UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHI NGTON , D
. C

. 20460 

### FEB 0 5 2015

MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND PO L LUTION P REVE N TION

SUBJECT : 

### BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) for Registration Review: Metiram (014601)
FROM:

THRU: 

### Tara Chandgoyal, Plant Pathologist Biological Analysis Branch Sepehr Haddad, Environmental Protection

# Specialist#~ 

# p)**·~** Science Information and Analysis Branch Elizabeth Hill, Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Br Diann Sims,

# Chief~~ Science Infor mation and Analysis Branch Timothy Kiely , Chief 

# SJ: lA

## A~ Economic Analysis Branch vv L 

### Biological and Economic Analysi ivision · 3P) TO: 

### Christina Scheltema, Chemical Review Manager, RMIB III Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)
Peer Review Panel D ate: December 10, 2014SUMMARY Metiram was first registered in the United States in 1948 for use on food and ornamental crops, and is a member ofthe ethylene bisdithiocarbamate (EBDC) group of fungicides which includes the related active ingredients mancozeb and maneb (USEP A, 2005). Based on private market usage data from 1998-2012, usage averaged approximately 765 , 000 pounds active ingredient (a.i.) applied annually on approximately 400,000 acres treated. The average a .i. rate over this time period was 1.91 lbs a.i./acre. For metiram, during the timeframe of2004-2012, usage for apples averaged 300,000 lbs a.i. with an average of 10 percent crop treated, and for potatoes usage also averaged 300,000 lbs. a.i
. with an average percent crop treated of 5 percent. Metiram is used on apples to control scab and rust diseases. On potato it is used to control early and la te blight diseases. The only non-agricultural use for metiram is on leather fern in Florida as special local need to control anthracnose disease.
INTRODU CTION The Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) Chemical Profile (BCP) provides an overview of the pest management roles and quantitative usage information for metiram. The BCP includes summaries ofprevious BEAD products and available public and/or private use and usage data for metiram to describe the role ofthis chemical in pest management. Additional information on use is available in the Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA). Information provided in this BCP may be used by stakeholders (e.g. , users and registrants), OPP risk and benefit assessors, OPP risk managers, and the general public during the Registration Review process of this pesticide. The document is based on information and data available to BEAD as of November 2014
. HISTORY OF BEAD ASSESSMENTS FOR METIRAM Metiram, first registered in the United States in 1948 for use on food and ornamental crops, is a member of the ethylene bisdithiocarbamate (EBDC) group of fungicides which includes the related active ingredients mancozeb and maneb (USEPA, 2005). The metiram Registration Standard was issued in 1986 with an update to the standard in 1992. Currently, th e only food/feed uses of metiram are apples and potatoes . It is also registered for use on leather fern in Florida as special local need to control anthracnose disease. A Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) was prepared by BEAD for this chemical in 2014 that provides the percent crop treated for apples and potatoes. For metiram, during the SLUA timeframe of2004-2012, usage for apples averaged 300,000 lbs a.i. with an average of 10 percent crop treated, and for potatoes usage also averaged 300,000 lbs. a.i. with an average percent crop treated of 5 percent. To date, BEAD has not reviewed any section 18 Emergency Exemption requests for the use of metiram. This should not be interpreted as lack of benefits associated with the chemical. Page2COMMON FORMUL ATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS Metiram is formulated as dry flowable (water dispersible granules), and is applied by aircraft and ground application methods. USE SITES Agricultural Use Sites Metirarn registered agricultural use sites are apples and potatoes . Non-Agricultural Use Sites The only non-agricultural use for metiram is on ornamental nonflowering plants. There is one Special Local Need (SLN) registration ofmetiram in Florida for use on leather leaf fern to control anthracnose disease. METIRAM USAGE Agricultural Usage Based on private mark et usage data from 1998

-2012, usage averaged approximately 765,000 a.i. applied annually on approximately 400,000 acres treated. The average a.i. rate over this time period was pounds 1.91 a.i./acre. Figure l presents metiram usage in pounds a.i. , and Figure 2 shows total area treated in acres over the 1998-2012 timeframe (Proprietary Data, 1998-2012). Figures 1 and 2 show that over this time period in terms ofpounds applied and acres treated there has been a sharp decline in usage, which is primarily driven by a reduction in usage on apples.

Page 3

### Figure 

### 1. Metiram Usage in Pounds Active Ingredient (1998-2012) 1,400,000

0 '?J'h '?>">**~~ ~....,** **~"' ~'?**  cl>'**~<,** d<>**~ ~'t>** **~"> ~~** **~...., ~"'** 

{'i ..,os 

## -ss 

# "''5 "''5 "''5 "''5 "''5 i5 

# "''5 "''5 -ss**~ "'~**  "'<::> Years
Source: Proprietary Data, 1998-2012 

### Figure 2. Metiram Total Area Treated in Acres (1998-2012) 800000 VI w

.... u**~** -o w 

### .... ro w
....Iro w

.... <! ro



### .... 0I0 '?>'t> '?>"> s::>'<:> s::>..,**~"' ~'?** **~t>< ~<,** **~(o ~** **~'t> ~">** **~~ ~....,** **~"'** {'i {'i 

## -ss 

# "''5 i5 

# "''5 "''5 "''5 "''5 "''5 "''5 "''5**~ "'~** **"'~** Years Sou rce: Proprietary Data, 1998-2012
Table 1 shows that the crop with the most pounds applied during 2008

-2012 timeframe has been potatoes, accounting for approximately 60 percent oftotal pounds applied
. The average a.i. rate for potatoes in terms ofpounds a.i. applied was 1
. 37 lbs a.i./acre. The average a.i. rate for the only other registered use (apples) is 2.65 lbs a.i./acre as shown in Table 1. Page4A Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) was prepared by BEAD for this chemical in 2014 that provides the percent crop treated for apples and potatoes. For metiram, during the SLUA timeframe of2004

-2012, usage for apples averaged 300,000 lbs a.i. with an average of 10 percent crop treated, and for potatoes usage also averaged 300 ,000 lbs. a.i. with an average percent crop treated of 5 percent. 

### T b l 

### 1 M .

a e etlram 

## u se on 

### p otatoes and A I •PP 

### es: A

### verage AIR ate, 

# .. 2008 2012 

# - Annual Average Annual Average A vg. A.I. 

### Rate (lbs Crop Total Acres Pounds Treated* a.i.!acres) Potatoes 211,000 154,000 l.37 Apples 147,000 55,400 2.65 "Total Acres Treated sums all acres treated for a crop , mcludmg those acres that recetve multtple treatments. Source: Proprietary Data , 2008-2012
As shown in Table 2, Washington and New York are the top states with the highest use of metiram accounting for over 50 percent of total pounds applied between 2008 and 2012. 

### T bl 2 St



### a e 

## . . h H' h U fM

. 

### ates w1t 1g1 est se o etlram

- Percent ofTotal Lbs. Applied (2008

-2012) 2008-2012 Average annual= 210,000 lbs/Year 

### State %Lbs Washington 37% New York 14% Wisconsin 7% Michigan 7%

Idaho 6% Other 29% TOTAL 100% Source: Proprietary Data, 1998-2012


### USE INTENSITY Figure 3 provides a very broad geog ra

phical view ofthe average annual amount (in pounds) of metiram applied per l ,000 acres of crop acres grown. The calculated values presented in the map are not equivalent to an application rate (lb ai/ A), therefore , the map may show areas of hi gh use intensity that do not correspond to the states listed in Table 2 since those are the states with the highest use ofmeti ram based on pounds active ingredient applied. In this case; however, the states with the highest use intensity are also the state with highest annual average use (the states of Washington and New York)
. In Figure 3, the state ofMaine also depicts high use intensity of metiram. See Appendix I for a more detailed explanation of the information presented on the map. Page 5FIGURE 3. Annual Average Agricultural Use Intensity ofMetiram (2008-2012)

Pou nds Active Ingredient per 1 ,000 Crop Acres Grown 

## U < o

_

, O o. 1

- 1. 5

- 1.6-7.0

. 7
. 1- 21
.5

- > 2 1 .5 0No 0 ata

Non

-Agricultural Usage The only non-agricultural use for metiram is on ornamental nonflowering plants. There is one Special Local Need (SLN) registration for this use of metiram in Florida. A review ofpublic and proprietary databases did not show any available data on metiram non-agricultural usage. BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS RELEVANT TO METIRAM Metiram is registered fo r use on potato to control early and la te blight. It is registered for use on apples to control scab and rust diseases. Met iram is effective in controlling these diseases and also plays an important role in resistance management program because it has multisite mode of action against fungal pests. Metiram is a fungicide belonging to dithiocarbamate group of fungicides. It belongs to group M3 of Fungicide Resistance Action Committee based on mode of action of fungicides (FRAC, 2014). Metiram has multi-site contact activity and considered as a low risk fu ngicide without any Page 6sign ofresistance developing in fungi. Dithiocarbamate group includes many other fungicides (such as mancozeb, maneb, thiram, zineb and ziram). ROLE OF METIRAM IN PEST MANAGEMENT Metiram has been used on apples and potatoes for many years and there has been no report of resistance developing in any fungal pest. It is a contact fungicide with multisite mode of action against fungal pests. Metiram does not have curative properties and therefore it is used in comb ination and/or alternation with systemic fungicides (such as azoxystrobin, propiconazole) for season long disease control and resistance management. It is an important fungicide fo r use on apples and potatoes because no fungal pest has developed resistance against this fungicide since its registration in 1948. A closer look at propriety EPA usage data shows that metiram use on potato declined from 687,000 lbs a.i. in 1998 to 236,000 lbs a.i. in 2012 with fluctuations in usage from year to year depending on disease pressure. The decline in usage may be due to registrations of new generations of fung icides (such as azoxystrobin, pyroclostrobin, zoxamide) for the control of these fungal diseases while metiram remained as a tool for resistance management. In addition, we noticed that mancozeb (another EDBC fungicide with similar disease control spectrum as metiram) use on potatoes remained relatively stable during this period (2,1 00,000 lbs a.i. in 1998 to 2,070,000 lbs a.i. in 2012). It appears that mancozeb has always been preferred over metiram for controlling fungal diseases on different crops (Gullion et. al., 201 0), and therefore, it is reasonable to conclude tha t when new generation of fungicides (such as azoxystrobin,-pyraclostrobin, zoxamide, mandipropamid) were registered during early 2000, metiram usage on potatoes declined. On apples, metiram use declined from 471,000 lbs a.i. in 1998 to 142,000 lbs a.i. in 2012. This may be for many reasons. Since the 1990s, the major apple producing areas (Washington and Oregon State) have been replacing scab susceptible apple varieties (Red Delicious) with newer varieties (such as Golden Delicious, Braebum, Fuji, Gala, Jonagold) that are less susceptible to scab and requi re less inputs of fungicides such as metiram (Gianessi and Silvers, 2000). In addition, restrictions on the use of metiram through the summer growing season (77 days preharvest interval) makes it unavailable for disease control during summer season (US-EPARED, 2005). The newer classes offungicides (such as cyprodinil, difenoconazole, fenbuconazole, fluxapyroxad, fenbuconazole) have been registered for use on apple to control fungal diseases on apples and growers have been using them instead of metiram to control fungal diseases because of PHI application restriction and systemic action of newer fungicides. DATA NEEDS The following information may improve future assessments conducted by the Agency related to the use and importance of this fungicide:

• Non-agricultural use of metiram in Florida in terms of pounds a.i
. applied, application timing, and acres treated.
Page 7

## REFERENCES BEAD. 2014. Metiram Screening Level Usage Analysis
. Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs , US Environmental Protection Agency
. FRAC. 2014. http: //www.frac.info /frac/publication/anhang/20 14%20FRAC%20Code%20List
. pdf
. Assessed on December 2, 2014. Gianessi, L.P and Silvers, C
. S. 2000. Trends in crop pesticide use: Comparing 1992 and 1997. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, 1616 P. Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Gullino, M.L. et, al., 2010. M ancozeb

- Past, Present, and Future. Plant Disease 94: 1076- 1087. http: //apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdf/1 0.1 094/PDIS-94-9-1 076
. Accessed on December 30, 2014. Proprietary Data
. 1998-2012
. (pesticide agricultural usage data) USEPA. 2005
. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Metiram. EPA document no. EPA 73-R-05

-017 August 2005. USEPA.2005. EPA Fact Sheet for Metiram.

Page 8APPENDIX I The map included herein is primarily for the use of the risk assessors in the Environmental Fate and Effects Division. The map provides a very broad geographical view of the average annual amount (in pounds) ofthe active ingredient applied per 1 ,000 acres of crop acres grown. These data are included in the maps because risk assessors are interested in the amount of a pesticide used across agricultural land
. The calculated values presented in the map are not equivalent to an application rate (lb ai/A). The data used to make these maps have several limitations. Any interpretation of the maps should consider the underlying data and the associated limitations carefully. The numerator (annual average pounds applied) is based on private market surveys of pesticide use in agriculture averaged over the last five years (Proprietary Data, 2008-2012). These surveys cover about 60 crops and are targeted in states that produce the majority of the crop. Altho ugh the surveys capture most ofthe use of a particular active ingredient in agriculture , there are several limitations to these surveys.
• States with minor production of a surveyed crop are not sam pled • Not all types ofpesticides are surveyed in every crop in every year • Many specialty crops with very sma ll acreages are not included in the survey The result of these limitations is that states that show no usage may actually have a small amount of the active ingredient being used. In some cases the displayed use intensity may be distorted because the surveyed crops and the reported pesticide usage may not accurately represent the actual pesticide usage on the crops produced in the stat e . The denominator (1,000 crop acres grown) was also obtained from the same private market survey database. The "Crop Acres Grown" variable represents the total acres grown in a given state of all of the surveyed crops. Thi s value is independent ofpesticide usage and pesticide registration. It i s important to note that the surveyed crops (about 60) are sampled from states that are major producers of each crop. Therefore, there are cases where the actual crop acreage in a state is higher than tha t reported by crop acres grown in the survey because either that state and/or crop was not included in the survey. The reader should pay particular attention to the figure legends and realize that a map prepared for a particular chemical is not directly comparable to a map prepa red for a different chemical as the legend bins will likely be different.

Page 9