 0.010000 1.000 0.100

1500123001 15 Corn, field, starch

- babyfood 0.010000 1.000 0.100

150012 4000 15 Corn, field, syrup 0.010000 1.500 0.100
1500124001 15 Corn, field, syrup

- babyfood 0.010000 1.500 0.100

1500125000 15 Corn, field, oil 0.010000 1.000 0.100

1500125001 15 Corn, field, oil

- babyfood 0.010000 1.000 0.100
1500126000 15 Corn, pop 0.010000 1.000 0.100

1500127000 15 Corn, sweet 0.020000 1.000 0.010

1500127001 15 Corn, sweet

- babyfood 0.0 20000 1.000 0.010
1500226000 15 Millet, grain 0.400000 1.000 1.000 Transl

Full comment: Translated from wheat

1500231000 15 Oat, bran 0.400000 1.000 0.025 Transl

Full co mment: Translated from wheat

1500232000 15 Oat, flour 0.400000 1.000 0.025 Transl

Full comment: Translated from wheat

1500232001 15 Oat, flour

- babyfood 0.400000 1.000 0.025 Transl

F ull comment: Translated from wheat 1500233000 15 Oat, groats/rolled oats 0.400000 1.000 0.025 Transl

Full comment: Translated from wheat 1500233001 15 Oat, groats/rolled oats

- babyfood 0.400000 1.000 0.025 Transl

Full comment: Translated from wheat
1500328000 15 Rye, grain 0.400000 1.000 1.000 Transl

Full comment: Translated from wheat
1500329000 15 Rye, flour 0.400000 1.000 1.000 Transl

Full comment: Translated from wheat
1500344000 15 Sorghum, grain 1.500000 1.000 0.150
1500345000 15 Sorghum, syrup 1.500000 1.000 0.150
1500401000 15 Wheat, grain 0.40 0000 1.000 0.100
1500401001 15 Wheat, grain

- babyfood 0.400000 1.000 0.100

1500402000 15 Wheat, flour 0.400000 1.000 0.100

1500402001 15 Wheat, flour

- babyfood 0.400000 1.000 0.100

150 0403000 15 Wheat, germ 0.400000 1.000 0.100

1500404000 15 Wheat, bran 0.400000 1.000 0.100

2003128000 20C Cottonseed, oil 0.500000 1.000 1.000

2003128001 20C Cottonseed, oil

- babyfood 0.500000 1.000 1.000

3100044000 31 Beef, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000

3100044001 31 Beef, meat

- babyfood 0.250000 1.000 1.000Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346



### Page 25 of 27 3100045000 31 Beef, meat, dried 0. 250000 1.920 1.000
3100046000 31 Beef, meat byproducts 3.000000 1.000 1.000
3100046001 31 Beef, meat byproducts

- babyfood 3.000000 1.000 1.000

3100047000 31 Beef, fat 0.300000 1.000 1.000

3 100047001 31 Beef, fat

- babyfood 0.300000 1.000 1.000
3100048000 31 Beef, kidney 25.000000 1.000 1.000

3100049000 31 Beef, liver 3.000000 1.000 1.000

3100049001 31 Beef, live r

- babyfood 3.000000 1.000 1.000

3200169000 32 Goat, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000
3200170000 32 Goat, meat byproducts 3.000000 1.000 1.000

3200171000 32 Goat, fat 0.300000 1.000 1.000
3200172000 32 Goat, kidney 25.000000 1.000 1.000

3200173000 32 Goat, liver 3.000000 1.000 1.000

3300189000 33 Horse, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000

3400290000 34 Pork, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000

3400290001 34 Pork, meat

- babyfood 0.250000 1.000 1.000

3400291000 34 Pork, skin 3.000000 1.000 1.000

3400292000 34 Pork, me at byproducts 3.000000 1.000 1.000
3400292001 34 Pork, meat byproducts

- babyfood 3.000000 1.000 1.000

3400293000 34 Pork, fat 0.300000 1.000 1.000

3400293001 34 Pork, fat

- babyfood 0.300000 1.000 1.000
3400294000 34 Pork, kidney 25.000000 1.000 1.000

3400295000 34 Pork, liver 3.000000 1.000 1.000
3500339000 35 Sheep, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000
3500339001 35 Sheep, meat

- babyfood 0.250000 1.000 1.000
3500340000 35 Sheep, meat byproducts 3.000000 1.000 1.000
3500341000 35 Sheep, fat 0.300000 1.000 1.000
3500341001 35 Sheep, fat

- babyfood 0.300000 1.000 1.000
3500342000 35 Sheep, kidney 25.000000 1.000 1.000
3500343000 35 Sheep, liver 3.000000 1.000 1.000

3600222000 36 Milk, fat 0.200000 1.000 1.000

3600222001 36 Milk, fat

- baby food/infant formu 0.200000 1.000 1.000

3600223000 36 Milk, nonfat solids 0.200000 1.000 1.000

3600223001 36 Milk, nonfat solids

- baby food/in 0.200000 1.000 1.0 00

3600224000 36 Milk, water 0.200000 1.000 1.000

3600224001 36 Milk, water

- babyfood/infant form 0.200000 1.000 1.000

3600225001 36 Milk, sugar (lactose)

- baby food/ 0.200000 1.000 1.000

8601000000 86A Wate r, direct, all sources 0.187041 1.000 1.000

8602000000 86B Water, indirect, all sources 0.187041 1.000 1.000
9500019000 O Asparagus 1.000000 1.000 0.050
9500362000 O Sugarcane, sugar 0.140000 1.000 0.200
9500362001 O Sugarcane, sugar

- babyfood 0.140000 1.000 0.200
9500363000 O Sugarcane, molasses 3.400000 1.000 0.200
9500363001 O Sugarcane, molasses

- babyfood 3.400000 1.000 0 .200

9500373500 O Teff, flour 1.300000 1.000 1.000 Transl

Full comment: Translated from BarleyDicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346



### Page 26 of 27 ATTACHMENT 6

US EPA Ver. 3.16, 03

- 08

- d

DEEM

- FCID Chronic analysis for DICAMBA (029801, 029802, 029806, 128931, 128944, AND 129043)

NHANES 2003

- 2008 2

- day

Residue file name: E: \ Dicamba Dietary \ BAPMA Registration 2015 \ 128931_Dicamba_Chron ic_Input File_Refined with Avg Crop Residues_BAPMA Action_Sept 2015_Food and Drinking Water.R08 Adjustment factor #2 used.
Analysis Date 10

- 15

- 2015/11:43:17 Residue file dated: 10

- 15

- 2015/11:36:52

Re ference dose (RfD, Chronic) = .04 mg/kg bw/day
COMMENT 1: Ground Water Parent and Metabolite Residues Combined for all Crops; No Acute Endpt for

Females 13

- 49; Refined Assessment Using Average Residues, %CT Data & 100%CT for Avg Crop Redisues &

Livestock T olerance Values_BAPMA Action_September 2015

=============================================================================== Total exposure by population subgroup

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Total Exposure

----------------------------------- Population mg/kg Percent of Subgroup body wt/day Rfd

-------------------------------------- ------------- ---------------- Total US Population 0.006319 15.8%
Hispanic 0.006592 16.5%

Non

- Hisp

- White 0.006373 15.9%

Non

- Hisp

- Black 0.005361 13.4%

Non

- Hisp

- Other 0.007169 17.9%
Nursing Infants 0.004789 12.0%

Non

- Nursing Infants 0.018149 45.4%

Female 13+ PREG 0.005659 14.1%

Children 1

- 6 0.013494 33.7%

Children 7

- 12 0.007114 17.8%

Male 13

- 19 0.005016 12.5%

Female 13

- 19/NP 0.004863 12.2%

Male 20+ 0.005297 13.2%
Female 20+/NP 0.005576 13.9%

Seniors 55+ 0.005264 13.2%

All Infants 0.014024 35.1%

Female 13

- 50 0.005460 13.6%

Children 1

- 2 0.016988 42.5%

Children 3

- 5 0.011 947 29.9%

Children 6

- 12 0.007618 19.0%

Youth 13

- 19 0.004936 12.3%

Adults 20

- 49 0.005526 13.8%

Adults 50

- 99 0.005340 13.3%

Female 13

- 49 0.005465 13.7%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346



### Page 27 of 27 ATTACHMENT 7

US EPA Ver. 3.16, 03

- 08

- d

DEEM

- FCID Chronic analysis for DICAMBA (029801, 029802, 029806, 128931, 128944, AND 129043)

NHANES 2003

- 2008 2

- day

Residu e file name: E: \ Dicamba Dietary \ BAPMA Registration 2015 \ 128931_Dicamba_Chronic_Input File_Refined with Avg Crop Residues_BAPMA Action_Sept 2015_Food and Drinking Water.R08 Adjustment factor #2 used.

Anal ysis Date 10

- 15

- 2015/11:43:22 Residue file dated: 10

- 15

- 2015/11:36:52 Reference dose (RfD, Chronic) = .04 mg/kg bw/day
COMMENT 1: Ground Water Parent and Metabolite Residues Combined for all Crops; No Acute Endpt for

Females 13

- 49; Refined Assessment U sing Average Residues, %CT Data & 100%CT for Avg Crop Redisues & Livestock Tolerance Values_BAPMA Action_September 2015

=============================================================================== Critical Commodity Contribution Analysi s for

Children 1

- 2

Total Exposure =.0169885 mg/kg bw/day

Crop groups with total exposure contribution > 5% Foods/Foodforms with exposure contribution > 3%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crop group

---------- Exposure Analysis

-------- Food mg/kg % of Total Percent

Foodform body wt/day Exposure of RfD

-------------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ----------

Crop Group = (36) Milk

Milk, nonfat solids (3600223000):
FoodForm N/S 0.0008510 5.01% 2.13%

Milk, water (3600224000):

FoodForm N/S 0.0072998 42.97% 18.25%

-------------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- Total for crop group 0.0084982 50.02 % 21.25%

Crop Group = (86) Water

Water, direct, all sources (8601000000):

FoodForm N/S 0.0036343 21.39% 9.09%

Water, indirect, all sources (8602000000):

FoodForm N/S 0.002015 4 11.86% 5.04%

-------------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- Total for crop group 0.0056497 33.26% 14.12%

Crop Group = (86A) Direct Water

Water, direct, all sources (8601000000):

FoodForm N/S 0.0036343 21.39% 9.09%

-------------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- Total for crop group 0.0036343 21.39% 9.09%

Crop Group = (86B) Indirec t Water
Water, indirect, all sources (8602000000):

FoodForm N/S 0.0020154 11.86% 5.04%

-------------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- Total for crop group 0.0020 154 11.86% 5.04%

Total for crop groups listed above: 0.0141479 83.28% 35.4%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------