### 1 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

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

February 1 8 , 201 6

PC Code: 009801

MEMORANDUM DP Bar code: 428597

SUBJECT: Bensulide: Preliminary Ecological Risk Ass essment for Registration Review

FROM: Ryan Mroz, Biologist He Zhong, Ph.D., Biologist

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

THRU : Sujatha Sankula , Ph.D., Branch Chief Greg Orrick, R isk Assessment Process Leader

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

TO: Meg Hathaway , Chemical Review Manager Cathryn Britton, Team Leader Kevin Costello, Branch Chief

Risk Management and Implementation Branch II

Pesticide Re

- e valuation Division (7508P)

This memorandum transmits the preliminary ecological risk assessment for the registration

review of bensulide , a systemic organophosphate herbicide . Based on currently regis tered uses and labeled rates, this preliminary assessment identifies potential risks to non

- target organisms. This assessment is focused on species that are not f ederally listed as threatened or endangered (referred to as “listed”); however, some general d iscussion of taxa of listed species for which “no

effect” determinations are expected is included in this assessment. For taxa where risk concerns

have been identified , specific determinations for listed species are considered uncertain at this

time. The A gency has used the conservative assumptions due to the lack of fate and effects data, which may be reconsidered upon the review of new data submissions

. Currently labeled rates of bensulide pose a potential for adverse effects, i.e ., risk, in some way to a ll aquatic/terrestrial animals and plants . In addition, Section 2 addresses ambiguous label language that could be revised to reduce conservative assumptions used in assessing potential risks. In this assessment dietary risks to pollinators could not be as sessed due to a lack of honeybee data (only an adult contact study is available)

.

### 2 

# Preliminary Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment in Support of Registration Review for

Bensulide

CAS Number 741

- 58

- 2

PC Code: 009801

Prepared by: Ryan Mroz , Biologist He Zhong, Ph.D.

, Biologist U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental F ate and Effects Division

Environmental Risk Branch I 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P Washington, DC 20460 Reviewed by: Sujatha Sankula

, Ph.D. Branch Chief Greg Orrick

, R isk A ssessment P rocess L eader Michael Lowit, Ph.D., Ecologist 

### Faruque Kha n, Ph.D., Senior Scientist OFFICE OF CHEMICAL
SAFETY

AND POLLUTION

PREVENTION

### 3 

# Contents

1. Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 5

2. Problem Formulation

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 6

2.1 Previous Assessments

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6

2.2 Data Gaps/Uncertainties Identified in the Problem Formulation

................................ ..... 7

2.3 Updated Infor mation Since the 2008 Problem Formulation.

................................ ........... 8

2.3.1 Bensulide Oxon

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 8

2.3.2 Uncertainties/information gaps identified for this ass essment

........................... 8

2.3.3 Updated Requirements since the Problem Formulation

................................ ..... 9

3. Use Characterization and Methods of Application

................................ ................................ ... 10

4. Environmental Fate

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13

4.1 Bensulide and Degradates

................................ ................................ .............................. 13

4.2 Residues of Concern

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 15

4.3 Aquatic Exposures

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 16

4.3 Monitoring Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 21

4 .4 Terrestrial Habitats

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 21

4.4.1 Birds and Mammals

................................ ................................ .............................. 21

4.4.2 Terrestrial Invertebrates

................................ ................................ ...................... 25

4.4.3 Terrestrial Plants

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 25

5. Summary of Ecological Effects

................................ ................................ ................................ 27

5.1 Evaluation of mixtures

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 27

5.2 Aquatic Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 28

5.3 Terrestrial Organisms

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

5.4 Incident Inform ation

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 32

6. Risk Estimation

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 32

6.1 Aquatic Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 33

6.2 Bird s and Mammals

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

6.3 Drinking Water and Inhalation

................................ ................................ ....................... 40

6.4 Terrestrial Invertebrates

................................ ................................ ................................ . 41

6.5 Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants

................................ ................................ .............. 41

7. Risk Characterization and Conclusions

................................ ................................ .................... 43

7.1 Aquatic Organi sms

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 43

7.1.1 Aquatic fish and invertebrates

................................ ................................ ............. 43

7.1.2 Aquatic plants

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 44

7.2 Terrestrial Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 44

7.2.1 Birds and Mammals

................................ ................................ .............................. 44

7.2.2 Drinking Water

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 45

7.2.3 Non

- Target Terrestrial Invertebrates

................................ ................................ . 45

7.2.4 Terrestrial Plants

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 46 8. Risk to Listed Species

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 47

9. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

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

10. References

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

11. Appendice s

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 52 Appendix A. Submitted MRID Bibliography

................................ ................................ ........... 52

### 4 Appendix B. Bensulide Screening Level Usage Estimates

................................ ...................... 57 Appendix C: Results of ECOSAR Modeling

................................ ................................ ............ 58 Appendix D. SWCC Representative Results

................................ ................................ ............ 59 Appendix E: Representative T

- REX Input and Output (Turf)

................................ .................. 63 Appendix F: TerrPlant Input and Output (Turf)

................................ ................................ ....... 69 Appendix G. Review of Open Literature Toxicity Data Available for Bensulide

.................... 70 Appendix H Summary of Bensulide Toxicity

................................ ................................ .......... 70 Appendix I. Aggre gate Incident Report for Bensulide:

................................ ............................ 77 Appendix J: Aquatic animal and plant risk quotients uses of bensulide

................................ ... 78 Appendix K: STIR and SIP Inputs and Outputs

................................ ................................ ....... 82

### 5 1. Executive Summary

Bensulide is a pre

- emergen ce systemic organophosphate (OP) herbicide used to control grasses and broadleaf weeds i n a variety of agricultural ( e.g

. lettuce, cantaloupes, broccoli ) and non

agricultural ( e.g. golf courses, turf farms, residential lawns) settings. Bensulide inhibits meristematic root tissues (inhibits cell division in root tips) and inhibits seedling growth by conjugation of acetyl co

- enzyme A, specific site unknown (Ware, 1978; Martin, 2000). It is usually applied to bare ground before crops are planted. The primary mode of action of OP pesticides, including bensulide, on organisms with nervous systems ( e.g. , mammals)

, is inhibition of acetyl cholinesterase a nd accumulation of acetylcholine at the nerve synapses, resulting in classic symptoms of organophosphate poisoning ( e.g

. nausea, dizziness, confusion )

.

Environmental fate data indicate bensulide and its oxon degradate are persistent. While the parent bens u lide is slightly mobile in soil, its degradates bensulide oxon and

benzenesul f onamide, range from mobile to moderately mobile

. In general, bensulide is highly

toxic to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish on an acute basis. It is also highly toxic to

fres hwater invertebrates, and very highly toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates. Chronic effects were observed for all aquatic taxa. Bensulide is slightly toxic to birds on an acute oral basis, practically non

- toxic to birds on a subacute dietary basis, mode rately toxic to mammals on an
acute oral basis, and at most practically non

- toxic to honey bees on an acute contact basis. Chronic effects observed in avian studies included a decrease in eggshell thickness, increase in the number of cracked eggs, decrease in the percent of eggs hatched, and decrease in the percent

survival of 3

- week embryos and 14

- day chicks. Chronic effects that were observed in mammalian studies included decreased pup survival and reduction in plasma cholinesterase activity. Phytotoxic e ffects (stunting

, leaf blotch

, and leaf rolling) were observed in terrestrial plant studies at rates that were much lower than maximum labeled application rates

.
This assessment considers the most up to date toxicology and fate data, uses current exposure models including those exploring pathways not quantitatively assessed in past risk assessments (e.g., drinking water and inhalation exposure), and considers th e most recent labels, incident

inf ormation, and monitoring data. Based on the latest information , conclusions of this assessment are substantially similar to those of the I RED

. An acute and chronic risk concern is expected for both listed and non

- listed species of birds, mammals, fish, and aquatic

invertebrates. Terrestrial invertebrate risk cannot b e fully assessed due to lack of data (dietary),

or non

- definitive (contact) data, and remains an uncertainty. Risk concerns are also identified for

both terrestrial (listed monocots) and aquatic plants. In conclusion, consistent with past

assessments there is a risk concern (summary in Table 1.1 ) for aquatic organisms and terrestrial wildlife including listed species for the labeled uses of bensulide

.

Table 1.1 Summary of direct and indirect effects associated with registered uses of

bensulide*

Taxon Risk Concern for

Direct Effects? Risk Concern for

Indirect Effects to

### 6 Non

- Listed Listed Non

- Listed and Listed Species 2
Birds, reptiles, and terrestrial

- phase amphibians Y (A,C,DW) Y (A,C) Y

Mammals Y (A,C) Y (A,C) Y Terrestrial invertebrates (honeybees 1 ) ? ? Y Terrestrial (upland and semi

- aquatic) plants

– monocots N Y Y Terrestrial (upland and semi

- aquatic) plants

– dicots N N Y Freshwater fish and aquatic

- phase amphibians Y (C) Y (A,C) Y

Marine/estuarine fish Y (A,C) Y (A,C) Y

Freshwater invertebrat es Y (A,C) Y (A,C) Y Aquatic vascular plants Y Y Y Aquatic non

- vascular plants N N 3 N * At this current stage of the Registration Review process, it is premature to make effects determinations until

further refinements are conducted. A = Acute, C = Chro nic, DW = Drinking water

1 Only adult contact data is available. Risks from other exposure routes or life stages could not be assessed due to

lack of data. The systemic nature of the chemical and persistence make risk concerns possible from a dietary

stand point. Concerns could also exist for potential exposure through concentrations in drinking water for bees.

2 Indirect effects are possible for all animals and plants that rely on plants and other primary food chain animals for food, habitat, or other envi ronmental resources.

3 No currently listed non

- vascular plants



### 2

. Problem Formulation

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 bensulide. A Registration Review P roblem F ormulation document was completed for bensulide in June of 2008 ( USEPA 2008 , D347544 )

. The problem formulation identifies the characteristics of the potential ecosystems at risk, the assessment endpoints, and outlines a conceptual model which leads to a risk hypothesis evaluated in this assessment . The risk hypothesis written in the 2008 Registration Review Problem Formulation is summarized as follows: B ensulide is expected to be persistent in both aquat ic and terrestrial environments. The potential for bensulide to be transported to aquatic habitats is likely via suspended sediments, while in terrestrial habitats it has the potential to persist in soils. Consequently, terrestrial and aquatic organisms will be acutely and chronically exposed to bensulide via interactions with soils or other substrates

contaminated with bensulide residues.

2.1 Previous Assessments

Bensulide was first registered in 1964. The four most recent comprehensively reviews of

bensuli de were the 2000 Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED) ( USEPA, 2000 ), the

2000 Addendum to the Bensulide RED: Revised Risk Assessment and Risk Characterization for Risk to Aquatic Organisms from Use on Turf ( USEPA, 2000 ), the 2007 Pesticide Ef fects Determination for Risks of Bensulide to the Federally Listed California Red

- legged Frog ( Rana aurora draytonii ) ( USEPA, 2007 ), and a 2012 effects determination (completed after the 2008 problem formulation) for several Federally threatened and endang ered species in California ( USEPA 2012 a ). The 2000 IRED indicated the potential for risk to birds and mammals on an acute and chronic basis, freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates on an acute and chronic basis, and aquatic plants.

### 7 The IRED indicated the turf use of bensulide poses greater risk concerns to aquatic, terrestrial and avian species than the agricultural uses. Chronic risk to birds was of particular concern for the turf uses because birds tend to be attracted to large turf areas (e.g., golf course fairways) and may nest, feed or forage near or on these areas. Based on the IRED, the following mitigation was implemented:

• Prohibiting use on large non

- golf course turf sites (e.g., parks and recreational areas),

restriction of the golf course fairway use to a single grass type (i.e., bentgrass), and to certain states where bensulide serves a limited, but important purpose, restriction of the number of fairway applications to one.

• Limiting fairway application during fall season, to mini mize exposure to birds during the

breeding season, thereby mitigating the risk of reproductive impairment.

The IRED was followed up by a cumulative organophosphate assessment RED in 2006. The

IRED noted the environmental risks from bensulide use to non

- t arget organisms result from the high use rates, the persisten ce of the chemical and multiple applications (up to two times a year). The conclusions for the effects determinations for listed species in California USEPA 2007 and

USEPA 2012 a were generally in line with those of the IRED, with additional LOC exceedances for terrestrial invertebrates, avian/mammalian acute dosed

- based and chronic diet

- based LOCs and terrestrial plants . The risk c onclusions from these documents are summarized in Table 2.1

below.

Table 2.1. Summary of previously identified risks resulting from bensulide use

Mammals Birds Terr.

I nverts 2 FW

Fish E/M

Fish FW

inverts E/M

Inverts Terr. Plants 4 Aquatic

Plants 4

Acute Y 1 Y 1 Not

Assessed Y 1 Y 1 Y 1 Y 1 Listed Y 3 Y

Chronic Y 1 Y 1 Not

Assess ed Y 1 Y 1 Y 1 Y 1 Non

listed N Y

1 Listed and non

- listed species

2 The only study available shows bensulide is practically non

- toxic to the honeybee on an acute contact basis with a

non

- definitive endpoi n t; LD 50 > 24.17 μg/bee

3 Listed monocot species only

4 Risk from acute and chronic exposure not assessed; listed and non

- listed risks are identified

FW

– Freshwater; E/M

– Estuarine/Marine



### 2.2 Data Gaps/Uncertainties Identified in the Problem Formulation

The fate and ecotoxicity data gaps identified in the p roblem formulation are listed below. All studies requested from the resulting DCI were received. The mysid chr o nic toxicity test was given a supplemental classification based on a solvent effect for 14 day endpoints to which the registrant submitted a stat us rebuttal (USEPA 2012 b , D403396)

. EFED concluded the 28 day endpoints were acceptable for use in risk assessment and a reasonable risk management decision would be to not request a new acceptable study. The registrant also submitted a waiver

, which

was d enied, for the fish life

- cycle studies ( USEPA 2010, D 381471 )

. T he submitted

estuarine/marine and freshwater fish life

- cycle studies were deemed supplemental; however the registrant resubmitted additional data for both studies. After evaluation of the addit ional data (USEPA 2014 a , D420181 and USEPA 2014 b , D420826) , the estuarine/marine fish study was upgraded to acceptable while the freshwater fish study remained supplemental

. The endpoints

### 8 from all the se ecotoxicity studies submitted as a result of the DCI are used quantitatively in this

risk assessment.

Ecotoxicity Data Gaps : 850.1300

– Daphnid Chronic Toxicity Test: MRID 49110401

– Acceptable

850.1350

– Mysid Chronic Toxicity Test: MRID 48424501

- Supplemental

850.1500

– Freshwater Fish Life

- Cycle Test: MRID 49001601 /49378102

– Supplemental

850.1500

– Estuarine/marine Fish Life

- Cycle Test: MRID 49362301/ 49059101

– Acceptable

2.3 Updated Information Since the 2008 Problem Formulation.

2.3.1 Bensulide Oxon

The bensulide oxon, a major degradate, was not c onsidered in the problem formulation or any assessment prior to the 2012 SF

- Bay Effects determination. There are no toxicity data available

for the bensulide oxon. For aquatic exposures, a total toxic residue approach was used to

consider both bensulide a nd its major degradate ( bensulide oxon) as potential stressors. ECOSAR estimates of toxicity suggest comparable toxicity. Available data also show detectable residues of parent and oxon for Brassica leafy vegetables at 33 days but no detectable levels in vegetables at more protracted intervals. Therefore, it is believed that the use of a 35

- day dissipation half

- life (for terrestrial exposures) is a conservative way to account for the role of both parent (as an endogenous source of oxon when consumed) and o xon produced in the

environment

.

Additionally, in a response to a Registrants waive r request ( USEPA 2010; D381471 ) for a full

fish life

- cycle toxicity test after the problem formulation was completed, EFED suggested

bensulide oxon data (none received) be requested . In addition to the EFED studies suggested in this waiver response a full toxicity profile for HED was also recommended for the oxon . The

relevant EFED studies mentioned for the oxon are listed below:

• 850.1010

– Acute toxicity freshwater inverte brate

• 850.1075

– Acute toxicity f reshwater f ish

- Rainbow trout, and bluegill sunfish,

• 850.2100

– Avian Acute oral toxicity

- Northern bobwhite quail, or mallard duck, and a passerine specie s

2. 3.2 Uncertainties / information g aps identified for this ass essment

The following section describes uncertainties and /or studies which were not identified in the problem formulation but which could reduce uncertainty (regarding studies) in the risk

assessment.

Fate Data

• 835.4100

– Aerobic soil metabolism study fo r bensulide and bensulide oxon (ha s one soil

type and three more soil s are needed)

• 835.4300

– Aerobic aquatic metabolism study for bensulide and bensulide oxon (a full study is needed)

### 9 Terrestrial plant toxicity

• The submitted vegetative vigor and seedlin g emergence study (MRID 44746301

- Acceptable) was performed at rate (6 lb ai/A) much lower than the maximum labeled

rate. While the EC 25 

### values were non

- definitive (greater than) for both dicots and monocots, statistically significant phytotoxic endpoint s (based on phytotoxicity) for some species which were lower than the fresh weight endpoints. Phytotoxicity is not a normal regulatory endpoint. It is uncertain if phytotoxic effects would alter the viability of a plant species, but the effect is noted. Conservatively assuming the EC 25 

### to be the application rate tested still did not have LOC exceedances for non

- listed terrestrial plants.

Label Uncertainties

• The current labels do not fully specify the application rates, number of applications, and

minimum retreatment intervals. In this document, the Agency assessed what is believed to be the intended application rates, number of applications, and minimum retreatment

intervals as indicated in Table 2.1 . If the final application rates and number of applicati ons are higher than in Table 2.1 , and/or minimum retreatment intervals are shorter, then risk may be under

- estimated in this document.

Additional Uncertainties

• The aerobic soil metabolism study for bensulide evaluated only one soil, with a half

- life

of 36 3 days. The TTR half

- life was 749 days with the inclusion of bensulide oxon. Because the registrant only submitted data for one soil type, model inputs were conservatively multiplied by three to account for potential variability across soils, following EFE D guidance (USEPA, 2009c).

• The modeled aerobic aquatic metabolism half

- life was calculated by multiplying the

aerobic soil metabolism half

- life by 2 (t 1/2 

### = 2,247 × 2 = 4,494 days) due to the absence of data, following EFED guidance (USEPA, 2009c).

2.3.3 Updated Requirements since the Problem F ormulation

• Based on the new Pollinator Risk Assessment Framework 1 

### ( USEPA 2014 c ) there are

uncertainties with respect to the toxicity of bensulide to honeybees

. The available acute contact study classifies bensulide as practically non

- toxic to the honeybee (LD 50 

### > 24.17 μg/bee (1.6% mortality at the limit test) ). Bees could potentially be exposed through direct contact with treated surfaces, through pollen and nectar (due to the systemic nature of chemical), and drink ing water ( e.g . after a rain event or watering in of granules). The

studies listed below would significantly reduce uncertainty in an attempt to adequately assess the risks to pollinators. Additional studies (higher tiered semi

- field/field) may be required for refinements if results of the studies below indicate significant risks to bees.

• Non

- guideline (OECD 213)

- Acute oral toxicity to adult honeybees

• Non

- guideline (OECD 237)

- Acute oral toxicity to larval honeybees

• Chronic oral toxicity to adult honeybe es

• Chronic oral toxicity to larval honeybees

1 http://www2.epa. gov/sites/production/files/2014 06/documents/pollinator_risk_assessment_guidance_06_ 19_14.pdf

### 10 • Residues of pollen and nectar

• The new CFR requires an oral toxicity study with a passerine species. Passerine species have higher metabolic rates due to their smaller sizes than either waterfowl or upland

game bird species and because they may utilize different metabolic pathways, they may be more or less sensitive to bensulide. An acute oral study with a passerine species would clarify any uncertainty surrounding the sensitivity of this group of birds ; however , data are likely to be confirmatory and unlikely to significantly alter risk conclusions.

• 850.2100

– Avian acute toxicity with a passerine species

• Sediment toxicity testing is triggered if a chemical demonstrates moderate to high moderate to high sorptio n potential ( i.e

. K d 

### is ≥ 50 L/kg

- solid, K OC 

### is ≥1000 L/kg

- OC, log KOW is ≥ 3). B ensulide’s fate properties (log K
ow 

### = 4.2 , K oc 

### = 2884 ml/g ) , toxicity to aquatic water column invertebrates, and use patterns indicate sediment testing 2 

### is required. While there is uncertainty in the risks bensulide poses to benthic invertebrates

, it is unlikely risk conclusions for aquatic invertebrates given the pore water concentrations relative to the surface water concentrations, toxicity to water column invertebrates, mode of action, etc woul d change with these studies

. W hole sediment chronic invertebrate freshwater and marine testing for the freshwater amphipod, Hyalella

azteca , freshwater midge, Chironomus dilutus , and marine amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus would confirm sensitivities to th ese benthic organisms; however, obtaining

these data are also un likely to significantly change any risk conclusions for aquatic invertebrates in general

. The following guide lines are available from USEPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) for chronic testing.

• EPA 600/R

- 99/064

- Whole sediment chronic invertebrate freshwater

• EPA 600/R

- 01/020

- Whole sediment chronic invertebrate marine

3

. Use Characterization and Methods of Application

Bensulide controls weeds by inhibiting meristematic root tissues and seedling growth. Bensulide is used for pre

- emergence control of broadleaf weeds and grasses in numerous agricultural crops, including fruiting vegetables, leafy vegetables (mostly head lettuce), dry bulb vegetables (onions), cucurbits (mostly melons), and cole crops (cauliflower, cabbage, broccolini and broccoflower)

. Use data (full table in A ppendix B ) from 2004

- 2013 provided by BEAD ( USEPA 2015 ) indicates the highest use rates of bensulide are for lettuce, cantaloupe, and

broccoli with annual nationa l averages of 300,000, 80,000 and 60,000 lb ai applied respectively. It is also registered for use on residential grass lawns, golf courses, turf farms, rights

- of

- way, and in landscaping applications. There are currently 2 technical registrations for bensu lide and 9 formulated p roducts.

As an emulsifiable concentrate or granular application, b ensulide single a pplication rates are up

to 1 6 lb ai/A for turf uses and 5

– 9 lb ai/A for agricultural uses. It is usually applied to bare

2 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_guidance/team_authors/aquatic_biology_tech_team/ToxTesting_ EcoRiskAssessmentForBenthicInvertebrates.pdf

### 11 ground before crops are p lanted. Depending on the use

, bensulide is applied by tractor drawn or push

- type spreaders, ground boom or low pressure/high volume turf gun, low pressure hand wand for spot treatments, sprinklers, ground sprayer or chemigated throug h an overhead sprinkler system.

While the product labels list a maximum number of applications per year and a retreatment interval for turf uses, they do not clearly state a maximum number of applications allowed per

crop cycle or applications per year for agricultural uses

. T he ben sulide risk assessment is based

on the information shown in T able 3.1

. T he information on maximum app lication rates and use

patterns should be reflected on all bensulide labels (information not currently on labels indicated

as bolded values in Table 3.1 ). If for any reason the final labels contain higher application rates, higher numbers of applications, and/or shorter minimum retreatment intervals, the actual risks posed by those products may exceed the risk estimated in this assessment.

Table 3 .1

. Maximum application rates, number of applications, and minimum retreatment

intervals for s pecifi c b ensulide u ses.

Use Application

Method 1 Maximum Single Application

Rate (lb ai /A) Maximum

Number of Applications

per Year 2 Maximum Yearly Application

Rate (lb ai /A) Application

Interval

(days)

Golf course turf

EPA9198

- 176 Broadcast

– granular 16 2 32 120 3

Golf course turf, turf

Ornamental lawns

EPA10163

- 196

EPA10163

- 198

EPA10163

- 199

EPA10163

- 204

EPA2217

- 778

EPA9198

- 172

EPA 2217

- 696 Broadcast

– granular

Broad cast spray

– Emulsifiable

Concentrate 12.5 2 25 120

Ornamental lawns and turf

Residential lawns

EPA10163

- 205 Handy spray Disposable container (16oz) 8.65 2 or more NS 2 120

Ornamental lawns and turf

Residential lawns

EPA 2217

- 838 Broadcast

- Granular 7.5

- 12.5 2 15

- 25 120

### 12 Use Application

Method 1 Maximum Single Application

Rate (lb ai /A) Maximum

Number of Applications

per Year 2 Maximum Yearly Application

Rate (lb ai /A) Application

Interval

(days)

Artichokes, beans, beet, bell pepper, Brassica (head and stem) vegetables, broccoli, broccoli raab, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cardoon, carrot, cauliflower, celery, celtuce, chervil, chicory/radicchio, chrysanthemum (garland), cole crops , collards, corn salad, cress (garden, upland), dandelion, dock (sorrel), eggplant, endive, fennel, garlic, greens, groundcherry (strawberry tomato/tomatillo), kale, kohlrabi, leafy vegetables, lettuce (head, leaf), mustard, mustard cabbage, okra, onion (d ry bulb and green), orach (mountain spinach), parsley, peas, pepper, pepper (chili), pimento, radish, roquette (arugula), shallot, spinach,

Swiss chard

EPA10163

- 200

AZ

- 080003 Broadcast spray

– Emulsifiable

Concentrate 5 ( for carrot only )

6 1, 2, or 3 6, 12, or 18 120

Cantaloupe, chayote, cucumber, cucurbit vegetables, cucuzzi, gherkin, gourds, gourd (wax), melons (bitter, honeydew, citron, mango, musk, water, winter melons), pepino, pumpkin, squash (butternut, summer, zucchini squash)

AZ120003

CA960003

N J070001 Broadcast spray

– Emulsifiable

Concentrate 8.94 1 or 2 9 or 18 120

1 When there are several application methods (because of different types of formulation), the listed application method would either result in the highest environmental exposure or was labeled for a higher maximum rate than other application methods.

2 The maximum yearly rate is not specified. Scenarios were modeled for multiple seasons at the 120 day application interval.

NS

– not specified. A maximum annual rate at 18 lb ai/A is a ssumed. The information should be clarified.

3 The minimum application intervals from the labels are used with an assumption of the crop rotation (or replantation).

### 13 4

. Environmental Fate

4 .1 B ensulide and D egradates

Information from acceptable and supp lemental laboratory studies indicates bensulide is persistent. A biotic hydrolysis or aquatic photolysis a ppea r s to be a major degradation pathway (Table 4.1)

. A erobic soil metabolism transforms the parent bensulide into a major toxic degradate, bensulide o xon . Under aerobic soil conditions, bensulide oxon reached a maximum concentration of 13.8% of the applied at 270 days and 10.1% at 360 days

, and carbon dioxide (up to 21% of the applied) (MRID 40460301). A minor degradate benzenesul f onamide reached a

maxi mum level of 0.52% at 360 days. However, the aerobic soil metabolism study was classified as supplemental as only one soil type was used. Under anaerobic soil conditions in the laboratory, bensulide is considered stable (MRID 40460302). No aerobic aquatic metabolism study available for this assessment.

The degradate bensulide oxon is more soluble in water (461 mg/L, EPISuite v. 4.10) than bensulide (5.6 mg/L, MRID 41532001). Bensulide is slightly mobile according to FAO, 2000

classification in the four so ils tested (K
oc 

### values ranged from 1,433 to 4,326 mL/g) based on an acceptable study (MRID 42826701); however, its major degradate bensulide oxon (average K
oc 

### = 557, MRID 43180701) and the minor degradate benzenesul f onamide (average K
oc 

### = 17.72,

MRID 43180 702) ranged from moderately mobile to mobile in the same four test soils.

Bensulide is not expected to leach to groundwater, but bensulide oxon may leach to groundwater due to its higher solubility and mobility.

There are eight submitted field dissipati on studies classified as supplemental. Three were conducted in California with reported half

- lives ranging from 15

- 34 days (MRID 40534902, 40534904 and 40534905), which all have the limited values because of the poor material

balances recovered. Three were conducted in Mississippi with half

- lives ranging from 30

- 210 days (MRID 40534901, 40534903 and 40534906). The half

- life (30 days) for one of the Mississippi studies (MRID 40534906) was considered as the limited value as it was only calculated from the top 3 inches and the residues in the 3

- 6 and 6

- 12 inches were not analyzed

. Another two studies were conducted in North Carolina with half

- life ranging from 76

- 107 days

with 10

- 24% bensulide oxon formed (MRID 44297001 and 45550301). The field dissipation

dat a confirmed the laboratory findings that bensulide is a persistent herbicide. Bensulide and

bensulide oxon were detected in the 6

- 12 inches deep in soil.

Bensulide may bioconcentrate in fish based on log Kow 4.2 with a whole body bioconcentration

factor (BCF) of 550. However, it was reported that 98% of the compound is eliminated after 14 days depuration, once resid ues are removed from the water (MRID 41931001). Consequently,

the residue inter

- trop h ic transfers are not evident with the rapid depuration.

The physical, chemical, and environmental fate properties of bensulide and bensulide oxon are

summarized in Table 4

. 1

.

### 14 Table 4

. 1 Physical, Chemical, and Environmental Fate Properties of Bensulide and

Bensulide Oxon.

Parameter Bensulide (Parent) Bensuli de Oxon (Major Degradate)

Value Reference Value Reference

Chemical Name O,O

- Diisopropyl

- S

- 2

- phenylsulfonylaminoe thyl phosphorodithioate MRID 45761801 O,O

- diisopropyl

- S

- 2

- phenylsul f onylaminoethyl phosphorothioate MRID

45761801

CAS Number 741

- 58

- 2 MRID 45 761801 20243

- 81

- 6 MRID

476604

- 03 Empirical Formula C 14 H 24 NO 4 PS 3 MRID 45761801 C 14 H 24 NO 5 PS 2 EPI Suite (v 4.10) Molecular Weight (g/mole) 397.54 MRID 45761801 381.44 EPI Suite (v 4.10)

Chemical Structure EPI Suite (v 4.10) EPI Suite (v 4.10)

S MILES Code CC(C)OP(=S)(OC(C) C)SCCNS(=O)(=O)c1

ccccc1 EPI Suite v4.10 CC(C)OP(=O)(OC(C)C)S CCNS(=O)(=O)c1ccccc1 EPI Suite (v 4.10)

Melting Point (oC) 36 MRID 41532001 89.97 EPI Suite (v 4.10) Boiling Point (oC) 424.96 EPI Suite (v 4.10) 476.9 EPI Suite (v 4.10) Vapor pressure (mm Hg @ 25 o C) 8.2 x 10

- 7 MRID 41532001 2.48 10

- 8 EPI Suite (v 4.10) Henry’s Constant (atm m 3 mole

- 1 ) 7.7 x 10

- 8 MRID 41532001 7.10 x 10

- 12 EPI Suite (v 4.10) Solubility (mg/L @

25 o C) 5.6 MRID 41532001 461.24 EPI Suite (v 4.10) Log K
ow 4.20 EPI Suite (v 4.10) 2.35 EPI Suite (v 4.10)

K d (mL/g) 10.9 Sand 30.5 Sandy Loam Soil 34.0 Clay Loam Soil 1 96.8 Clay Loam Soil 2 MRID 42826701 1.96 Sand 4.23 Sandy Loam Soil 6.05 Clay Loam Soil 1 26.5 Clay Loam Soil 2 MRID

43180701

K
oc ( mL/g)

3479.93 Sand 1348.26 Sandy Loam

Soil 4379.47 Clay Loam

Soil 1 2327.52 Clay Loam

Soil 2 MRID 42826701 (2884 mL/g ) (average of 4 values, EFED Guideline) 625.75 Sand 186.99 Sandy Loam Soil

778.70 Clay Loam Soil 1

636.70 Clay Loam Soil 2 MRID

431807 01 (557 mL/g) (average of 4 values, EFED Guideline)

### 15 Parameter Bensulide (Parent) Bensuli de Oxon (Major Degradate)

Value Reference Value Reference

Hydrolysis t 1/2 (day)

@ 25 0 C 230 (pH 5) 220 (pH 7 & 9) MRID 00160074 NA 1 NA 1

Aerobic soil met. t1/2(day)

Bensulide Oxon 13.8%@270 days

Benzenesulfonamide

<0.5% 363 MRID 40460301 749 (Bensulide + Oxon) MRID

40460301

Aquatic photolysis t1/2 (day)

Bensulide Oxon 4.8%@41 days 132 MRID 40513401

173 (Bensulide + Oxon) MRID

40513401

Anaerobic Soil met. Stable MRID 40460302 NA NA Field Dissipation,

California 34 days 30 days 15 days MRID 40534 902

MRID 40534904

MRID 40534905 NA NA

Field Dissipation, Mississippi 30

- 210 days MRID 40534901

MRID 40534903

MRID 40534906 NA NA

Field Dissipation

North Carolina 107 days ( 10% max oxon at 90 days ) 76 days ( 24% max oxon at 28 days ) MRID 44297001

MRID 45 550301 94 days (Bensulide + Oxon) MRID

44297001

MRID

45550301

Bioconcentration factor (BCF) 550 MRID 41931001 NA NA

1 NA = Data or studies are not available



### 4.2 Residues of Concern

Both bensulide and bensulide oxon (up to 13.8% in aerobic soil) are consi dered as the residues of concerns for aquatic organisms in this risk assessment. Because the inherent toxicity of bensulide oxon is unknown, the ecological relevance of oxon residues potentially present in the aquatic environment cannot be ignored. The tox icity of oxon is estimated by ECOSAR and compared to the toxicity of the parent (known values) . ECOSAR results suggest the parent bensulide and its oxon degradate have similar toxicity against aquatic non

- vascular plant (chronic) and fish (chronic). In the meantime, ECOSAR also estimates the toxicity of the oxon degradate about 2 0

to 30 times less toward aquatic fish (acute) and aquatic invertebrates (acute and chronic) comparing to the parent bensulide ( Appendix C ). These estimates are all within 1 order o f magnitude of each other (except for freshwater invertebrates (EC 50 

### parent = 0.58; EC 50 

### oxon estimate = 16.4; oxon ~30X less toxic). Because of the similarity of the toxicity estimates, i t is conservatively assumed that the toxicity of the oxon is equiva lent to that of parent bensulide in

the absen ce of the oxon toxicity data. For terrestrial organisms, only parent bensulide is

considered as the residue of concern.

### 16 4.3 Aquatic Exposures

Exposure Estimates The Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SW CC v 1.106) model 3 

### was used to generate estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) for all uses. The SWCC is a graphical user interface that runs the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM, v 5, November 15, 2006) and the Variable Volume Water Body Model (VVWM , 3/6/2014) (USEPA, 2006b). Simulations are run for multiple (usually 30) years and the EECs represent peak values that are expected once every ten years based on the thirty years of daily values generated during the simulation. The SWCC model was paramete rized using relevant use and environmental fate data for bensulide and bensulide oxon according to the EFED input parameter guidance for water modeling (USEPA, 2009). A representative output is presented in Append ix D

.

Ground spray applications may potentially result in transport and loading of bensulide to off

field soil, and foliage, and water bodies via spray drift. Granular ground application methods are expected to result in negligible spray drift; however on

- field bensulide soil residues from ground spray and granular application methods have the potential to be transported both dissolved in water and on suspended soil in runoff to off

- field terrestrial areas and to adjacent surface waters. Once in the aquati c system, bensulide is expected to partition primarily to sediment where it will be relatively stable.

A total residues method (USEPA, 2008a) to include both bensulide and bensulide oxon as the residues of concern was used in the exposure assessment. The bensulide aerobic soil half

- life was recalculated to include bensulide oxon degradation (t 1/2 

### = 749 days). Because only one soil type was submitted (MRID 40460301 ), the half

- life was timed a factor of 3 (t 1/2 

### = 749 days × 3 = 2,247 days). Due to the lack o f aerobic aquatic data, the half

- life was estimated by another factor of 2 (t1/2 = 2247 × 2 = 4,494) based on the EFED guidance (USEPA 2009c). This method was

used to estimate the 1

- in

- 10 year exposure concentrations for total residues representing the

com bined exposure to the residues of concern (bensulide and bensulide oxon). Input parameters of SWCC are provided in Table 4

. 2

.

Tabl e 4.2 Summary of Environmental Fate Data Used for Aquatic Exposure Estimation for

Bensulide and Bensulide O xon (Total Toxic R esidues)

Input variable (Units) Input value and

calculations Source

Crop name

See Table 1 Product labels Application method

Application rate (lb ai ./acre)

Application interval (days)

Application efficiency

Ground spray 0.99

3 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water /index.htm

### 17 Input variable (Units) Input value and

calculations Source

Spray drift fraction

Ground spray 0.062
EFED input parameters guideline (12/20/2013) (USEPA 2013) Application efficiency

Granular broadcast 1

Spray drift fraction

Granular broadcast 0

Molecular Weight (g/mole) 397.5 MRID 45761801 (Value for parent)

Henry's Law Constant

(atm.m 3 /mole) 7.10 x 10

- 12 EPI Suite (v 4.10)

Vapor pressure @ 25 o C (mm Hg) 2.48 10

- 8 EPI Suite (v 4.10)

Solubility in Water (mg/L) 461 (Maximum value for bensulide oxon)

Aquatic photolysis t 1/2 (day) 173 Based on parent and oxon the data from

MRID# 40513401 and recalculated half

- life using R program

Aerobic soil met. t 1/2 (day) 2,247 749 (Re

- calculated for parent and oxon from original data) x 3 ( EFED guideline)

Hydrolysis t 1/2 (day) @ 25 0 C 230 (pH 5)

220 (pH 7 & 9) MRID 00160074 (Value for parent

- bensulide oxon not formed)

Aerobic aquatic met. t 1/2 (day) 4,494 No data; (soil aerobic met. half

- life x 2; EFED guideline)

Anaerobic soil met. t 1/2 (day) 0 Stable (no ending point)

K
oc ml/g (mean) 557 (Average of 4 values, EFED Guideline ) for bensulide oxon)

Application rate, date, frequency, intervals, chemical application method (CAM), efficiency and spray drift Same values used for the pesticide from the label and as per the parameters guidance document



### The EECs based on TTRs as ben sulide oxon equivalent for representative usage scenarios and application rates are provided in Table 4

. 3 . However, there are some uncertainties associated with modeling for the EECs due to the lack of aerobic aquatic metabolism study and inadequate

aerobi c soil metabolism study. Based on EFED policy, the aerobic soil and aerobic aquatic half

lives were recalculated, which may result in the conservative estimation of the EECs. To

estimate the contribution of bensulide to the estimated surface water concentr ations, the numbers of applications starting with the highest to the lowest were modeled for the same scenarios. For ground spray applications, the spray drift (%) entering pond were also listed in the Table 4

. 3

.

### 18 Table 4 .3 Estimated Environmental Concent rations (EECs) for Bensulide Oxon U sing TTR A pproach

Use/Scenario Granular (G)

or Ground Spray (GS) 1 Max. Single App. Rate (lb ae/A) Max.

Number of App. Max. App. Rate

Per Year (lb ai /A) Min. App.

Interval (Days) Surface Water (μg/L) Pore Water (μg/L ) % Spray Drift

Contribution 2

to Total

Pesticide and Degradates Entering Pond Peak 21

- day 60

- day Peak 21

- day Golf course turf, Turf, and Ornamental lawns,

FL Turf (W12834.dvf) G / (4/1) 16 2 32 120 254 228 197 166 166

-

PA Turf (W12834.dvf) G / (4/1) 16 2 32 120 440 397 350 290 290

-

TurfBSS (W13958.dvf) G / (4/1) 16 2 32 120 304 280 259 211 211

-

CA TurfRLF (W23234.dvf) G / (4/1) 16 2 32 120 322 308 277 243 243

-

FL Turf (W12834.dvf) GS / (4/1) 12.5 2 25 120 154 141 131 117 117 75

PA Turf ( W12834.dvf) GS / (4/1) 12.5 2 25 120 193 178 161 143 143 68

TurfBSS (W13958.dvf) GS / (4/1) 12.5 2 25 120 174 161 147 132 132 69

CA TurfRLF (W23234.dvf) GS / (4/1) 12.5 2 25 120 162 154 143 131 131 68

FL Turf (W12834.dvf) G / (4/1) 12.5 2 25 120 199 178 154 130 130

-

PA Turf (W12834.dvf) G / (4/1) 12.5 2 25 120 343 310 273 230 230

-

TurfBSS (W13958.dvf) G / (4/1) 12.5 2 25 120 237 219 202 165 165

-

CA TurfRLF (W23234.dvf) G / (4/1) 12.5 2 25 120 259 241 216 190 190

-

FL Turf (W12834.dvf) G / (4/1) 7. 5 2 15 120 119 107 93 78 78

-

PA Turf (W12834.dvf) G / (4/1) 7.5 2 15 120 206 186 164 140 140

-

TurfBSS (W13958.dvf) G / (4/1) 7.5 2 15 120 142 131 121 99 99

-

### 19 Use/Scenario Granular (G)

or Ground Spray (GS) 1 Max. Single App. Rate (lb ae/A) Max.

Number of App. Max. App. Rate

Per Year (lb ai /A) Min. App.

Interval (Days) Surface Water (μg/L) Pore Water (μg/L ) % Spray Drift

Contribution 2

to Total

Pesticide and Degradates Entering Pond Peak 21

- day 60

- day Peak 21

- day

CA TurfRLF (W23234.dvf) G / (4/1) 7.5 2 15 120 156 145 130 114 114

-

Artichokes, beans, beet , bell pepper, Brassica (head and stem) vegetables, broccoli, broccoli raab, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cardoon, carrot, caul iflower, celery, celtuce, chervil, chicory/radicchio, chrysanthemum (garland), cole crops, collards, corn salad, cress (garden, upl and), dandelion, dock (sorrel), eggplant, endive, fennel, garlic, greens, groundcherry (strawberry tomato/tomatillo), kale, kohlrabi, leafy vegetables, lettuce (head, leaf), mustard, mustard cabbage, okra, onion (dry bulb and green), orach (mountain spinac h), parsley, peas, pepper, pepper (chili), pimento, radish, roquette (arugula), shallot, spinach, Swiss chard
FL Peppers (W12844.dvf) GS / (2/1) 6 3 18 120 566 549 516 490 490 15

FL Cabbage (W12842.dvf) GS / (2/1) 6 3 18 120 389 365 344 315 315 20

CA Le ttuce (W23273.dvf) GS / (2/1) 6 3 18 120 547 505 444 388 388 19

CA Avocado (W23188.dvf) GS / (2/1) 6 3 18 120 113 108 102 96 96 73

FL Peppers (W12844.dvf) GS / (4/1) 6 2 12 120 411 382 352 323 323 15

FL Cabbage (W12842.dvf) GS / (4/1) 6 2 12 120 338 3 20 301 273 272 17

CA Lettuce (W23273.dvf) GS / (4/1) 6 2 12 120 387 364 334 280 280 19

CA Avocado (W23188.dvf) GS / (4/1) 6 2 12 120 79 74 69 60 59 73

FL Peppers (W12844.dvf) GS / (4/1) 6 1 6 NA 199 187 176 146 146 17

FL Cabbage (W12842.dvf) GS / (4/ 1) 6 1 6 NA 171 158 149 148 148 19

CA Lettuce (W23273.dvf) GS / (4/1) 6 1 6 NA 232 217 200 171 171 18

CA Avocado (W23188.dvf) GS / (4/1) 6 1 6 NA 52 48 43 35 35 71

Carrot (Texas Only)

### 20 Use/Scenario Granular (G)

or Ground Spray (GS) 1 Max. Single App. Rate (lb ae/A) Max.

Number of App. Max. App. Rate

Per Year (lb ai /A) Min. App.

Interval (Days) Surface Water (μg/L) Pore Water (μg/L ) % Spray Drift

Contribution 2

to Total

Pesticide and Degradates Entering Pond Peak 21

- day 60

- day Peak 21

- day

TXCorn (W13958.dvf) GS / (4/1) 5 1 5 NA 168 149 130 112 112 19

Ca ntaloupe, chayote, cucumber, cucurbit vegetables, cucuzzi, gherkin, gourds, gourd (wax), melons (bitter, honeydew, citron, ma ngo, musk, water, winter melons), pepino, pumpkin, squash (butternut, summer, zucchini squash). AZ120003, CA960003, NJ070001

CA Me lons_RLF (W93193.dvf) GS / (4/1) 9 2 18 120 180 169 153 141 141 47

NJ Melons_Std (W13781.dvf) GS / (4/1) 9 2 18 120 260 239 220 193 193 36

CA Melons_RLF (W93193.dvf) GS / (4/1) 9 1 9 NA 111 99 88 67 67 58

NJ Melons_Std (W13781.dvf) GS / (4/1) 9 1 9 NA 1 35 122 112 92 92 43

1 The application dates for the SWCC modeling were simplified as following: for two applications, the application dates were Ap ril 1 and August 1; and for three applications, the dates were February 1, June 1 and October 1 respectively.

2 The % spray drift contributions to total pesticide and degradates entering pond were captured in the SWCC model output. This information will be useful for t he consideration of using the spray buffer as the potential mitigation for the reduction of the total toxic residues in a water body.

### Page 21 of 85 

### 4.3 Monitoring Data

No monitoring data were found for bensulide and bensulide oxon in the U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS) National Water Quality Assessment ( NAWQA) surface and groundwater

databases. However, California Department of Pesticide Regulation reported that bensulide had a detection frequency of 45% out of 348 samples (2004

- 2014) in surface water with the highest value at 45.5 ppb with the top ten values ranged from 8.6 to 45.5 ppb and the

detection limit at 0. 04 ppb. ( http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/surfdata.htm ).

4.4 Terrestrial Habitats

4.4.1 Birds and Mammals

Terrestrial wildlife exposure is estimated with EFED’s T

- REX v1.5.2 model (June 6, 2013) for birds and mammals emphasizing a dietary exposure route for the consumption of pesticide residues on vegetative matter and insects. Birds are considered surrogates for

terrestrial

- phase amphibians and reptiles. Therefore, conclusion s related to risks to birds also apply to risks to terrestrial

- phase amphibians and reptiles. The estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) on food items may be compared directly with sub

- acute dietary toxicity data or converted to an ingested whole

- bo dy dose (single oral dose). Risk was assessed based on toxicity of the TGAI. Foliar application exposures (residues on food) are

estimated for birds in Table 4. 5 and mammals in Table 4

. 6 . For terrestrial uses applications are expressed per crop cycle on th e label, EECs were modeled for 1 or 2 crop

- cycles per year. A third application was not modeled due to concerns identified at 2 applications.

For granular applications (LD 50 

### method for direction consumption of granules), exposure is estimated by an LD 50 

### ft

- 2 value (assuming 0% incorporation to the soil)

. Terrestrial EECs are calculated based on an estimated loading of pesticides per unit area. This approach compares the available mass of pesticide per square foot to the acute oral dose for toxicity (LD 50 

### ) to get LD 50 

### ft

- 2 values

. The LD 50 

### ft

- 2 is the amount of a pesticide estimated to kill 50% of exposed animals in each square foot of applied. T he LD50 ft

- 2 value ( Table 4.4 ) is calculated using the following equation:

LD50 ft 2 

### = EEC (mg ai ft

- 2) / (Ad j LD 50 

### ÷ bw (kg) of assessed animal)

A sample of T

- REX input and output is provided in Appendix E

. Exposure estimates account for both the parent bensulide and the degradate bensulide oxon

. Determination of residue dissipation over time on food items foll owing single and multiple applications are predicted using a first

- order residue degradation half

- life with T

- REX. The risk assessment uses a default foliar dissipation half

- life estimate of 35 days. This default value is used

because available data show d etectable residues of parent and oxon for Brassica leafy vegetables at 33 days but no detectable levels in vegetables at more protracted intervals. It is

believed that the use of a 35

- day dissipation half

- life is a conservative way to account for the

role of both parent (as an endogenous source of oxon when consumed) and oxon produced in the plant . In addition to foliar half

- life, inputs into T

- REX include the application rate,

### Page 22 of 85 

### interval, and number of applications. The application scenarios for all crops ar e grouped by application rate and interval.

Table 4.4

. LD 50 

### /sq ft A nalysis from Broadcast Application with 0% Incorporation

Proposed Application

Methods EEC (mg ai/ft 2 ) (Mammals and Birds) LD 50 /sq f t (birds) LD 50 /sq ft (mammals)

All Size Classes Small (20 g) Medium (100 g) Large (1000 g) Small (15 g) Medium (35 g) Large (1000 g)

Golf course turf

1 app lication @16.0

lb ai/A 166.61 8.34 1.31 0.09 18.72 9.91 0.80

Ornamental lawns and turf,

residential lawns

1 app lication @

12.5 lbs ai/A 130.1 6 6.52 1.02 0.07 14.62 7.75 0.63



### Table 4

. 5. T

- REX D erived Avian EECs for Bensulide U ses

Food Items Dose

- based 1 EECs (mg/kg

- bw) Dietary

- based

EECs (mg/kg

- food item)

Small 20 g Medium 100 g Large 1000 g Kenaga Values (Maximum)
Golf course turf, turf, o rnamental lawns

120

- d application interval, 2 applications / year: 12.5 lbs ai/A each

Short Grass 3734.02 2129.30 953.32 3278.62

Tall Grass 1711.43 975.93 436.94 1502.70

Broadleaf plants 2100.39 1197.73 536.24 1844.23

Fruits/pods 233.38 133.08 59.58 2 04.91
Arthropods 1462.49 833.98 373.38 1284.13

Seeds 51.86 29.57 13.24 204.91
Ornamental lawns, turf, residential lawns

120

- d application interval, 2 applications / year; 8.65 lbs ai/A each

Short Grass 2583.94 1473.47 659.69 2268.81

Tall Grass 1184.3 1 675.34 302.36 1039.87

Broadleaf plants 1453.47 828.83 371.08 1276.20

Fruits/pods 161.50 92.09 41.23 141.80

Arthropods 1012.05 577.11 258.38 888.62

Seeds 35.89 20.46 9.16 141.80 Artichokes, beans, beet, bell pepper, Brassica (head and stem) vegetable s, broccoli, broccoli raab, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cardoon, carrot, cauliflower, celery, celtuce, chervil, chicory/radicchio, chrysanthemum (garland), cole crops, collards, corn salad, cress (garden, upland), dandelion, dock (sorrel), eggplant,

### Page 23 of 85 endive, fennel, garlic, greens, groundcherry (strawberry tomato/tomatillo), kale, kohlrabi, leafy vegetables, lettuce (head, leaf), mustard, mustard cabbage, okra, onion (dry bulb and green), orach (mountain spinach), parsley, peas, pepper, pepper (chili), piment o, radish, roquette (arugula), shallot, spinach, Swiss chard

-

1 application / year; 6.0 lbs ai/A

Short Grass 1640.02 935.21 418.70 1440.00

Tall Grass 751.67 428.64 191.91 660.00

Broadleaf plants 922.51 526.05 235.52 810.00

Fruits/pods 102.50 58.45 2 6.17 90.00

Arthropods 642.34 366.29 163.99 564.00

Seeds 22.78 12.99 5.82 90.00 Artichokes, beans, beet, bell pepper, Brassica (head and stem) vegetables, broccoli, broccoli raab, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cardoon, carrot, cauliflower, celery, celtuce, chervil, chicory/radicchio, chrysanthemum (garland), cole crops, collards, corn salad, cress (garden, upland), dandelion, dock (sorrel), eggplant, endive, fennel, garlic, greens, groundcherry (strawberry tomato/tomatillo), kale, kohlrabi, leafy vegetables, lettuce (head, leaf), mustard, mustard cabbage, okra, onion (dry bulb and green), orach (mountain spinach), parsley, peas, pepper, pepper (chili), pimento, radish, roquette (arugula), shallot, spinach, Swiss chard

-

120

- d application interval, 2 applic ations / year; 6.0 lbs ai/A each

Short Grass 1792.33 1022.06 457.59 1573.74

Tall Grass 821.49 468.45 209.73 721.30

Broadleaf plants 1008.19 574.91 257.40 885.23

Fruits/pods 112.02 63.88 28.60 98.36

Arthropods 702.00 400.31 179.22 616.38

Seeds 24.89 1 4.20 6.36 98.36 Cantaloupe, chayote, cucumber, cucurbit vegetables, cucuzzi, gherkin, gourds, gourd (wax), melons (bitter, honeydew, citron, mango, musk, water, winter melons), pepino, pumpkin, squash (butternut, summer, zucchini squash

1 applications / year; 8.94 lbs ai/A

Short Grass 2432.69 1387.22 621.08 2136.00

Tall Grass 1114.98 635.81 284.66 979.00

Broadleaf plants 1368.39 780.31 349.36 1201.50

Fruits/pods 152.04 86.70 38.82 133.50

Arthropods 952.80 543.33 243.26 836.60

Seeds 33.79 19.27 8.63 133.50 Cantaloupe, chayote, cucumber, cucurbit vegetables, cucuzzi, gherkin, gourds, gourd (wax), melons (bitter, honeydew, citron, mango, musk, water, winter melons), pepino, pumpkin, squash (butternut, summer, zucchini squash

120

- d application interva l, 2 applications / year; 8.94 lbs ai/A each

Short Grass 2658.63 1516.06 678.76 2334.38

Tall Grass 1218.54 694.86 311.10 1069.92
Broadleaf plants 1495.48 852.78 381.80 1313.09
Fruits/pods 166.16 94.75 42.42 145.90
Arthropods 1041.29 593.79 265.85 914. 30

Seeds 36.93 21.06 9.43 145.90

### Page 24 of 85 

### Table 4

. 6. T

- REX D er ived Mammalian EECs for Bensulide U ses

Food Items Dose

- based 1 EECs (mg/kg

- bw) Dietary

- based 1

EECs (mg/kg

- food item)

Small 15 g Medium 35 g Large 1000 g Kenaga Values

Golf course turf, turn, ornamen tal lawns

120

- d application interval, 2 applications / year: 12.5 lbs ai/A each

Short Grass 3125.92 2160.43 500.90 3278.62

Tall Grass 1432.71 990.20 229.58 1502.70

Broadleaf plants 1758.33 1215.24 281.76 1844.23

Fruits/pods 195.37 135.03 31.31 204.91
Arthropods 1224.32 846.17 196.19 1284.13

Seeds 43.42 30.01 6.96 204.91
Ornamental lawns, turf, residential lawns

120

- d application interval, 2 applications / year; 8.65 lbs ai/A each

Short Grass 2163.13 1495.02 346.62 2268.81

Tall Grass 991.44 685.22 158.87 1039.87

Broadleaf plants 1216.76 840.95 194.98 1276.20

Fruits/pods 135.20 93.44 21.66 141.80

Arthropods 847.23 585.55 135.76 888.62

Seeds 30.04 20.76 4.81 141.80 Artichokes, beans, beet, bell pepper, Brassica (head and stem) vegetables, brocco li, broccoli raab, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cardoon, carrot, cauliflower, celery, celtuce, chervil, chicory/radicchio, chrysanthemum (garland), cole crops, collards, corn salad, cress (garden, upland), dandelion, dock (sorrel), eggplant, endive, fennel, garlic, greens, groundcherry (strawberry tomato/tomatillo), kale, kohlrabi, leafy vegetables, lettuce (head, leaf), mustard, mustard cabbage, okra, onion (dry bulb and green), orach (mountain spinach), parsley, peas, pepper, pepper (chili), pimento, radish , roquette (arugula), shallot, spinach, Swiss chard

-

1 application / year; 6.0 lbs ai/A

Short Grass 1372.93 948.88 220.00 1573.74

Tall Grass 629.26 434.90 100.83 721.30

Broadleaf plants 772.27 533.74 123.75 885.23

Fruits/pods 85.81 59.30 13.75 98.36

Arthropods 537.73 371.64 86.17 616.38

Seeds 19.07 13.18 3.06 98.36 Artichokes, beans, beet, bell pepper, Brassica (head and stem) vegetables, broccoli, broccoli raab, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cardoon, carrot, cauliflower, celery, celtuce, chervil, ch icory/radicchio, chrysanthemum (garland), cole crops, collards, corn salad, cress (garden, upland), dandelion, dock (sorrel), eggplant, endive, fennel, garlic, greens, groundcherry (strawberry tomato/tomatillo), kale, kohlrabi, leafy vegetables, lettuce (h ead, leaf), mustard, mustard cabbage, okra, onion (dry bulb and green), orach (mountain spinach), parsley, peas, pepper, pepper (chili), pimento, radish, roquette (arugula), shallot, spinach, Swiss chard

-

120

- d application interval, 2 applications / ye ar; 6.0 lbs ai/A each

Short Grass 1500.44 1037.00 240.43 1573.74

Tall Grass 687.70 475.29 110.20 721.30

### Page 25 of 85 Broadleaf plants 844.00 583.32 135.24 885.23

Fruits/pods 93.78 64.81 15.03 98.36

Arthropods 587.67 406.16 94.17 616.38

Seeds 20.84 14.40 3.34 98.3 6 Cantaloupe, chayote, cucumber, cucurbit vegetables, cucuzzi, gherkin, gourds, gourd (wax), melons (bitter, honeydew, citron, mango, musk, water, winter melons), pepino, pumpkin, squash (butternut, summer, zucchini squash

1 application / year; 8.94 lbs ai/A

Short Grass 2432.69 1387.22 621.08 2136.00

Tall Grass 1114.98 635.81 284.66 979.00

Broadleaf plants 1368.39 780.31 349.36 1201.50

Fruits/pods 152.04 86.70 38.82 133.50

Arthropods 952.80 543.33 243.26 836.60

Seeds 33.79 19.27 8.63 133.50

Cantalo upe, chayote, cucumber, cucurbit vegetables, cucuzzi, gherkin, gourds, gourd (wax), melons (bitter, honeydew, citron, mango, musk, water, winter melons), pepino, pumpkin, squash (butternut, summer, zucchini squash

120

- d application interval, 2 applicatio ns / year; 8.94 lbs ai/A each

Short Grass 2225.65 1538.22 356.64 2334.38

Tall Grass 1020.09 705.02 163.46 1069.92
Broadleaf plants 1251.93 865.25 200.61 1313.09
Fruits/pods 139.10 96.14 22.29 145.90
Arthropods 871.71 602.47 139.69 914.30

Seeds 30.91 21.36 4.95 145.90



### 4.4.2 Terrestrial Invertebrates

The latest EFED guidance for assessing pesticide risks to bees ( USEPA 2014 c ) was used to estimate the EECs for honeybee exposure. Only adult honeybee acute contact toxicity data are available to the Agen cy. The acute contact EECs are presented in Table 4

. 7 below and calculated using the following formula: Application Rate x 2.7 μg ai/bee . Only spray treatment EECs are calculated, due to only contact data being available. Granular applications are not mode led for contact exposure because it is gen erally assumed that exposure of honey bees from direct contact with the pesticide is minimal 

### . D ue to a lack of dietary data

, there are no EECs calculated for spray applications . All EECs are based on a single appl ication.

Table 4

. 7 . Honeybee Contact EECs Based on Spray U ses

Use Application Rate (lb ai/A) EEC (μg ai/bee)
Golf course turf, turf, ornamental lawns 12.5 33. 8
Ornamental lawns, turf, residential lawns 8.65 23. 4 Agricultural uses

- lower rate 6 16.2

A gricultural uses

- higher rate 8.94 24.1



### 4.4.3 Terrestrial Plants

### Page 26 of 85 

### TerrPlant (v 1.2.2) was used to calculate EECs for characterizing exposure to terrestrial and

semi

- aquatic plants through spray drift and runoff of bensulide. The EECs were derived for

dr y and semi

- aquatic areas adjacent to the treatment site. The input value for spray drift fraction is 0 for granular applications, and 0.01 for ground spray, while runoff fraction is 0.01 based on the bensulide water solubility (5.6 mg/L). The input for inc orporation depth is 1 inch for all applications. Representative inputs and outputs for TerrPlant are in Appendix F

.

The most sensitive endpoints in the seedling emergence and vegetative vigor terrestrial plant studies were plant fresh weight. The most sen sitive monocot was corn in the vegetative vigor study, and onion in the seedling emergence study. The most sensitive dicot was lettuce in the vegetative vigor study while the most sensitive dicot could not be determined due to lack of toxicity at th e highe st rate tested in the seedling emergence study. These endpoints are based on fresh weight. Phytotoxic effects evaluated based on visual injury scores were found to be the most sensitive parameter for dicots in the vegetative vigor study. While phytotoxicit y is not a normal regulatory endpoint, it was a statistically significant effect in both studies. The risk characterization has further discussion; however phytotoxicity was not considered quantitatively any further in this assessment. Table 4

. 8 lists the plant EECs for bensulide

uses.

Table 4

. 8. TerrPlant D erived P lant EECs for Bensulide U ses

Description Equation* EECs (Granular) EECs (Ground spray)

Golf course turf

– Granular broadcast Golf course turf, turf, ornamental lawns

– Broadcast spray

1 applic ation at 16 lbs ai/A

– Granular

1 application at 12.5 lb ai/A

– Spray

Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.16 0.125

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 1.6 1.25
Spray drift A*D 0 0.125
Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.16 0.25

Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 1.6 1.375 Ornamental lawns, turn, residential lawns

– Granular broadcast Ornamental lawns, turn, residential lawns

– Broadcast spray

1 application at 12.5 lb ai/A

– Granular

1 application at 8.65 lb ai/A

– Spray

Runoff to dry ar eas (A/I)*R 0.125 0.0865

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 1.25 0.865 Spray drift A*D 0 0.0865
Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.125 0.173

Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 1.25 0.9515 Artichokes, beans, beet, bell pepper, Bras sica (head and stem) vegetables, broccoli, broccoli raab, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cardoon, carrot, cauliflower, celery, celtuce, chervil, chicory/radicchio, chrysanthemum (garland), cole crops, collards, corn salad, cress (garden, upland), dandelion, do ck (sorrel), eggplant, endive, fennel, garlic, greens, groundcherry (strawberry tomato/tomatillo), kale, kohlrabi, leafy vegetables, lettuce (head, leaf), mustard, mustard cabbage, okra, onion (dry bulb and green), orach (mountain spinach), parsley, peas, pepper, pepper (chili), pimento, radish, roquette (arugula), shallot, spinach, Swiss chard

- Broadcast spray

### Page 27 of 85 1 application at 6.0 lb ai/A

– Spray

Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R N/A 0.06

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 N/A 0.6

Spray drift A*D N/A 0 .06

Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) N/A 0.12

Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) N/A 0.66

Cantaloupe, chayote, cucumber, cucurbit vegetables, cucuzzi, gherkin, gourds, gourd (wax), melons (bitter, honeydew, citron, mango, musk, water, wi nter melons), pepino, pumpkin, squash (butternut, summer, zucchini squash

- Broadcast spray

1 application at 8.94 lb ai/A

– Spray

Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R N/A 0.0894

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 N/A 0.894

Spray drift A*D N/A 0.0894

Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) N/A 0.1788

Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) N/A 0.9834 *Equation abbreviation: A

– Application Rate; I

– Incorporation; R

– Runoff; and D

– Drift Fraction N/A = Not applicable



### 5

. Summary of Ecological Effects

Bensulide is slightly toxic to very highly toxic to aquatic and practically non

- toxic to highly

toxic to terrestrial animals based on available toxicity studies. For plants, b ensulide shows greater toxicity to monocotyledons (monocot) than to dicotyledon s (dicot). Registrant submitted toxicity studies are not available for degradation products. A review of ECOTOX data was conducted in 2007 as part of the CRLF Effects Determination ( USEPA 2007 ) and

conclusions found there are mirrored here. A search perfor med for studies since that

assessment in the open literature (EOCTOX data) contains several studies on bensulide toxicity to non

- target organisms ; however

, none are considered in this assessment due to

none showing greater toxicity than available studies

. Additional information is included in Appendix G

. Toxicity endpoints (from registrant studies) used to calculate risk quotients (RQs) are reported in Table s 5.1 and 5 .2. All available studies including additional details are provided in Appendix H

.

5.1 Ev aluation of mixtures

The Agency does not routinely include, in its risk assessments, an evaluation of mixtures of active ingredients, either those mixtures of multiple active ingredients in product formulations or those in the applicator’s tank. In the ca se of the product formulations of active ingredients (that is, a registered product containing more than one active ingredient), each active ingredient is subject to an individual risk assessment for regulatory decision regarding the active ingredient on a particular use site. If effects data are available for a formulated product containing more than one active ingredient, they may be used qualitatively or quantitatively in accordance with the Agency’s Overview Document and the

Services’ Evaluation Memoran dum (USEPA, 2004; USFWS/NMFS/NOAA, 2004).

### Page 28 of 85 

### There are two registered products that contain bensulide and another registered active ingredient, oxadiazon. Analysis of the available acute oral mammalian LD 50 

### data for multiple active ingredient products relati ve to the single active ingredient is provided in in the 201 2

effects determination A ppendix A . This data set is limited, and a qualitative analysis does not support any broad conclusions about the interactive nature of bensulide in combination with

other pesticides. Given that the active and inert ingredients would not be expected to have similar mechanisms of action, metabolites or toxicokinetic behavior, it is reasonable to conclude that an assumption of dose

- addition would be inappropriate. Consequently , the focus of this assessment is based on the toxicity of the single active ingredient of bensulide ( including its major degradate).

5.2 Aquatic Organisms

A summary of a quatic toxicity studies are listed in Table 5.1

. The full suite of available toxicity studies for b ensulide is available in Appendix H

. Bensulide is moderately toxic to highly toxic to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish

, highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates,

and very highly toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates, on an acute basis

. T he most sensitive aquatic plant was the marine diatom Skeletonema costatum with observed density effects.

Chronic effects were observed for most aquatic taxa and included effects on length and viable eggs for freshwater fish, length for estuarine/marine fish, surviving young, length and growth for freshwater invertebrates. There were no effects observed for the estuarine/marine invertebrate study with the mysid after 28 days.

Table 5. 1. B ensulide Toxicity E ndpoints for A quatic O rganisms Used in RQ C alcu lations

Taxonomic

Group Study Type (% ai ) Surrogate Species Toxicity Value Acute Toxicity Category Source

and

Classification

Freshwater fish Acute (92.9) Rainbow trout

( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) LC 50 = 1.1 mg

ai/L Moderately

toxic 157315 Acceptable

Chronic

Life

– cycle (97.7) Fathead minnow

( Pimephales promelas ) NOAEC = 0.169

mg ai /L

LOAEC = 0.369

mg ai /L (based on reproductive endpoints)

Most sensitive endpoint(s):

F 0 viable eggs per female per day -- 49001601 (amended under 49378102) Supplemental

Freshw ater
invertebrates Acute (92.8) Waterflea

( Daphnia magna ) LC 50 = 0.58 mg

ai /L Highly toxic 159322 Supplemental

### Page 29 of 85 Chronic (97.7) Waterflea

( Daphnia magna ) NOAEC = 0.011

mg ai /L

LOAEC = 0.016

mg ai /L

Most sensitive endpoint(s): Reproduction (mean numbe r of

young per surviving adult) and growth (length) -- 49110401 Acceptable

Estuarine/marine

fish Acute (92.0) Sheepshead

minnow

( Cyprinodon variegatus ) LC 50 = 0.56 mg

ai /L Highly toxic 42750201 Acceptable

Chronic

Life

– cycle (97.7) Sheepshead

minno w

( Cyprinodon variegatus ) NOAEC: 0.036

mg ai /L (based

on post

- hatch length)

LOAEC: 0.074

mg ai /L Endpoint(s)

Affected:

F 0 4

- week length, F 0 8

- week length, F 0 17

- week survival, F 0 17

- week length, F 0 17

- week female length, F 0 17

- week wet weight,

F 0 17

- we ek female weight,

F 1 4

- week length

Most Sensitive Endpoint(s):

F 0 4

- week length -- 49059101 (amended under 49362301) Acceptable

Estuarine/marine

invertebrates Acute (92.0) Mysid shrimp

( Mysidopsis

bahia ) LC 50 = 0.0624 mg ai /L Very highly

toxic 42 750203 Acceptable

### Page 30 of 85 Chronic (94.1) Mysid shrimp

( Mysidopsis

bahia ) LC 50 > 0.0485

mg ai /L

NOAEC = 0.0485 mg ai /L

LOAEC > 0.0485 mg ai /L

No effects were

observed. 14 day endpoints should

not be used due to potential

solvent effects

observed. 28 day endpoint s are acceptable. -- 48424501 Supplemental

Aquatic plants and algae Vascular Duckweed

( Lemna gibba ) EC 50 = 0.140 mg

ai/L

NOAEC <0.042 mg ai/L

LOAEC = 0.042 mg ai/L

Based on density -- 44720406 Supplemental

Non

vascular (93.4) Marine diatom

( Skeleto nema

costatum ) EC 50 = 0.78 mg

ai/L

NOAEC = 0.635 mg ai/L Based on density -- 44720405 Acceptable

1 Fish represent surrogates for aquatic

- phase amphibians.



### 5.3 Terrestrial Organisms

The terrestrial toxicity studies are presented in Table 5 .2

. Bensulide is slightly toxic to birds

on an acute oral basis , practically non

- toxic to birds on a subacute dietary basis, moderately toxic to mammals on an acute oral basis, and practically non

- toxic to honey bees on an acute

contact basis. Data are not available for a passerine species or for oral toxicity (both acute and chronic) to adult honeybee or their larvae. All terrestrial studies are classified as acceptable for use in risk assessment. The avian toxicity studies showed that bensulide can impair avian reproduct ion at relatively low dietary concentrations and the most sensitive endpoint appears to be a reduction of eggshell thickness.

The most sensitive endpoints in the terrestrial plant studies were analyzed based on fresh weight. Phytotoxicity (stunting, leaf blotch, leaf rolling)

, not normally a regulatory endpoint, was evaluated in both the vegetative vigor and seedling emergence studies and NOAEC’s based on phytotoxicity were more sensitive than t he endpoints for fresh weight. Only fresh weight was quantitat ively considered in this assessment

. U ncertainties also exist for toxicity

to honeybee s , as the acute contact endpoint was non

- definitive and no data (beside contact) using other OPs are available.

### Page 31 of 85 

### Table 5 .2

. Be nsulide T oxicity E n dpoints for T errestrial O rganisms

Taxonomic

Group Study Type (% ai ) Surrogate Species Toxicity Value Acute Toxicity Category Source

&

Classification

Birds Acute oral (92.9) Bobwhite quail

( Colinus virginianus ) LD 50 = 1386 mg

ai /kg

- bw

Sublethal effects: decreased body weight, los s of coordination, and lethargy. Slightly toxic 158455 Acceptable

Sub

- acute dietary (92.9) Bobwhite quail

( Colinus virginianus ) LC 50 > 5620 mg ai/kg

- diet

No mortality or overt signs of toxicity at the highest test

concentration of

5620 ppm Practicall y

non

- toxic 158456 Acceptable

Chronic (92.3) Mallard duck

( Anas platyrhynchos ) NOAE C = 2.5 mg

ai /kg

- diet

LOAE C = 25 mg

ai /kg

- diet Endpoints affected: Eggshell thickness N/A 44860901 Acceptable

Mammals Acute oral (92.5) Laboratory rat

( Rattus

norve gicus ) LD 50 = 270 mg/kg

bw

Sublethal effects: Convulsions, ataxia, exophthalmus, diarrhea, yellow

stains in ano

- genital region, red stains about face, and depression Moderately

toxic 92005011 Acceptable

Chronic (92.4) Laboratory rat

( Rattus norvegicu s ) NOAE C = 150 mg/kg

- diet

LOAE C = 900 mg/kg

- diet Endpoint affected: F2 pup survival

ACH inhibition at

as low as 23 mg/kg/day N/A 43948701 Acceptable

Terrestrial

invertebrates 2 Acute

contact Honeybee

( Apis mellifera

L. ) LD 50 > 24.17 μg/bee Practically

n on

- toxic 00036935 Acceptable

### Page 32 of 85 Terrestrial plants Vegetative Vigor (45.9) Monocot

– Corn

( Zea mays ) EC 25 > 6.0 lb/A

NOAEC = 0.75

lb/A Endpoint: shoot fresh weight -- 44746301 Acceptable

Dicot

– Lettuce

( Lactuca sativa ) EC 25 > 6.0 lb/A

NOAEC = 1.5 lb /A Endpoint: shoot fresh weight -- 44746301 Acceptable

Seedling Emergence (45.9) Monocot

– Onion

( Allium cepa ) EC 25 = 3.1 lb/A

NOAEC = 0.75

lb/A Endpoint: shoot fresh weight -- 44746301 Acceptable

Dicot

– Could

not determine

most sensitive species EC 25 > 6.0 lb/A

NOAEC = 6.0 lb/A Endpoint: shoot fresh weight -- 44746301 Acceptable

1 Birds represent surrogates for terrestrial

- phase amphibians and reptiles

. 2 Bensulide is practically non

- toxic to honeybees on an acute contact basis resulting in an L D50 >24.17 μg ai /bee (MRID

00036935

- Acceptable ) . However, there are uncertainties based on a lack of other honeybee studies. No adult oral toxicity data, larval acute data, chronic data for adult and larvae are available for this risk assessment

.



### 5.4 In cident Information

No incident information was found in the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS,

version 2.1 .1 ), which is maintained by the Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs ( a ccessed September 1, 2015 ). A review of the Avian Monitoring Inform ation System (AIMS), which is maintained by the American Bird Conservancy, was also conducted on September 1

, 20 15

. No incidents associated with bensulide were identified.

Although no incidents were recorded in EIIS or AIMS, some incidents have been repor ted to the Agency in aggregated incident reports. Pesticide registrants report certain types of incidents to the Agency as aggregate counts of incidents occurring per product per quarter. Ecological incidents reported in aggregate reports include those cat egorized as ‘minor fish and wildlife’ (W

- B), ‘minor plant’ (P

- B), and ‘other non

- target’ (ONT) incidents. ‘Other

non

- target’ incidents include reports of adverse effects to insects and other terrestrial

invertebrates. An incident report was run in 2012 for the Threatened/ Endangered effects

determination and found 57 minor plant incidents ( Appendix I )

. No new ecologically relevant incidents have been reported since that assessment. Although incident reporting is required under FIFRA Section 6(a ) ( 2), the abs ence of reports in EIIS does not indicate that

the chemical has no effects on wildli fe; rather, it is possible that incidents are unnoticed and unreported.

6

. Risk Estimation

This preliminary assessment of b ensulide was used to provide a metric of potent ial risks

based on the RQ method, which is a comparison of exposure estimates to toxicity endpoints ( i.e. , RQ = EEC/toxicity endpoint). The resulting RQs are compared to the Agency’s risk

### Page 33 of 85 

### levels of concern (LOC) criteria, which are the Agency’s interpretiv e policy such that when acute or chronic risk LOCs are exceeded, the need for regulatory action may be considered. The acute LOC (0.5) is for non

- listed terrestrial birds, mammals and aquatic animals, and the acute LOC (0.4) is for non

- listed terrestrial i nvertebrates. The acute LOC (0.1) is for listed terrestrial birds and mammals, and LOC (0.05) is for listed aquatic animals and terrestrial

invertebrates. The chronic LOC (1) is the same for all listed and non

- listed terrestrial birds,

mammals and inverteb rates, and aquatic animals. For terrestrial and aquatic plants, the LOC (1) is same for both non

- listed species (based on the estimation of EEC/EC 25 

### ) and listed species (based on estimation of EEC/EC 05 

### or NOAEL).

6 .1 Aquatic Organisms

Ris k quotients are presented below in T able 6 .1 for aquatic animal taxa. The range of values brackets all the scenarios modeled ( e.g . turf use scenarios: FL Turf, PA Turf, TurfBSS, CA TurfRLF). Risk concerns are identified for most taxa and use patterns of bensulide. The r i sk quotients are presented in a range regardless of crop scenario. For example the range from the granular application 2 apps @16 lb ai/A is the range of 4 different turf scenarios modeled A, B, C, and D, and the min/max RQs for freshwater fish could resul t from scenarios A/LC 50 

### and B/LC 50 

### while the max min RQs for estuarine/marine invertebrates could result from

scenarios B /LC 50 

### and C /LC 50



### . The acute listed species LOC (0.05) is exceed ed for all taxa

and scenarios. For non

- listed species all scenarios and application rates RQs exceed the acute LOC (0.5) for estuarine/marine invertebrates , while for freshwater fish the non

- listed LOC is not exceeded but for 1 scenario/application rate (artichokes, ground spray 3 apps @ 6 lb ai).

There are acute exceedances f or estuarine/marine fish and fres hwater invertebrates depending on the scenario; however, the RQs tend to dip below the agency non

- listed LOC as rate decreases and number of applications decreases to 1. There are chronic LOC (1) exceedances

for all taxa in all application scenarios with the exception of freshwater fish for which RQs

are below the LOC for some uses. A full output of RQs for all applic ation scenarios can b e found in Appendix J

.

No data are available for benthic sediment dwelling organisms. Based on comparing the pore water EECs to water column invertebrate toxicity endpoints, RQ exceedances would be generally be the same. Consequently, the RQs presented below for water column invertebrates are expected to be protective of benthic invertebra tes.

Table 6 .1. Aquatic RQs for Fish and Invertebrates from B e nsulide U ses

Application

Rate FWF

– A 1 * FWF

- C E/MF

- A E/MF

- C FWI

- A FWI

- C E/MI

- A E/MI

- C

EEC/

LC 50 = 1100 μg

ai/L EEC/

NOAEC = 169 μg

ai/L EEC/

LC 50 = 560 μg

ai/L EEC/

NOAEC = 6 μg

ai/L EEC/

LC 50 = 580 μg

ai/L EEC/

NOAEC = 11 μg

ai/L EEC/

LC 50 = 62.4 μg

ai/L EEC/

NOAEC = 48.5 μg

ai/L Golf course turf, Turf, and Ornamental lawns

Granular

- 2 apps@ 16 lb ai/A 0.23

- 0.40 1.17

- 2.07 *** 0.45

- 0.79 ** 5.47

- 9.72 *** 0.44

- 0.76 ** 20.73

- 36.09 ** * 4.07

- 7.05 ** 4.7

- 8.19 ***

Ground spray

- 2 apps@ 12.5 lb 0.14

- 0.18 0.78

- 0.95 0.28

- 0.34 * 3.64

- 4.47 *** 0.27

- 0.33 * 12.82

- 16.18 *** 2.47

- 3.09 ** 2.91

- 3.67 ***

### Page 34 of 85 ai/A

Granular

- 2 apps@ 12.5 lb

ai/A 0.18

- 0.31 0.91

- 1.62 *** 0.36

- 0.61 ** 4.28

- 7.58 *** 0.34

- 0.59 ** 16.18

- 28.18 *** 3.19

- 5.5 ** 3.67

- 6.39 ***

Granular

- 2 apps@ 7.5 lb

ai/A 0.11

- 0.19 0.55

- 0.97 0.21

- 0.37 * 2.58

- 4.56 *** 0.21

- 0.36 * 9.73

- 16.91 1.91

- 3.3 ** 2.21

- 3.84 ***

Artichokes etc. 2

Ground spray

- 3 apps@ 6 lb a i/A 0.1

- 0.51 0.6

- 3.05 *** 0.2

- 1.01 ** 2.83

- 14.33 *** 0.19

- 0.98 ** 9.82

- 49.91 1.81

- 9.07 ** 2.23

- 11.32 ***

Ground spray

- 2 apps@ 6 lb ai/A 0.07

- 0.37 0.41

- 2.08 *** 0.14

- 0.73 ** 1.92

- 9.78 *** 0.14

- 0.71 ** 6.73

- 34.73 1.27

- 6.59 ** 1.53

- 7.8 8 ***

Ground spray

- 1 app@ 6 lb ai/A 0.05

- 0.21 0.25

- 1.18 *** 0.09

- 0.41 * 1.19

- 5.56 *** 0.09

- 0.4 * 4.36

- 19.73 0.83

- 3.72 ** 0.99

- 4.47 ***

Carrot

Ground spray

- 1 app@ 6 lb ai/A 0.15

- 0.15 0.77

- 0.77 0.3

- 0.3 * 3.61

- 3.61 *** 0.29

- 0.29 * 13.55

- 13.55 2.69

- 2.69 ** 3.07

- 3.07 ***

Cantaloupe etc. 3

Ground spray

- 2 apps@ 9 lb ai/A 0.16

- 0.24 0.91

- 1.3 *** 0.32

- 0.46 * 4.25

- 6.11 *** 0.31

- 0.45 * 15.36

- 21.73 2.88

- 4.17 ** 3.48

- 4.93 ***

Ground spray

- 1 app@ 9 lb ai/A 0.1

- 0.12 0.52

- 0.66 0.2

- 0.24 * 2.44

- 3.11 *** 0.19

- 0.23 * 9

- 11.09 1.78

- 2.16 ** 2.04

- 2.52 ***

* At least one scenario exceeds the listed species LOC (0.05) for the specified application rate

**At least one scenario exceeds the listed and non

- listed species LOC (0.5) for the specified application rate

*** Exceeds the chronic LOC of 1for listed and non

- listed species.

NC = Not calculated

1 All uses exceed the listed species LOC for FWF Acute

2 Artichokes etc. = Artichokes, beans, beet, bell pepper, Brassica (head and stem) vegetables, broccoli, broccoli raab, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cardoon, carrot, cauliflower, celery, celtuce, chervil, chicory/radicchio, chrysanthemum (garland), cole crops, collards, corn salad, cress (garden, upland), dandelion, dock (sorrel), eggplan t, endive, fennel, garlic, greens, groundcherry (strawberry tomato/tomatillo), kale, kohlrabi, leafy vegetables, lettuce (head, leaf), mustard, mustard cabbage, okra, onion (dry bulb and green), orach (mountain spinach), parsley, peas, pepper, pepper (chil i), pimento, radish, roquette (arugula), shallot, spinach, Swiss chard

- 3 Cantaloupe etc . = Cantaloupe, chayote, cucumber, cucurbit vegetables, cucuzzi, gherkin, gourds, gourd (wax), melons (bitter, honeydew, citron, mango, musk, water, winter melons), p epino, pumpkin, squash (butternut, summer, zucchini squash)
FWF = Freshwater fish; E/MF = Estuarine/marine fish; FWI = Freshwater invertebrates, E/MI = Estuarine/marine

invertebrates. X

– A = Acute RQ; X

- C = Chronic RQ



### Risk quotients are presented below in T able 6 .2 for aquatic plants. The range of values brackets all the scenarios modeled ( e.g . turf use scenarios: FL Turf, PA Turf, TurfBSS, CA TurfRLF). For vascular plants RQs could not be calculated for listed species due to not having an NOAEC value from an acceptable study. The LOC is exceeded for non

- listed species for at least some scenarios at all application rates, except, the cantaloupe et al. group (CA or NJ melon scenario) using 1 application. No LOCs are exceeded for listed or non

listed non

- vascu lar plants. A list of all RQs is presented in Appendix J

.

### Page 35 of 85 

### Table 6 .2. Aquatic RQs for Aquatic Plants from Bensulide U ses

Application Rate V ascular Plants

n on

- listed species Vascular

Plants l isted N on

- V ascular

Plants n on

- listed Non

- V ascular Plants

listed

EEC/

E C 50 = 140 μg

ai/L EEC/

NOAEC = <
42 μg ai/L EEC/

E C 50 = 780 μg ai/L EEC/ NOAEC = 635 μg

ai/L Golf course turf, Turf, and Ornamental lawns

Granular

- 2 apps@ 16 lb ai/A 1.81

- 3.14*** N/C 0.33

- 0.56 0.4

- 0.69

Ground spray

- 2 apps@ 12.5 lb

ai/ A 1.1

- 1.38 *** N/C 0.2

- 0.25 0.24

- 0.3

Granular

- 2 apps@ 12.5 lb

ai/A 1.42

- 2.45*** N/C 0.26

- 0.44 0.31

- 0.54

Granular

- 2 apps@ 7.5 lb ai/A 0.85

- 1.47*** N/C 0.15

- 0.26 0.19

- 0.32

Artichokes etc. 1

Ground spray

- 3 apps@ 6 lb ai/A 0.81

- 4.04 *** N/C 0.14

- 0.73 0.18

- 0.89

Ground spray

- 2 apps@ 6 lb ai/A 0.56

- 2.94*** N/C 0.1

- 0.53 0.12

- 0.65

Ground spray

- 1 app@ 6 lb ai/A 0.37

- 1.66*** N/C 0.07

- 0.3 0.08

- 0.37

Carrot

Ground spray

- 1 app@ 6 lb ai/A 1.2

- 1.2 *** N/C 0.22

- 0.22 0.2 6

- 0.26

Cantaloupe etc

. 2

Ground spray

- 2 apps@ 9 lb ai/A 1.29

- 1.86*** N/C 0.23

- 0.33 0.28

- 0.41

Ground spray

- 1 app@ 9 lb ai/A 0.79

- 0.96 N/C 0.14

- 0.17 0.17

- 0.21

1 Artichokes etc. = Artichokes, beans, beet, bell pepper, Brassica (head and s tem) vegetables, broccoli, broccoli raab, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cardoon, carrot, cauliflower, celery, celtuce, chervil, chicory/radicchio, chrysanthemum (garland), cole crops, collards, corn salad, cress (garden, upland), dandelion, dock (sorrel), egg plant, endive, fennel, garlic, greens, groundcherry (strawberry tomato/tomatillo), kale, kohlrabi, leafy vegetables, lettuce (head, leaf), mustard, mustard cabbage, okra, onion (dry bulb and green), orach (mountain spinach), parsley, peas, pepper, pepper ( chili), pimento, radish, roquette (arugula), shallot, spinach, Swiss chard

- 2 Cantaloupe etc . = Cantaloupe, chayote, cucumber, cucurbit vegetables, cucuzzi, gherkin, gourds, gourd (wax), melons (bitter, honeydew, citron, mango, musk, water, winter melons ), pepino, pumpkin, squash (butternut, summer, zucchini squash)

*** Exceeds the plant LOC of 1 for non

- listed species.

NC = Not calculated



### 6

. 2 Birds and Mammals

Risk quotients exceeded the LOC for many uses and size classes for both birds and

mammals. Tab le 6

. 3 is a summary of acute LOC exceedances from spray applications for

both birds and mammals based on diet item and size class with comments for additional

clarificatio n. No comments in the table indicate all size classes listed in that field exceeded

t he LOC. No LOC exceedances were observed for birds or mammals that feed on seed s ; therefore, that category was omitted from Table 6

. 3

. For all uses, acute dose based LOCs

### Page 36 of 85 

### were generally exceeded for most size classes and dietar y items for birds and mammals

. Acute dietary RQs were not calculated for birds because endpoints were non

- definitive ( LC 50 

### >5620 mg ai/kg

- diet). An EEC of > 2 580 would be required to exceed the non

- listed

bird species LOC. U se s that would result in LOC exceedance are those with 2 appl ications

per year (specifically turf, ornamentals, and cantaloupe et al .) for birds eating short grass

. All chronic dietary RQs were also above the Agency’s LOC for birds. All chronic dietary RQs were also above the agency LOC for mammals except for those feeding fruits/pods, and

seeds. Table 6

. 4 and Table 6

. 5 list the avian and mammalian RQs

, respectively for all spray application of bensulide

.

For granular applications, based on the estimated available ai per square foot ( Table 4.4 ), an analysis was done to see how many granules would need to be consumed and the minimum foraging area required to achieve the LD 50 

### , LOC of 0.5 (1/2 of LD 50 

### ) and 0.1 (1/10 of LD 50 

### ). This was done for small bird and mammals because they had the highest LD50 ft

- 2 values.

Table 6 .6 shows small birds and mammals would have to consume about 36 and 15 granules respectively (for both uses) to reach the listed LOC of 0.1 and forage areas ranging from 0.01 to 0.15 square feet (depending on use) to reach the listed LOC of 0.1. Sufficien t ai would be present in one square foot of treated area to produc e toxicity for small birds and mammals and that a small bird or mammal may be affected by as little as 15 granules, and that acute toxicity would be expected if about 350 granules were consu med by a small bird or about

150 were consumed for a small mammal.

Table 6.3

. Summary of Avian and M ammalian RQ E xceedances from Acute E xposure

to Spray A pplications of B ensulide

Food item 1

Use/Rate LOC Compared Short and Tall Grasses,

Broadleaf Plan ts, Arthropods Fruit, Pods Comment

Turf

– 2 apps/yr

@12.5 lb ai/A Listed

exceedance B S, M, L S, M

M S, M, L S, M, L

Non

- listed

exceedance B S, M ,L None L = Short grass only exceedance

M S, M, L None
Ornamentals, 2 apps/yr @ 8.65 lb

ai/A List ed

exceedance B S, M, L S

M S, M, L S, M, L

Non

- listed

exceedance B S, M None Arthropods exceeded in S only

M S, M, L None

Artichokes etc. 2 1 app / year; 6.0 lbs

ai/A Listed

exceedance B S, M, L S Arthropods not exceeded in L

M S, M, L S, M L exceedances only in Short grass and broadleaf plants

Non

- listed

exceedance B S, M None Short grass is only exceedance for

M

M S, M, L None

Artichokes etc. 2 2 apps / year; 6.0 lbs

ai/A each Listed

exceedance B S, M, L S

M S, M, L S, M

Non

- li sted

exceedance B S, M None Short grass is only exceedance for

M

M S, M, L None L has no exceedances for

### Page 37 of 85 arthropods
Cantaloupe etc 3 1 app / year; 8.94 lbs

ai/A Listed

exceedance B S, M, L S

M S, M, L S, M, L

Non

- listed

exceedance B S, M None Sho rt grass/broad leaf plants are only M exceedances

M S, M, L None
Cantaloupe etc. 3 2 apps / year; 8.94

lbs ai/A each Listed

exceedance B S, M, L S

M S, M, L S, M, L

Non

- listed

exceedance B S, M None Arthropods not exceeded in M

M S, M, L None

1 There were no exceedances for seed consumption, thus no data are reported in the table.

2 Artichokes etc. = Artichokes, beans, beet, bell pepper, Brassica (head and stem) vegetables, broccoli, broccoli raab, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cardoon, carrot, cauliflower, celery, celtuce, chervil, chicory/radicchio, chrysanthemum (garland), cole crops, collards, corn salad, cress (garden, upland), dandelion, dock (sorrel), eggplant, endive, fennel, garl ic, greens, groundcherry (strawberry tomato/tomatillo), ka le, kohlrabi, leafy vegetables, lettuce (head, leaf), mustard, mustard cabbage, okra, onion (dry bulb and green), orach (mountain spinach), parsley, peas, pepper, pepper (chili), pimento, radish, roquette (arugula), shallot, spinach, Swiss chard

– 3 Canta loupe etc . = Cantaloupe, chayote, cucumber, cucurbit vegetables, cucuzzi, gherkin, gourds, gourd (wax), melons (bitter, honeydew, citron, mango, musk, water, winter melons), pepino, pumpkin, squash (butternut, summer, zucchini squash) B = bird; S=Small (20 g); M= Medium (100g); L= Large (1000g) M = Mammal S=Small ( 15 g); M= Medium ( 35 g); L= Large (1000g)



### Table 6.4. Avian RQs for B ensulide Spray A pplications

Uses Food Items Avian Oral Dose

- based 1
Acute RQs Avian Dietary

- based 1
RQs

20 g 100 g 1000 g A cute Chronic***

Golf course turf, turn,

ornamental lawns

120

- d application interval, 2 applications / year:

12.5 lbs ai/A each Short Grass 3.74** 1.68** 0.53** N/ C 4 1311.45

Tall Grass 1.71** 0.77** 0.24* N/C 4 601.08

Broadleaf plants 2.1** 0.94** 0. 3* N/C 4 737.69

Fruits/pods 0.23* 0.1* 0.03 N/C 4 81.97
Arthropods 1.46** 0.66** 0.21* N/C 4 513.65

Seeds 0.05 0.020 0.01 N/C 4 81.97

Ornamental lawns, turf, residential lawns

120

- d application interval, 2 applications / year;

8.65 lbs ai/A each Short Grass 2.59** 1.16** 0.37* N/C 4 907.52

Tall Grass 1.19** 0.53** 0.17* N/C 4 415.95

Broadleaf plants 1.46** 0.65** 0.21* N/C 4 510.48

Fruits/pods 0.16** 0.070 0.02 N/C 4 56.72

Arthropods 1.01** 0.45* 0.14* N/C 4 355.45

Seeds 0.04 0.020 0.01 N/C 4 56.72

Artichokes,

etc. 2

, 1 app /

year; 6.0 lbs

ai/A Short Grass 1.64** 0.74** 0.23* N/C 4 576.00

Tall Grass 0.75** 0.34* 0.11* N/C 4 264.00
Broadleaf plants 0.92** 0.41* 0.13* N/C 4 324.00
Fruits/pods 0.1** 0.050 0.01 N/C 4 36.00
Arthropods 0.64** 0.29 * 0.09 N/C 4 225.60

Seeds 0.02 0.010 <0.01 N/C 4 36.00

120

- d

app interval, 2 apps / Short Grass 1.79** 0.8** 0.25* N/C 4 629.50

Tall Grass 0.82** 0.37* 0.12* N/C 4 288.52
Broadleaf plants 1.01** 0.45* 0.14* N/C 4 354.09

Fr uits/pods 0.11** 0.050 0.02 N/C 4 39.34

### Page 38 of 85 year; 6.0 lbs

ai/A

each Arthropods 0.7** 0.31* 0.1* N/C 4 246.55

Seeds 0.02 0.010 0 N/C 4 39.34

Cantaloupe

etc. 3 1 app /

year; 8.94 lbs

ai/A Short Grass 2.44** 1.09** 0.35* N/C 4 854.40

Tall Grass 1.12** 0.5** 0.16* N/C 4 391.60

Br oadleaf plants 1.37** 0.61** 0.19* N/C 4 480.60
Fruits/pods 0.15* 0.070 0.02 N/C 4 53.40
Arthropods 0.95* 0.43* 0.14* N/C 4 334.64

Seeds 0.03 0.020 0 N/C 4 854.40

120

- d

app interval, 2 apps /

year; 8.94 lbs

ai/A

each Short Grass 2.66** 1.19** 0.38* N/C 4 933.75

Tall Grass 1.22** 0.55** 0.17* N/C 4 427.97
Broadleaf plants 1.5** 0.67** 0.21* N/C 4 525.24
Fruits/pods 0.17* 0.070 0.02 N/C 4 58.36
Arthropods 1.04** 0.47** 0.15* N/C 4 365.72

Seeds 0.04 0.040 0.01 N/C 4 58.36

1 The below notation will be used to denote values that exceed the Levels of Concern (LOC)

*exceeds a cute listed species LOC (0.1)

* *exceeds a cute non

- listed species LOC (0.5)

*** All uses exceed the c hronic listed and non

- listed species LOC (1)

2 Artichokes etc. = Artichokes , beans, beet, bell pepper, Brassica (head and stem) vegetables, broccoli, broccoli raab, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cardoon, carrot, cauliflower, celery, celtuce, chervil, chicory/radicchio, chrysanthemum (garland), cole crops, collards, corn salad, cress (garden, upland), dandelion, dock (sorrel), eggplant, endive, fennel, garlic, greens, groundcherry (strawberry tomato/tomatillo), kale, kohlrabi, leafy vegetables, lettuce (head, leaf), mustard, mustard cabbage, okra, onion (dry bulb and green), orach (mo untain spinach), parsley, peas, pepper, pepper (chili), pimento, radish, roquette (arugula), shallot, spinach, Swiss chard

- 3 Cantaloupe etc . = Cantaloupe, chayote, cucumber, cucurbit vegetables, cucuzzi, gherkin, gourds, gourd (wax), melons (bitter, hon eydew, citron, mango, musk, water, winter melons), pepino, pumpkin, squash (butternut, summer, zucchini squash)

4 N/C

– Not calculated due to non

- definitive sub

- acute dietary endpoint.



### Table 6

. 5

. Mammalian RQs for Bensulide U ses

Uses Food

Items Small mamm al 1 15 g Medium mammal 1 35 g Large mammal 1 1000 g Dietary

based RQs

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

*** Acute Chronic Chronic

Golf course turf, turn,

ornamental lawns

120

- d application interval, 2 applications / year: 12.5 lbs ai/A each Short

Gras s 5.27** 189.64*** 4.5** 161.99*** 2.41** 86.83*** 21.86***

Tall Grass

2.41** 86.92*** 2.06** 74.24*** 1.11** 39.8*** 10.02***

Broadleaf
plants 2.96** 106.67*** 2.53** 91.12*** 1.36** 48.84*** 12.29*** Fruits/pods 0.33* 11.85*** 0.28* 10.12*** 0.15* 5.43*** 1.37*** Arthropods 2.06** 74.27*** 1.76** 63.44*** 0.94** 34.01*** 8.56***

Seeds 0.07 2.63*** 0.06 2.25*** 0.03 1.21*** 1.37***
Ornamental lawns, turf,

residential lawns

120

- d application S hort

Grass 3.65** 131.23*** 3.11** 112.09*** 1.67** 60.09*** 15.13***

Tall Grass 1.67** 60.15*** 1.43** 51.38*** 0.76** 27.54*** 6.93***

Broadleaf 2.05** 73.82*** 1.75** 63.05*** 0.94** 33.8*** 8.51***

### Page 39 of 85 Uses Food

Items Small mamm al 1
15 g Medium mammal 1
35 g Large mammal 1
1000 g Dietary

based RQs

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

*** Acute Chronic Chronic

interval, 2 applications / year; 8.65 lbs ai/A each plants

Fruits/pods 0.23* 8.2*** 0.19* 7.01*** 0. 1* 3.76*** 0.95

Arthropods 1.43** 51.4*** 1.22** 43.9*** 0.65** 23.53*** 5.92***

Seeds 0.05 1.82*** 0.04 1.56*** 0.02 0.83 0.95

Artichokes

etc. 2

, 1 app/ year;

6.0 lbs ai/A Short

Grass 2.31** 83.29*** 1.98** 71.15*** 1.06** 38.14*** 9.6***

Tall Gr ass 1.06** 38.17*** 0.91** 32.61*** 0.49* 17.48*** 4.4***

Broadleaf
plants 1.3** 46.85*** 1.11** 40.02*** 0.6* 21.45*** 5.4***
Fruits/pods 0.14 5.21*** 0.12* 4.45*** 0.07* 2.38*** 0.6 Arthropods 0.91** 32.62*** 0.77** 27.87*** 0.41* 14.94*** 3.76* **

Seeds 0.03 1.16*** 0.03 0.99 0.01 0.53 0.6

120

- d application interval, 2 applications / year; 6.0

lbs ai/A

each Short

Grass 2.53** 91.03*** 2.16** 77.75*** 1.16** 41.68*** 10.49***

Tall Grass 1.16** 41.72*** 0.99** 35.64*** 0.53** 19.1*** 4.81* **

Broadleaf
plants 1.42** 51.2*** 1.21** 43.74*** 0.65** 23.44*** 5.9***
Fruits/pods 0.16 5.69*** 0.13 4.86*** 0.07 2.6*** 0.66 Arthropods 0.99** 35.65*** 0.85** 30.45*** 0.45* 16.32*** 4.11***

Seeds 0.04 1.26*** 0.03 1.08*** 0.02 0.58 0.66

C antaloupe

etc

. 3 1 app / year; 8.94

lbs ai/A Short

Grass 3.43** 123.55*** 2.93** 105.53*** 1.57* 56.57*** 14.24***

Tall Grass 1.57** 56.63*** 1.34** 48.37*** 0.72* 25.93*** 6.53***

Broadleaf
plants 1.93** 69.5*** 1.65** 59.36*** 0.88* 31.82*** 8.01* **
Fruits/pods 0.21 7.72*** 0.18* 6.6*** 0.1* 3.54*** 0.89 Arthropods 1.34** 48.39*** 1.15** 41.33*** 0.62** 22.16*** 5.58***

Seeds 0.05 1.72*** 0.04 1.47*** 0.02 0.79 0.89

120

- d application interval, 2 applications / year; 8.94

lbs ai/A

each S hort

Grass 3.75** 135.02*** 3.2** 115.33*** 1.72** 61.82*** 15.56***

Tall Grass 1.72** 61.88*** 1.47** 52.86*** 0.79** 28.34*** 7.13***

Broadleaf
plants 2.11** 75.95*** 1.8** 64.88*** 0.97** 34.78*** 8.75***

Fruits/pods 0.23* 8.44*** 0.2* 7.21*** 0.11* 3.86*** 0.97

Arthropods 1.47** 52.88*** 1.25** 45.17*** 0.67** 24.21*** 6.1***

Seeds 0.05 1.88*** 0.04 1.6*** 0.02 0.86 0.97

1 The below notation will be used to denote values that exceed the Levels of Concern (LOC) *exceeds acute listed specie s LOC (0.1)

**exceeds acute listed and non

- listed species LOC (0.5)

*** exceeds chronic listed and non

- listed species LOC (1)

### Page 40 of 85 2 Artichokes etc. = Artichokes, beans, beet, bell pepper, Brassica (head and stem) vegetables, broccoli, broccoli raab,

Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cardoon, carrot, cauliflower, celery, celtuce, chervil, chicory/radicchio, chrysanthemum (garland), cole crops, collards, corn salad, cress (garden, upland), dandelion, dock (sorrel), eggplant, endive, fennel, garl ic, greens, groundcherry (strawberry tomato/tomatillo), kale, kohlrabi, leafy vegetables, lettuce (head, leaf), mustard, mustard cabbage, okra, onion (dry bulb and green), orach (mountain spinach), parsley, peas, pepper, pepper (chili), pimento, radish, roquette (arugula), shallo t, spinach, Swiss chard

- 3 Cantaloupe etc . = Cantaloupe, chayote, cucumber, cucurbit vegetables, cucuzzi, gherkin, gourds, gourd (wax), melons (bitter, honeydew, citron, mango, musk, water, winter melons), pepino, pumpkin, squash (butternut, summer, zucc hini squash)



### For granular applications, based on the estimated available ai per square foot ( Table 4.4 ), an analysis was done to see how many granules would need to be consumed and the minimum foraging area required to achieve the LD 50 

### , LOC of 0.5 (1/2 of LD 50 

### ) and 0.1 (1/10 of LD 50 

### ). This was done for small bird and mammals because they had the highest LD50 ft

- 2 values.

Table 6.6 shows small birds and mammals would have to consume about 36 and 15 granules respectively (for both uses) to reach the listed L OC of 0.1 and forage areas ranging from 0.01 to 0.15 square feet (depending on use) to reach the listed LOC of 0.1. The analysis also indicates, s ufficient ai would be present in one square foot of treated area to produce toxicity

f

or small birds/mammals and a small bird or mammal may be affect ed by as little as 15 granules. A cute toxicity (reach the LD 50 

### ) would be expected if about

, 350 granules were consumed by a small bird or about 150 were consumed for a small mammal.

Table 6.6 . Required Number of Gra nules Consumed for Various LOC Exceedances

Use Description Consumed Granules 1 Birds (20 g) Mammals (15g)

Golf course

turf

1 application

@16.0 lb ai/A

Ornamental

lawns and turf,

residential

lawns

1 application

@ 12.5 lbs

ai/A No. of granules needed to achieve

LD 50 353 157

No. of granules needed to achieve the LOC of 0.5 (1/2 LD 50 ) 176 79

No. of granules needed to achieve the LOC of 0.1 (1/10 LD 50 ) 36 16

Foraging Area Golf

Course Ornamental

Lawns Golf

Course Ornamental

Lawns Foraging area (squ are feet) needed to

achieve LOC of 0.1 exceedance assuming 100% feeding efficiency 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01

Foraging area (square feet) needed to

achieve LOC of 0.1 exceedance assuming 50% feeding efficiency 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01

Foraging area (square feet) needed to

achieve LOC of 0.1 exceedance assuming 10% feeding efficiency 0.12 0.15 0.05 0.07

1 Consumed Granules is the same for both uses within each taxa (birds, mammals)



### 6 .3 Drinking Water and Inhalation
Inhalation and drinking water exposure pathways were screened using the STIR (Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk) and SIP (Screening Imbibition Program) and screening methods. Model inputs and output s are presented in Appendix K

. Description of these models and their assumptions are available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/index.htm

### Page 41 of 85 

### Inhalation The Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR v1.0 ) 4 

### provides an upper bound estimate of bird and mammal exposure to be ns ulide through vapor inhalation. The screening analysis

suggests that bensulide use s do not have the potential for significant vapor inhalation risk (the ratio of vapor concentration in the air to the inhalation LD 50 

### does not exceed t he screening threshol d of 0.1).

Drinking Water The Screening Imbibition Program (SIP v.1.0 ) provides an upper bound estimate of bird and mammal exposure to bensulide in drinking water (bensulide concentration in drinking water

assumed to be at solubility limit in water at 25 oC) . The screening by the SIP model indicates potential chronic exposure concerns to birds through the consumption of bensulide

c ontaminated drinking water while chronic exposures were not of concern for mammals

. Acute exposure through drinking water alone was not found to be a potential concern for

birds or mammals in the screen

.

6

. 4 Terrestrial Invertebrates

Only one terrestrial invertebrate study was submitted indicating ben sulide is practically non

toxic to honey bee s on a n acute contact basis

. This st udy had a non

- definitive (> 24.17 μg ai/bee) endpoint, thus RQs could not be calcul ated for spray applications. RQs for granular applications were also not calculated d ue to lack of dietary toxicity data. The non

- definitive contact endpoint, and insufficie nt data for other life stages (larval) or exposure routes (oral, drinking water), leave uncertainties as to the actual risks posed to pollinators or other

terrestrial invertebrates. The risk to insect pollinators is discussed in greater detail in the Risk Characterization section ( 7.2.3 )



### 6

. 5 Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants

Risk quotients for terrestrial and semi

- aquatic non

- listed species inhabiting dry and semi

aquatic areas are derived by dividing the EEC by the EC 25 

### from seedling emergence and

vege tative vigor toxicity tests. Risk quotients for listed terrestrial plant species are calculated by dividing the EEC by the NOAEC value. The input values for runoff fraction is 1 % based

on the bensulide solubility (5.6) and drift fraction is 0 for granular applications and 1% for ground spray. A summary of the RQs for terrestrial plants is provided in Table 6

. 7

. The table lists the RQs calculated using en d points based on fresh weight. Where RQs are listed as ND

, they could not be calculated based on non

- defi nitive endpoints

.

The RQs are below the Agency LOCs for all plant types (excluding non

- l isted dicots based

on non

- definitive endpoints for which RQs were not calculated) receiving residues through spray drift or to terrestrial plants in dry areas ( Table 6

. 7 ). Listed LOCs are exceeded for

monocots in semi

- aquatic habitats for turf spray/granular uses and one agricultural spray use (8.94 lb ai/A)

. The EC 50 

### values for dicots were based on fresh weight and were non

definitive (greater than) ; therefore so RQs for non

- listed dicots could not be calculated.

4 http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide

- science

- and

- assessing

- pesticide

- risks/models

- and

- databases

- used

- pesticide

risk

- assessment#models

### Page 42 of 85 

### T able 6.7

. R Q Values for Plants in Dry and S emi

- a quatic Areas Exposed to B ensulide through Runoff and/or Spray D rift.*

Plant Type Listed

Status Dry 1 Semi

- Aquatic 2 Spray Drift

Gran ular Spray Gran ular Spray Gran ular Spray

Golf course turf

– Granular broadcast Golf course turf, turf, ornamental lawns

– Broadcast spray

1 application at 16 lbs ai/A

– Granular

1 application at 12.5 lb ai/A

– Spray

Monocot non

- listed <0.1 <0.1 0.52 0.44 N/A <0.1

Monocot listed 0.21 0.33 2.13 1.83 N/A 0.17

Dicot non

- listed ND ND ND ND N/A

ND

Dicot listed <0.1 <0.1 0.27 0.23 N/A

<0.1 Ornamental lawns, turn, residential lawns

– Granular broadcast Ornamental lawns, turn, residential lawns

– Broadca st spray

1 application at 12.5 lb ai/A

– Granular

1 application at 8.65 lb ai/A

– Spray

Monocot non

- listed <0.1 <0.1 0.40 0.31 N/A <0.1

Monocot listed 0.17 0.23 1.67 1.27 N/A 0.12

Dicot non

- listed ND ND ND ND N/A ND

Dicot listed <0.1 <0.1 0.21 0.16 N /A <0.1 Artichokes, beans, beet, bell pepper, Brassica (head and stem) vegetables, broccoli, broccoli raab, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cardoon, carrot, cauliflower, celery, celtuce, chervil, chicory/radicchio, chrysanthemum (garland), cole crops, collards , corn salad, cress (garden, upland), dandelion, dock (sorrel), eggplant, endive, fennel, garlic, greens, groundcherry (strawberry tomato/tomatillo), kale, kohlrabi, leafy vegetables, lettuce (head, leaf), mustard, mustard cabbage, okra, onion (dry bulb an d green), orach (mountain spinach), parsley, peas, pepper, pepper (chili), pimento, radish, roquette (arugula), s hallot, spinach, Swiss

chard

- Broadcast spray

1 application at 6.0 lb ai/A

– Spray

Monocot non

- listed N/A <0.1 N/A 0.21 N/A <0.1

Monocot li sted N/A 0.16 N/A 0.88 N/A <0.1

Dicot non

- listed N/A ND N/A ND N/A ND

Dicot listed N/A <0.1 N/A 0.11 N/A <0.1 Cantaloupe, chayote, cucumber, cucurbit vegetables, cucuzzi, gherkin, gourds, gourd (wax), melons (bitter, honeydew, citron, mango, musk, wate r, winter melons), pepino, pumpkin, squash (butte rnut, summer, zucchini squash

- Broadcast spray

1 application at 8.94 lb ai/A

– Spray

Monocot non

- listed N/A <0.1 N/A 0.32 N/A <0.1

Monocot listed N/A 0.32 N/A 1.31 N/A 0.12

Dicot non

- listed N/A ND N/A ND N/A ND

Dicot listed N/A <0.1 N/A 0.16 N/A <0.1

ND = Value is not determined because of non

- definitive endpoints N/A = Not applicable, spray application only

* Bold Values: If RQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resulting in potential for risk to that plant group

### Page 43 of 85 

### 7

. Risk Characterization and Conclusions

This preliminary risk assessment for bensulide was used to provide a metric of potential risks

based on the RQ method, which is a comparison of exposure estimates to toxicity endpoints ( i.e. , RQ = EEC/toxic ity endpoint)

. The resulting RQs are compared to the Agency’s risk levels of concern (LOC) criteria ( Table 7 .1 ), which are the Agency’s interpretive policy such that when acute or chronic risk LOCs are exceeded, the need for regula tory action may be

consid ered. These criteria are used to indicate when the use of a pesticide, as directed on the label, has the potential to cause adverse effects to non

- target organisms. Finally, possible mitigations are discussed for each taxa.

Table 7 .1

. T he Agency’s Levels of Concern (LOC) C riteria

Risk Presumption Terrestrial Birds

and Mammals
(LOC) Aquatic

Animals (LOC) Terrestrial and
Aquatic Plants (LOC) Terrestrial

Invertebrates

Acute 0.5 0.5 1 0.4

Acute Endangered
Species 0.1 0.05 1 0.4

Chronic 1 1 N/A 1



### 7 .1 Aqua tic Organisms

7.1.1 Aquatic fish and invertebrates

The standard modeling approach based on exposure of aquatic organisms to total toxic

residues of bensulide and bensulide oxon indicates an acute and chronic risk concern for fish and aquatic invertebrate s from all uses bensulide ( Table 6

. 1 ). TTR was used to calculate

EECs because the bensulide oxon is assumed to be similarly in toxicity to the parent based

on the lack of data (fate and ecotoxicity) to rule out this assumption

. T he lack of fate data
( e.g

. aerobic soil metabolism and aerobic aquatic metabolism ) for both the parent and its oxon degradate

, may increase the uncertainty in the EEC estimates

. T here are no reported incidents on aquatic organisms from bensulide usage: however, this does not necessa rily

indicate a lac k of incidents or reduced risk. Monitoring data (See section 4.3 ) produced a peak value of 45.5 ppb of bensulide which is significant enough to produce LOC exceedances for aquatic taxa.

In general, estuarine/marine organisms are more s ensitive to bensulide on an acute exposure

basis than freshwater counterparts

. The agricultural uses, contribute less to the risk picture than high multi

- application turf use sites ( s ee Appendix J for full list of RQs and scenarios).

In general, for agricu ltural uses, acute LOC exceedances for non

- listed species of all aquatic

animal taxa only occur after a second application (listed species LOCs are almost always exceeded). The exception is for estuarine/marine fish which exceed listed and non

- listed

LOCs in all application scenarios.

Depending on the application scenario, the number of freshwater fish chronic exceedances go

### Page 44 of 85 

### down when only one application is used . Calculating chronic freshwater fish RQs at the LOAEC (0.369 mg ai/L) would only exceed agenc y LOCs for a few scenarios at multiple applications. For estuarine/marine fish, NOAEC values for reproductive effects seen in the

chronic study and ranged across all concentrations tested , and had chronic LOC exceedances

in all scenarios modeled

. Th e NOAE C would have to be at least one order of magnitude less

sensitive to eliminate chronic risk concerns for estuarine/marine fish. For aquatic

invertebrates the chronic LOC is almost always exceeded regardless of application scenario.

There is some uncertain ty as to the potential for reproductive effects to estuarine/marine invertebrates since the mysid life

- cycle study produced no effects at the highest concentration

tested. As with their estuarine/marine fish counterparts, NOAEC would have to be at least

o ne order of magnitude less sensitive to eliminate chronic risk concerns for estuarine/marine

invertebrates. The persistence of bensulide may also add uncertainty to this characterization as there could be a yearly build up increasing exposure. Additionall y, No data are available for benthic sediment dwelling organisms. The risk conclusions for aquatic invertebrates would not change with additional data; however, the estimation of risk to benthic dwelling organisms is an additional uncertainty.

7.1.2 Aqua tic plants

Vascular aquatic plants appear more sensitive to bensu lide than non

- vascular plants. The available vascular plant study was determined to be supplemental as a NOAEC was not established (less than th e highest test concentration). B ecause there w as risk based on the less

sensitive EC 50 

### to all non

- listed vascular plants

, risks would be also expected for this group. Although there are not currently any listed aquatic vascular plant species, risks to this group would be expected if such a determinati on were necessary. Based on available evidence, there is a risk concern for aquatic vascular plants while there is not a risk concern for aquatic

non

- vascular plants. The LOC (1.0) is not exceeded for listed or non

- listed aquatic non

vascular plan ts (RQs ≤ 0.89) from any labeled use.

7 .2 Terrestrial Organisms

7.2.1 Birds and Mammals

Exposure concerns combined with the toxicity of bensulide suggest acute and chronic risk

concern for birds (acute RQ range 0.01

- 5.27; chronic RQ range 36

- 1311.45 ) and mammals (acute RQ range <0.01

- 3.74; chronic RQ range 0.53

- 189.64 ) from the labeled uses. There are several potential sources of bensulide exposure to birds and mammals. Granules may be ingested directly by birds foraging for seed and grit at or below the soil surface on treated

areas. For avian species, the similarity of the granule to natural forage or grit has been suggested as an important characteristic which may influence ingestion of granules. Birds and mammals may also ingest granules adhered to the surface of invertebrate prey items such as earthworms and grubs or accidentally ingest granules

, when foraging for seeds and insects

.
Bensulide product labels state watering in of the granule soon after application for 10

- 15

minutes. This practice may gre atly reduce the number of exposed granules, but does not eliminate potential exposure

. Even assuming watering leaves 1 % of granules applied

### Page 45 of 85 

### available , 1.67 mg of ai would be available per square foot and a little over 5 square feet of foraged area would ex ceed the acute listed LOCs for small mammals (assuming 10% foraging efficiency)

. The effectiveness of the watering in process is uncertain, and if highly effective could greatly reduce exposure. Additionally, while granular availability may be reduced by t his practice, exposure of prey items to residues as a result of excess pooled water may increase

, and/ or the potential for runoff may also increase.

Terrestrial animals may also ingest prey items or forage on plants with bensulide residues.

Acute and c hron ic LOC exceedances occur for most uses for both birds and mammals. Chronic RQs which are based on the NOAEC values (2.5 mg ai/kg

- diet; birds and 150 mg ai/kg

- diet; mammals) would also still exceed the LOC for most uses if calculated using the LOAEC ( 25 mg ai/kg

- diet; birds and 900 mg ai/kg

- diet; mammals) indicating chronic risk reproductive concerns for these taxa. Where bensulide is applied to bare ground, lack of attractive food items may reduce exposure to potential plant food items on the field ; howev er, exposure is still possible for other attractive food items (weeds, seeds, insects etc) off the field. The amount or exposure birds or mammals would be subject to when bensulide is applied to bare ground is uncertain as a) attractive food items may or may not be in the (bare) field and b) it is uncertain the extent to which an animal would ent er the field to find forage.

Other routes of exposure include ingestion of contaminated drinking water , and dermal exposure through contact with treated soil or d irectly through spray drift

. While t here is no concern from inhalation exposure

, contaminated drinking water exposure is still a possibility

f

or foraging birds and mammals. As mentioned in the RED

, application in the fall for turf areas (golf courses) woul d reduce risks for these organisms as the sensitive chronic endpoints are reproductive

- based and potential exposure could be outside the breeding season

. This restriction may not eliminate risk concern s given that the chemical is persistent and systemic

as the model only considers risk from exposure on the plant surface instead of within the foliage or other edible plant parts

.

7.2.2 Drinking Water

The SIP model indicates a potential chronic risk concerns to birds through consumption of

bensulide contamin ated drinking water. This screening is qualitative, is based on drinking water exposure alone, and is based on several conservative assumptions which add considerable uncertainty to this risk conclusion (see Appendix K ). Nonetheless , be nsulide exposure thr ough drinking water may contribute to a total aggregated exposure that has potential effects o n non

- target animals.

7.2.3 Non

- Target Terrestrial Invertebrates

Bensulide is practically non

- toxic to the adult honeybee (48 hr LD 50 

### > 24. 2 μg ai /bee with

1.6 % mortality at limit dos e ) through contact exposure. Exposure to direct spray or residues in plants are the most likely exposure route. Although exposure through drinking water is possible , the importance of exposure through consumption of drinking water , relative to the dietary and contact routes of exposure is under investigation (USEPA 2014c)

. The contact

### Page 46 of 85 

### EECs for all uses range from 33.75 to 16.2 μg ai/bee



### . The highest ratio of the EEC to the highest level tested in the contact toxicity assay ( 

### 33.8 μg ai /bee to 24. 2 μg ai /bee ) is greater

than the honeybee LOC (0.4). This endpoint would have to be about 85 μg ai /bee to eliminate risk concerns from the spray application uses on a contact basis. Given only 1.6% mortality occurred at the highest dose tested, the actual endpoint is higher than 24.2 μg ai

/bee ; however, the lack of any additional data makes it uncertain how much higher the LC 50 

### for contact exposure actually is.

Bensulide is a systemic pesticide, which can be translocated into plant t is sues after soil applications. Dietary exposure of honeybee s to systemic pesticides via soil application is expected to result primarily from translocation of the pesticide to plant tissues (pollen, nectar, exudates, and honeydew) and assumed obtained throu gh diet (USEPA, 201 4)

. E xposure may occur from visiting plants on or off the treatment field. Plants attractive to pollinators off the treated field may obtain residues from spray drift and run

- off , while plants on the treated field could expose visiting p ollinators due to the systemic nature of bensulide. Based on limited data contact risk to honeybees is considered low. However, d ietary risk could not be assessed because acute and chronic oral toxicity (adult or larval) data a re not available for

bensulid e. Although dietary risk cannot be quantified

, it is reasonable to expect risk could occur to honeybees given mode of action, and systemic nature of the chemical. T he toxicity to other life stages and via other exposure routes ( i.e.

, oral, larval or chroni c ) is also uncertain

due to the lack of data

. T here are significant data gap s for honeybees which serve as the invertebrate surrogate, t he LOC values for other non

- target terrestrial invertebrate s cannot be

estimated. T he potential risk to terrestrial inve rtebrates cannot be assessed due to th e se uncertaint ies

.

7.2.4 Terrestrial Plants

No LOC s were exceeded for terrestrial plants in dry areas, or due to exposure from only spray drift. R isk quotients were not calculated for non

- listed dicots based on non

- d efinitive (greater than) endpoints

. LOCs to listed monocots and dicots in dry areas or from sprat drift are not exceeded. Because the listed risk quotient is based on the more conservative NOAEC, any definitive EC 25 

### would be higher than the established NOA EC resulting in a lower risk quotient. The non

- definitive EC 25 

### values are also lower than the highest labeled application

rate. A calculation was done in TerrPlant conservatively using the EC 25 

### as 6 lb ai/A at the highest labeled spray application rate of 12.5 lb ai/A

, and RQs for the same groups would

s till be below the agency LOCs. Conseq uently risks to these species are not expected

.

The RQs for granular/spray turf applications, and agricultural sp ray applications at 8.94 lb

ai/A exceeded the agen cy lis ted monocot LOCs for semi

- aquatic plants. RQ s suggest that only listed monocots in semi

- aquatic areas are at risk from proposed bensulide uses. While

risks to non

- listed dicots were not calculated based on a non

- definitive endpoint, because

there are no ri sks expected to listed species based on a more sensitive endpoint (NOAEC),

risk are also n ot expected for non

- listed dicots.

Phytotoxicity is not a normal regulatory endpoint; however, as mentioned previously there were statistically significant phytotox ic endpoints for some species which were lower th an

### Page 47 of 85 

### the fresh weight endpoint s (MRID 44746301)

. These phytotoxic effects were seen in the monocots in the seeding emergence study and dicots in the vegetative vigor study. In the seedling emergence study th e most sensitive monocot based on phytotoxicity was ryegrass

with an EC 25 

### of 1.9 lb ai/A and NOAEC of 0.38 lb ai/A

, and in the vegetative vigor study the most sensitive dicot based on phytotoxicity was cucumber with an EC 25 

### of 1.3 lb ai/A and

NOAEC of 0.38 lb ai/A. As an herbicide targeting grasses, plants are expected to be affected. It is uncertain the degree to which phytotoxic effects to non

- target plants would affect their viability but the effect is noted. The lack of major incident data from usage at potentially higher rates than those tested, or additional studies with lower endpoints suggest the risks to terrestrial plants are reasonably covered in this assessment.

8

. Risk to Listed Species

Potential direct effects to listed birds (surrogates f or terrestrial

- phase amphibians and reptiles), mammals, and terrestrial and aquatic plants from the use of bensulide may be associated with modification of primary constituent elements (PCEs) of designated critical habitat, where such designations have bee n made. However, at the 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 Research Council (NRC) April 2013 report, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18344 . The NAS report outlines recommendations on specific s cientific and technical issues related to the development of pesticide risk assessments that are compliant with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The EPA along with the U.S. Fish & Wildli fe Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (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 s takeholder 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 will 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.

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 bensulide 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 sp ecies and their

### Page 48 of 85 

### designated critical habitats (where applicable). Scientific information obtained from the Services, and other reliable sources is being collated by EFED to address all currently listed species. This information is being stored in an Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) P esticide

R egistration I nformation S yste M (PRISM) listed species knowledgebase. The listed species knowledgebase consists of an information repository that houses biological and behavioral information relevant to individual spec ies ( 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 t axa, biological information relevant to the assessment ( e.g ., diet and body weight) will be used to parameterize exposure estimates using a method consistent with currently used methods in the T

- REX and T

- HERPS models.

Refinements will also include more d etailed 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 bensulide is used on all use sites. Actual usage data (when available) and national land

- cover datasets that indicate potential use sites [ e.g ., National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), Cropland Data Layer (CDL)] may be used to support

a mo re refined analysis of where bensulide is reasonably expected to be used. Similarly, refinements on the timing of applications and a more in

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

The refinements based on individual species data; additional, detailed usage information, when available; and recommendations from the NRC report are expected to help to more accurately identify potential areas of effect and to better inform effects and habitat

determinat ions for listed species and any designated critical habitats.

9

. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

As required by FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA reviews numerous studies to assess potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectively, these studi es 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, incl uding 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 registration review for

bensulide

, EPA reviewed these data and selected the most sensitive endpoints for relevant

risk assessment scenarios from t he existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), bensulide is not subject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)

.

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whether certain substances (i ncluding 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

### Page 49 of 85 

### Administrator may designate.” The EDSP employs a two

- tiered a pproach to making the statutorily required determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal systems. Chemicals th at 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 EDSP 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 between the dose and the E, A, or T effect.

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticid e 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 ingredients. A second list of chemicals 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 o r likely endocrine disruptors.

Bensulide is not on the first or s econd li st chemicals for which EPA intends to issue test

orders/data call

- ins in the near future. For further information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the lists of chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and the Tier 1

scree ning battery, please visit the website

, http://www.epa.gov/endo/

.

10

. References

USEPA. 2000

. Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( I RED) for Bensulid e June 2000 ). Office of Pesticide Programs, United Stat es E nvironmental Protection Agency.

Available at: http://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/ired_PC

009801_1

- Jun

- 00.pdf#_ga=1.256960648.2069058676.1438265748

USEPA. 2006 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Bensulide ( July 2006), Office of Pesticide Programs, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Docket: EPA

HQ

- OPP

- 2006

- 0618

USEPA. 2007a. Risks of Bensulide Use to the Federally Listed California Red Legged Frog ( Rana aurora draytonii ), October 2007. Available at: http://www.epa.gov /espp/litstatus/effects/redleg

- frog/bensulide/determination.pdf

USEPA. 2008. Registration Review Preliminary Problem Formulation for t he Ecological Risk Assessment of Bensulide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. June 11,2008. 23 pp



## .

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

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2009

- 0477

- 0074 for the final second

list of chemicals.

### Page 50 of 85 

### USEPA. 2009a. ECOTOXicology Database. Office of Research and Development National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory’s (NHEERL’s) Mid

Continent Ecology Division (MED). http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/

USEPA. 2009b. Ecological Incident Information System. http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/general/databasesdescription.htm#eiis

USEPA. 2009c. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides. Version 2. 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Oct. 22, 2009

USEPA. 2010. Bensulide: Response to Data Waiver Requests for Fish Full Life Cycle Toxicity Tests. Office of Pesticide Programs, Un ited States Environmental Protection Agency. DP Barcode 381471

USEPA. 2012 a

. Risks of Bensulide Use to the Federally Threatened Bay Checkerspot Butterfly ( Euphydryas editha bayensis ), Delta Smelt ( Hypomesus transpacificus ), California Tiger Salamander ( A mbystoma californiense ) Central California Distinct Population Segment, and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle ( Desmocerus californicus dimorphus ), And the Federally Endangered California Clapper Rail ( Rallus longirostris obsoletus ), California Freshwater Shrimp ( Syncaris pacifica ), California Tiger Salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ) Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment and Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment, San Francisco Garter Snake ( Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia ), and Tidewater Go by ( Eucyclogobius newberryi)

, June 2012 . Available at: http://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/endanger/litstatus/effects/redleg

frog/2012/bensulide/analysis.pdf#_ga=1.64532012.2069058676.1438265748

USEPA. 2012 b . Response to Gowan Company's Rebuttal of the Status of the Mysid Shrimp Chronic Toxicity Study. Office of Pesticide Programs, United States Environmental Protection Agency. DP Barcode 403396

USEPA. 2014 a . EFED Response to the Registrant's Rebuttal on the Data Evaluation Record

for Bensulide Full Life

- Cy cle Toxicity Study with Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) in Support of Registration Review Office of Pesticide Programs, United States Environmental Protection Agency. DP Barcode 420181

USEPA. 2014 b . EFED Response to the Registrant's Rebuttal on the Data Evaluation Record

for Bensulide Full Life

- Cycle Toxicity Study with Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) in Support of Registration Review. Office of Pesticide Programs, United States Environmental Protection Agency. DP Barcode 420826

USEPA. 2014 c . Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs; Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency; and California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Jun. 23, 2014. Available at: http://w ww2.epa.gov/pollinator

- protection/pollinator

- risk

-

### Page 51 of 85 

### assessment

- guidance.

USEPA. 2015. Bensulide Screening Level Usage Analysis. Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, United States Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act. Final Draft. March 1 998.

### Page 52 of 85 

### 11

. Appendices

Appendix A. Submitted MRID Bibliography

Toxicity Studies

MRID Citation Reference

157315 McAllister, W.; Swigert, J.; Bowman, J. (1986) Acute Toxicity of Betasan Technical to Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri): Static Acute Toxicity R eport #34028: T

- 12395. Unpublished study pre

- pared by Analytical Bio

- Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 51 p.

157316 McAllister, W.; Swigert, J.; Bowman, J. (1986) Acute Toxicity of Betasan Technical to Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus): Static Acute Tox icity Report #34027: T

- 12394. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio

- Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 47 p.

159322 Forbis, A.; Burgess, D.; Frazier, S. (1986) Acute Toxicity of Beta

- san Technical to Daphnia magna: Static Acute Toxicity Report #34029. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio

- Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 36 p.

42750201 Morrow, J.; Ward, G. (1993) Bensulide Technical: Acute Toxicity to the Sheepshead Minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus, Under Flow

- Through Test Conditions: Lab Project Numb er: F9209003D. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 24 p.

42750202 Morrow, J.; Ward, G. (1993) Bensulide Technical: Acute Toxicity to the Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea virginica, Under Flow

- Through Test Conditions: Lab Project Numb er: J9209003E. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 27 p.

42750203 Ward, G. (1993) Bensulide Technical: Acute Toxicity to the Mysid, Mysidopsis bahia, Under Flow

Through Test Conditions: Lab Project Number: J9209003C. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 25 p.

43616001 Beavers, J.; Haberlein, D.; Mitchell, L. et al. (1995) Betasan (Bensulide) Technical: A Reproduction Study with the Northern Bobwhite: Lab Project Number: 334/103: CHR23. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 178 p.

43616002 Beavers, J.; Haberlein, D.; Mitchell, L. et al. (1995) Betasan (Bensulide) Technical: A Reproduction Study with the Mallard: Lab Project Number: 334/104: CHR23. Unpublished study prepared by Wildli fe International Ltd. 182 p.

44720407 Kranzfelder, J.; Stuerman, L.; Malorin, D. (1998) Life Cycle Toxicity Test of Daphnia magna Under

Flow

- Through Conditions (Bensulide Technical): Lab Project Number: 44606 . Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratori es, Inc. 42 p.

44720408 Kranzfelder, J.; Stuerman, L.; Malorin, D. (1998) Early Life

- Stage Toxicity Test of Fathead Minnow, Pimephales Promelas Under Flow

- Through Conditions (Bensulide Technical): Lab Project Number:

44607 . Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 42 p.

44724007 Stuerman, L.; Kranzfelder, J.; Malorin, D. (1998) Life

- Cycle Toxicity Test of Daphnia magna Under

Flow

- Through Conditions: Lab Project Number: 44606 . Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 42 p.

44724008 Stu erman, L.; Kranzfelder, J.; Malorin, D. (1998) Early Life

- Stage Toxicity Test of Fathead Minnow, Pimephales promelas, Under Flow

- Through Conditions: Lab Project Number: 44607 . Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 42 p.

44746301 Schwab, D. (1998) Evaluating the Effects of Bensulide on the Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor of Non

- Target Terrestrial Plants: Lab Project Number: 44608. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 174 p. {OPPTS 850.4225, 850.4250}

45063401 Kranzfelder, J.; Stuerman, L.; Malorin, D. (1998) Life

- Cycle Toxicity Test of Daphnia magna Under

Flow

- Through Conditions: (Bensulide ): Lab Project Number: 44606 . Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 86 p.

48424501 Gerke, A. (2011) Bensulide: Life

- Cycle Toxi city Test of the Saltwater Mysid, Americamysis bahia,

Conducted Under Flow

- Through Conditions. Project Number: 66433. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 88 p.

48504301 Rebstock, M. (2011) Bensulide: Chronic Toxicity Test with the Water F lea, Daphnia magna, Conducted

Under Flow

- Through Conditions. Project Number: 66432. Unpublished study prepared by ABC

### Page 53 of 85 Laboratories, Inc. 59 p.

49059101 Lee, M. (2013) Bensulide

- Full Life

- Cycle Toxicity Test with Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) Under Flow

- Through Conditions. Project Number: 092111/OPPTS/FLC/SHM, 12791/6168. Unpublished study prepared by Smithers Viscient Laboratories. 170p.

49110401 Rebstock, M. (2013) Bensulide: Chronic Toxicity Test with the Cladoceran, Daphnia magna, Exposed

Under Static

- Renewal Conditions. Project Number: 69125. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 68p.

49378102 Leak, T. (2014) Bensulide: Life

- Cycle Toxicity Test with the Fathead Minnow, Pimephales promelas,

Under Flow

- Through Conditions. Pr oject Number: 67498. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 131p.

27401 Christensen, C.; Rogers, W.; Colbert, F.; et al. (1976) Sward^(TM)I 50W for Preemergence Control of

Annual Grasses and Some Broad

- leaf Weeds in Mature Turfgrasses. (Unp ublished study received Aug 12, 1976 under 1471

- 106; prepared in cooperation with Univ. of Florida, submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:224918

- A)

36066 Hill, R. (1963) Fish Bio

- Assay, Technical Report: Lab . No. 2H7459. (Unpublished study received Dec 16, 1971 under 1F1084; prepared by Diablo Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Stauffer Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093396

- I)

36067 Meyding, G.D. (1963) R

- 4461 4

- E: Fish Toxicity Assay: Report No. 366. (Un published study received Dec 16, 1971 under 1F1084; submitted by Stauffer Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL: 093396

- J)

101187 Shellenberger, T.; Newell, G. (1965) Toxicological evaluations of agricultural chemicals with Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Laboratory Animal Care 15(2):119

- 130. (Also In unpublished submission received on unknown date under unknown admin. no.; submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, DC; CDL:120482

- S)

40098001 Mayer, F.; Ellersieck, M. (1986) Manual of Acute Toxicity: Inter

- pretation and Data Base for 410 Chemicals and 66 Species of Freshwater Animals. US Fish & Wildlife Service, Resource Pub

- lication 160. 579 p.

40098001 Mayer, F.; Ellersieck, M. (1986) Manual of Acute Toxicity: Interpretation and Data Bas e for 410 Chemicals and 66 Species of Freshwater Animals. US Fish & Wildlife Service, Resource Pub

- lication 160. 579 p.

44720402 Kranzfelder, J.; Stuerman, L. (1998) Static Toxicity Test for Determining the Effects of Test Substances to the Green Alga, S elenastrum capricornutum (Bensulide Technical): Lab Project Number: 44601. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 30 p.

44720402 Kranzfelder, J.; Stuerman, L. (1998) Static Toxicity Test for Determining the Effects of Test Substances

to the Green Alga, Selenastrum capricornutum (Bensulide Technical): Lab Project Number: 44601. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 30 p.

44720403 Kranzfelder, J.; Stuerman, L. (1998) Static Toxicity Test for Determining the Effects of Test Sub stances
to the Blue

- Green Alga, Anabaena flos

- aquae (Bensulide Technical): Lab Project Number: 44602. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 29 p.

44720403 Kranzfelder, J.; Stuerman, L. (1998) Static Toxicity Test for Determining the Effect s of Test Substances

to the Blue

- Green Alga, Anabaena flos

- aquae (Bensulide Technical): Lab Project Number: 44602. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 29 p.

44720404 Kranzfelder, J.; Stuerman, L. (1998) Static Toxicity Test for Determini ng the Effects of Test Substances to the Freshwater Diatom, Navicula pelliculosa: (Bensulide Technical): Lab Project Number: 44603. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 30 p.

44720405 Kranzfelder, J.; Stuerman, L. (1998) Static Toxicity T est for Determining the Effects of Test Substances to the Saltwater Diatom, Skeletonema costatum: (Bensulide Technical): Lab Project Number: 44604. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 30 p.

44720405 Kranzfelder, J.; Stuerman, L. (1998) S tatic Toxicity Test for Determining the Effects of Test Substances to the Saltwater Diatom, Skeletonema costatum: (Bensulide Technical): Lab Project Number: 44604. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 30 p.

44720406 Kranzfelder, J.; Stuer man, L. (1998) Static Toxicity Test for Determining the Effects of Test Substances to Duckweed, Lemna gibba G3 (Bensulide Technical): Lab Project Number: 44605. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 29 p.

44720406 Kranzfelder, J.; Stuerman , L. (1998) Static Toxicity Test for Determining the Effects of Test Substances to Duckweed, Lemna gibba G3 (Bensulide Technical): Lab Project Number: 44605. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 29 p.

### Page 54 of 85 44724002 Stuerman, L.; Kranzfelder, J . (1998) Static Toxicity Test for Determining the Effects of Test Substances to the Green Alga, Selenastrum capricornutum: Lab Project Number: 44601. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 30 p.

44724002 Stuerman, L.; Kranzfelder, J. (1998) Static Toxicity Test for Determining the Effects of Test Substances

to the Blue

- Green Alga, Anabaena flos

- aquae: Lab Project Number: 44602 . Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 29 p.

44724003 Stuerman, L.; Kranzfelder, J. (1998) Static Toxicity Test f or Determining the Effects of Test Substances

to the Blue

- Green Alga, Anabaena flos

- aquae: Lab Project Number: 44602. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 29 p.

44724003 Stuerman, L.; Kranzfelder, J. (1998) Static Toxicity Test for Determining t he Effects of Test Substances to the Freshwater Diatom, Navicula pelliculosa: Lab Project Number: 44603 . Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 30 p.

44724004 Stuerman, L.; Kranzfelder, J. (1998) Static Toxicity Test for Determining the Effects of Test Substances to the Freshwater Diatom, Navicula pelliculosa: Lab Project Number: 44603. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 30 p.

44724004 Stuerman, L.; Kranzfelder, J. (1998) Static Toxicity Test for Determining the Effects of Test Substan ces to the Saltwater Diatom, Skeletonema costatum: Lab Project Number: 44604 . Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 30 p.

44724005 Stuerman, L.; Kranzfelder, J. (1998) Static Toxicity Test for Determining the Effects of Test Substances

to the Sal twater Diatom, Skeletonema costatum: Lab Project Number: 44604. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 30 p.

44724005 Stuerman, L.; Kranzfelder, J. (1998) Static Toxicity Test for Determining the Effects of Test Substances to Duckweed, Lemna gibba : Lab Project Number: 44605 . Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 29 p.

44724006 Stuerman, L.; Kranzfelder, J. (1998) Static Toxicity Test for Determining the Effects of Test Substances to Duckweed, Lemna gibba: Lab Project Number: 44605. Unpubl ished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 29 p.

45334101 Madsen, T.; Goble, M. (2001) Toxicity of Bensulide Technical to Duckweed, Lemna gibba G3, Determined Under Static Test Conditions: Lab Project Number: 46422. Unpublished study prepared by

ABC Laborat ories, Inc. 50 p.

45334101 Madsen, T.; Goble, M. (2001) Toxicity of Bensulide Technical to Duckweed, Lemna gibba G3, Determined Under Static Test Conditions: Lab Project Number: 46422. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 50 p.

48150301 McNutt, J. (2010) Waiver Justification for Fish Life Cycle Toxicity Test, 850.1500 for Generic Data

Call

- In of Bensulide. Project Number: GC/JJM/1004/1. Unpublished study prepared by Gowan Company. 12 p.

49378101 Leak, T. (2014) Response to Data Evaluati on Record for MRID 49001601 (Bensulide: Life

- Cycle Toxicity Test with the Fathead Minnow, Pimephales promelas, Under Flow

- Through Conditions). Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories. 8p.



### Fate Studies

MRID Citation Reference

00 160074 Chang, L.; Lee, K. (1986) Hydrolysis Studies of Bensulide: Report No. RRC 86

- 50. Unpublished study prepared by Stauffer Chemical Co. 36 p.

92005023 Lee, K. (1990) ICI Americas Inc. Phase 3 Summary of MRID 00160074. Hydrolysis Studies of Bensulide: Laboratory St udy ID No. RR 90

- 123B. Prepared by ICI Americas Inc. 9 p.

40513401 Riggs, R. (1988) Bensulide

-- Aqueous Photolysis Study: Laboratory Project ID: RRC 88

- 08. Unpublished study prepared by ICI Americas, Inc. 55 p.

92005024 Lee, K. (1990) Ici Americas Inc. Phase 3 Summary of MRID 40513401. Bensulide

- Aqueous Photolysis Study: Laboratory Study ID No. RR 90

- 124B. Prepared by ICI Americas Inc. 12 p.

### Page 55 of 85 40460301 Subba

- Rao, R. (1987) Aerobic Metabolism of Bensulide in Soil: Docu

- ment No. PMS

- 219. Unpublished stu dy prepared by ICI Americas, Inc. Western Research Center. 71 p.

92005025 Subba

- Rao, R. (1990) Ici Americas Inc. Phase 3 Summary of MRID 40460301. Aerobic Metabolism of Bensulide in Soil: PMS 219: Summary ID # RR 90

- 223B. Prepared by ICI Americas, Inc. 1 3 p.

40460302 Subba

- Rao, R. (1987) Anaerobic Metabolism of Bensulide in Soil: Document No. PMS

- 220. Unpublished study prepared by ICI Americas, Inc. Western Research Center. 65 p.

92005026 Subba

- Rao, R. (1990) Ici Americas Inc. Phase 3 Summary of MRID 40460302. Anaerobic Metabolism of Bensulide in Soil: PMS 220: Summary ID # RR 90

- 224B. Prepared by ICI Americas Inc. 13 p.

42826701 McCowan, C.; Mackie, J.; Hall, B. (1982) The Adsorption and Desorption of (carbon 14)

-- Bensulide in Soil: Lab Project Numb er: 382398: 9607. Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk Research International. 80 p.

43180701 Mackie, J.; Hall, B. (1993) The Adsorption and Desorption of (carbon 14) Bensulide Oxon in Soil: Lab Project Number: 382927: 9703. Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk Research International. 78 p.

43180702 Mackie, J.; Hall, B. (1993) The Adsorption and Desorption of (carbon 14) Benzenesulphonamide in Soil: Lab Project Number: 382911: 9776. Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk Research International. 77 p

.

40534901 McKay, J. (1987) Betasan (Bensulide) 4

- E Field Dissipation Study: Mississippi, 1986: Laboratory Project ID: 87

- 115. Unpublished study prepared by Stauffer Chemical Co. 69 p.

40534902 McKay, J. (1987) Betasan (Bensulide) 4

- E Field Dissipation Study: California, 1986: Laboratory Project ID: 87

- 109. Unpublished study prepared by Stauffer Chemical Co. 44 p.

40534903 McKay, J. (1987) Betasan (Bensulide) 12.5

- G Field Dissipation Study: Mississippi, 1986: Laboratory Project ID: 87

- 107. Unpub

- lish ed study prepared by Stauffer Chemical Co. 72 p.

40534904 McKay, J. (1987) Betasan (Bensulide) 12.5

- G Field Dissipation Study: California, 1986: Laboratory Project ID: 87

- 108. Unpub

- lished study prepared by Stauffer Chemical Co. 48 p.

40534905 McKay, J. (1987) Prefar (Bensulide) 4

- E Field Dissipation Study: California, 1986: Laboratory Project ID: 87

- 112. Unpublished study prepared by Stauffer Chemical Co. 45 p.

40534906 McKay, J. (1987) Prefar (Bensulide) 4

- E Field Dissipation Study: Mississippi, 19 86: Laboratory Project ID: 87

- 116. Unpublished study prepared by Stauffer Chemical Co. 57 p.

41694201 Iwata, Y. (1990) Betasan: Field Dissipation Study for Terrestrial Uses: Lab Project Number:

RR 89

- 044B: BETA

- 88

- SD

- 02. Unpublish

- ed study prepared by I CI Americas, Inc. 108 p.

41694202 Iwata, Y. (1990) Betasan: Field Dissipation Study for Terrestrial Uses: Lab Project Number:

RR 89

- 008B: BETA

- 88

- SD

- 01. Unpublished study prepared by ICI Americas, Inc. 117 p.

44297001 Kemman, R. (1997) Prefar 4

- E (Bens ulide) Herbicide Field Soil Dissipation Study Following

Pre

- plant Treatment to Cabbage: (Final Report): Lab Project Number: GOWN

- 9319: BENS

91

- SD

- 03. Unpublished study prepared by Compliance Services International. 201 p.

44733401 Mickelson, K. (1998) Fi eld Soil Dissipation of Bensulide in Bare Ground North Carolina: Lab Project Number: AA980603: 98

- 0014: ASW1217R. Unpublished study prepared by EN

CAS Analytical Laboratories and American Agricultural Services, Inc. 323 p.

44908801 Mickelson, K. (1999) F ield Soil Dissipation of Bensulide in Bare Ground in North Carolina: Final Report: Lab Project Number: AA980603: 98

- 0014: CSI

- 013

- 02. Unpublished study prepared by American Agricultural Services, Inc. 339 p.

### Page 56 of 85 45550301 Willard, T. (2001) Field Soil Dissipa tion of Bensulide in Bare Ground in North Carolina: Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: AA980603. Unpublished study prepared by

EN

- CAS Analytical Laboratories. 411 p.

46418401 Jacobson, S. (2004) Determination of the Frozen Stability of Bensulide a nd Bensulide Oxon in Soil. Project Number: 95037. Unpublished study prepared by Compliance Services International. 86 p.

92005028 Iwata, Y. (1990) Ici Americas Inc. Phase 3 Summary of MRID 40534903 and Related
MRIDs 40534901, 40534902, 40534904, 40534905, 40534906. Betasan/ Prefar Field Dissipation Study for Terrestrial Uses: ICIA Reports RR 89

- 008B and RR 89

- 044B; Laboratory Summary ID No. RR 90

- 187B. Prepared by ICI Americas Inc. 34 p.

41931001 Akhaven, M. (1991) The Bioaccumulation of 14C

- Bensulide in Bluegill Sunfish: Lab Project

Number: PMS355: RR 91

- 032B. Unpublished study prepared by ICI Americas Inc. and Analytical Biochemistry Laboratories, Inc. 91 p.

### Page 57 of 85 

### Appendix B. Bensulide Screening Level Usage Estimates

Date: July 0 6 , 2015 Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Bensulide ( 009801 ) Sorted Alphabetically Reporting Years: 2004

- 201 3

Annual Average Percent Crop Treated
Crop Lbs. A.I. Applied Average Maximum

1 Broccoli 60,000 15 25

2 Brussels Sprouts* <500 <2.5 5

3 Cabbage 20,0 00 5 20

4 Cantaloupes 80,000 20 40

5 Cauliflower 10,000 5 20

6 Celery 2,000 <2.5 5

7 Chicory* <500 <2.5 10

8 Cucumbers 9,000 <2.5 5

9 Honeydews 4,000 15 30

1 0 Lettuce 300,000 25 40

1 1 Onions 40,000 10 20

1 2 Peppers 10,000 5 10

1 3 Pumpkins 7, 000 <2.5 10

1 4 Spinach 4,000 5 10

1 5 Squash 10,000 5 15

1 6 Watermelons 30,000 5 10

All numbers are rounded.

<500 : less than 500 pounds of active ingredient s

. <2.5: less than 2.5 percent of crop is treated. <1: less than 1 percent of crop is trea ted.

* Based on CA DPR data only (80% or more of U.S. acres grown are in California)

.

SLUA data sources include:

USDA

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

Private Pesticide Market Research

California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation) These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public.

### Page 58 of 85 

### Appendix C : Results of ECOSAR Modeling

ECOSAR is a screening

- level tool based on chemical structures develo ped by the USEPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention for rapid screening of chem icals for ecotoxicity hazards The modeling results s uggest bensulide oxon is are less toxic for freshwater fish and freshwater invertebrates (acute and chronic ) and slightly more toxic (although within one order of magnitude) than the parent bensulide

. This comparison is based

on the amide class of chemicals

. T he estimated toxicity values by the ECOSAR for bensulide are similar to observed toxicity values from t he submitted studies

. The values are not as close

for non

- vascular plants, although predicted values are still within one order of magnitude of

each other. EFED proceeded with assuming equal toxicity when performing the risk

assessment.

Table C .1. ECOSAR ( Class Amides) estimates for bensulide and b ensuli de oxon compared to known toxicity e ndpoints

Assessment Endpoint Toxicity Studies on Bensulide (ppm) ECOSAR Estimate Bensulide (ppm) ECOSAR Estimate Bensulide Oxon (ppm)

Acute Freshwater Fish LC50 = 1.1 (MRID 157315) LC 50 = 1.08 LC50 = 25.79

Chronic Freshwater Fish NOAEC = 0.169 (49001601/49378102) NOAEC = 0. 041 NOAEC = 0.152

Acute Freshwater

Invertebrate EC50 = 0.58 (159322) EC 50 = 1.26 EC50 = 16.41

Chronic Freshwater

Invertebrate NOAEC = 0.011 (491 10401) NOAEC = 0.017 NOAEC = 0.217

Acute Non

- vascular Plant Toxicity (Green Algae) EC 50 = 1.8 ( 44720402) EC 50 = 0.224 EC50 = 0.668

Chronic Non

- vascular Plant Toxicity (Green Algae) NOAEC = 0.93 ( 44720402 ) NOAEC = 0.664 * NOAEC = 0.637

*Unreliable value g ive the NOAEC is higher than the EC 50

### Page 59 of 85 

### Appendix D

. SWCC Representative Results



# Summary of Water Modeling of Bensulide and Bensulide Oxon

and the USEPA Standard Pond

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for Bensulide and Bensulide Oxon are presented in Table 1 for the USEPA standard pond with the FLpeppersSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the year

- to

- year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Cri tical input

values for the model are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. This model estimates that about 4.1% of Bensulide and Bensulide Oxon applied to the field eventually reaches the water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff (84.7% of the total transport), followed by spray drift ( 15%) and erosion (0.35%). In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half

- life of 207.7 days. (This value does not include dissipation by transport to the b enthic region; it includes only processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of dissipation in the water column is hydrolysis (effective average half

- life = 220.3 days) followed by metabolism (4834 days), photoly sis (14733.6 days), and volatilization (8322091 days). In the benthic region, pesticide dissipation is negligible (13454.8 days). The main source of dissipation in the benthic region is hydrolysis (effective average half

- life = 13454.8 days). The vast majo rity of the pesticide in the benthic region (98.36%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in the pore water.

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for Bensulide and Bensulide

Oxon.

Peak (1

- in

- 10 yr) 566.

4

- day Avg (1

- in

- 10 yr) 559.

21

- day A vg (1

- in

- 10 yr) 549.

60

- day Avg (1

- in

- 10 yr) 516.

365

- day Avg (1

- in

- 10 yr) 434.

Entire Simulation Mean 326.

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for Bensulide and Bensulide Oxon.

Scenario FLpeppersSTD

Cropped Area Fraction 1

Koc (ml/g) 557

Water Half

- L ife (days) @ 25 °C 4494

### Page 60 of 85 

### Benthic Half

- Life (days) @ 25 °C 0

Photolysis Half

- Life (days) @ 40

°Lat 173

Hydrolysis Half

- Life (days) 220

Soil Half

- Life (days) @ 25 °C 2274

Foliar Half

- Life (days)

Molecular Wt 397.5

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.48e

- 8

Solubi lity (mg/l) 461

Table 3. Application Schedule for Bensulide and Bensulide Oxon.

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift

2/1 Foliar 6.72 .99 .062

6/1 Foliar 6.72 .99 .062

10/1 Foliar 6.72 .99 .062

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations

### Page 61 of 85 

# Summar y of Water Modeling of Bensulide and Bensulide Oxon

and the USEPA Standard Pond

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for Bensulide and Bensulide Oxon are presented in Table 1 for the USEPA standard pond with the PAturfSTD field scenario. A graphical

pres entation of the year

- to

- year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input

values for the model are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.

This model estimates that a bout 0.98% of Bensulide and Bensulide Oxon applied to the field eventually reaches the water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff (92.3% of the total transport) followed by erosion (7.72%). In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half

- life of 213.0 days. (This value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only processes that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main sou rce of dissipation in the water column is hydrolysis (effective average half

- life = 220.3 days) followed by metabolism (9449.1 days), photolysis (20025.6 days), and volatilization (1.205298E+07 days). In the benthic region, pesticide dissipation is negligi ble (13454.8 days). The main source of dissipation in the benthic region is hydrolysis (effective average half

- life = 13454.8 days). The vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic region (98.36%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in the pore water.

Tab le 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for Bensulide and Bensulide

Oxon.

Peak (1

- in

- 10 yr) 440.

4

- day Avg (1

- in

- 10 yr) 430.

21

- day Avg (1

- in

- 10 yr) 397.

60

- day Avg (1

- in

- 10 yr) 350.

365

- day Avg (1

- in

- 10 yr) 237.

Entire Simulation Mean 139.

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for Bensulide and Bensulide Oxon.

Scenario PAturfSTD

Cropped Area Fraction 1

Koc (ml/g) 557

Water Half

- Life (days) @ 25 °C 4494

Benthic Half

- Life (days) @ 25 °C 0

Photolysis Half

- Life (days) @ 40

°Lat 173

### Page 62 of 85 

### Hydrolysi s Half

- Life (days) 220

Soil Half

- Life (days) @ 25 °C 2247

Foliar Half

- Life (days)

Molecular Wt 397.5

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.48e

- 8

Solubility (mg/l) 461

Table 3. Application Schedule for Bensulide and Bensulide Oxon.

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ ha) Eff. Drift

4/1 Incorporated to 0

cm 17.92 1 0

8/1 Incorporated to 0

cm 17.92 1 0

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations

### Page 63 of 85 

### Appendix E: Representative T

- REX Input and Output (Turf)

Chemical Identity and Application Information

Chemical Name: Bensu lide

Seed Treatment? (Check if yes) FALSE

Use:

Product name and form: % A.I. (leading zero must be entered for formulations <1% a.i.): 100.00%

Application Rate (lb ai/acre) 16

Half

- life (days): 35
Application Interval (days): 120

Number of Applications: 2
Are you assessing applications with

variable rates or intervals? no

Assessed Species Inputs (optional, use defaults for RQs for national level assessments)

What body weight range is assessed (grams)? Birds Mammals

Smal l 20 15

Medium 100 35

Large 1000 1000

Avian

Endpoint Toxicity value Indicate test species below

LD50 (mg/kg

- bw)

1386.00 1 LC50 (mg/kg

- diet) 2

NOAEL (mg/kg

- bw)

1

NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) 2.50 2

Enter the Mineau et al. Scalin g Factor 1.15

### Page 64 of 85 Mammalian

Acute Study Chronic Study Size (g) of mammal used in toxicity study Default rat body weight is 350 grams 350 350

Endpoint Toxicity value Reference (MRID)

LD50 (mg/kg

- bw) 270.00

LC50 (mg/kg

- diet)

Reporte d Chronic Endpoint 150.00

2 Is estimated daily dose (mg/kg

- bw) reported

from the available chronic mammal study? (yes or no) no

Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Chemical Name: Bensulide

Use 0

Formulation 0

Application Rate 16 lbs a.i./acre

Half

- life 35 days

Application Interval 120 days

Maximum # Apps./Year 2

Length of Simulation 1 year

Variable application rates? no

Endpoints

Avian Bobwhite quail LD50 (mg /kg

- bw) 1386.00

Mallard duck) LC50 (mg/kg

- diet) 0.00

Bobwhite quail NOAEL(mg/k

g

- bw) 0.00

Mallard duck NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) 2.50

Mammals LD50 (mg/kg

- bw) 270.00

LC50 (mg/kg

- diet) 0.00

NOAEL (mg/kg

- bw) 7.50

### Page 65 of 85 NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) 150.00

Dietary

- based EECs (ppm) Kenaga

Values

Short Grass 4196.64

Tall Grass 1923.46

Broadleaf plants 2360.61

Fruits/pods/seeds 262.29

Arthropods 1643.68

Avian Results

Avian Body Ingestio n (Fdry) Ingestion (Fwet) % body wgt FI

Class Weight (g) (g bw/day) (g/day) consum ed (kg

diet/da

y)

Small 20 5 23 114 2.28E

02

Mid 100 13 65 65 6.49E

02

Large 1000 58 291 29 2.91E

01

20 5 5 25 5.06E

03

Granivores 100 13 14 14 1.44E

02

1000 58 65 6 6.46E

02

Avian Body Adjusted

LD50

Weight (g) (mg/kg

- bw)

20 998.52

100 1271.16

1000 1795.56

Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw) Avian Classes and Body We ights (grams)

small mid large

20 100 1000

Short Grass 4779.55 2725.50 1220.24

Tall Grass 2190.63 1249.19 559.28

Broadleaf plants 2688.50 1533.10 686.39

Fruits/pods 298.72 170.34 76.27

Arthropods 1871.99 1067 .49 477.93

Seeds 66.38 37.85 16.95

Dose

- based RQs (Dose

- based EEC/adjusted LD50) Avian Acute RQs Size Class (grams)

### Page 66 of 85 20 100 1000

Short Grass 4.79 2.14 0.68

Tall Grass 2.19 0.98 0.31

Broadleaf plants 2.69 1.2 1 0.38

Fruits/pods 0.30 0.13 0.04

Arthropods 1.87 0.84 0.27

Seeds 0.07 0.03 0.01

Dietary

- based RQs (Dietary

- based EEC/LC50 or NOAEC) RQs

Acute Chronic

Short Grass #DIV/0! 1678.66

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 769.38

Broadleaf plants #DIV/0! 944.24

Fruits/pods/seeds #DIV/0! 104.92

Arthropods #DIV/0! 657.47

Note: To provide risk management with the maximum possible information,

it is recommended that both

the dose

- based a nd

concentration

- based
RQs be calculated when data

are available

Bensulide 0 Upper bound Kenaga
Residues

Mammalian Results

Mammalian Body Ingestio n (Fdry) Ingestion (Fwet) % body

wg t FI

Class Weight (g bwt/day ) (g/day) consum ed (kg

diet/da

y)

15 3 14 95 1.43E

02

Herbivores/ 35 5 23 66 2.31E

02

insectivores 1000 31 153 15 1.53E

01

15 3 3 21 3.18E

03

Grainvores 35 5 5 15 5.13E

03

1000 31 34 3 3.40E

02

Mammalian Body Adjuste

d Adjusted

Class Weight LD50 NOAEL

15 593.41 16.48

### Page 67 of 85 Herbivores/ 35 480.14 13.34

insectivores 1000 207.67 5.77

15 593.41 16.48

Granivores 35 480.14 13.34

1000 207.67 5.77

Dose

- Based EECs (mg/kg

- bw) Mammalian Classes and Body weight

(grams)

15 35 1000

Short Grass 4001.17 2765.35 641.16

Tall Grass 1833.87 1267.45 293.86

Broadleaf plants 2250.66 1555.51 360.65

Fruits/pods 250.07 172.83 40.07

Arth ropods 1567.13 1083.09 251.12

Seeds 55.57 38.41 8.90

Dose

- based RQs (Dose

- based EEC/LD50 or NOAEL) Small mammal Medium mammal Large mammal

15 grams 35 grams 1000 grams

Acute Chronic Acu te Chronic Acute Chroni

c

Short Grass 6.74 242.73 5.76 207.34 3.09 111.14

Tall Grass 3.09 111.25 2.64 95.03 1.42 50.94

Broadleaf plants 3.79 136.54 3.24 116.63 1.74 62.52

Fruits/pods 0.42 15.17 0.36 12.96 0.19 6.95

Arthropods 2.64 95.07 2.26 81. 21 1.21 43.53

Seeds 0.09 3.37 0.08 2.88 0.04 1.54

Dietary

- based RQs (Dietary

- based EEC/LC50 or NOAEC) Mammal RQs

Acute Chronic

Short Grass #DIV/0! 27.98

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 12.82

Broadleaf plants #DIV/0! 15.74

Fruits/pods/seeds #DIV/0! 1.75

Arthropods #DIV/0! 10.96



### Chemical: Bensulide

LD50 ft

- 2

### Page 68 of 85 INPUTS Do not overwrite these numbers. 

### Changes to the inputs must be

Application Rate: 16 lbs /

acre 

### made in the
"INPUTS"

worksheet.

% A.I.: 100.00% Avian LD50 (20g): 998.52 mg/kg bw (100g) 1271.16 (1000g) 1795.56

Mamm alian LD50 (15g): 593.41 mg/kg bw (35g) 480.14 (1000g) 207.67 Row Spacing: 35 inches

Bandwidth: 0 inches Unincorporation: 1%



### Row/Band/In

- furrow applicati ons

Granular N/A

Intermediate Calculations Intermediate Calculations

# rows acre

- 1: N/A mg a.i./1000 ft

row: N/A row length (ft): N/A bandwidth: N/A

lb ai/1000 ft row: N/A mg a.i./ft2: N/A

bandwidt h (ft): N/A exposed mg
a.i./ft2: N/A mg ai/ft2: N/A exposed mg ai/ft2: N/A



### LD50 ft

- 2 N/A

wgt class

(grams) wgt
class (grams)

Avian 20 N/A Avian 20 N/A

100 N/A 100 N/A

1000 N/A 1000 N/A

Mammal 15 N/A Mammal 15 N/A

35 N/A 35 N/A

1000 N/A 1000 N/A



### Broadcast applications

Granular

Inte rmediate Calculations

mg ai/ft2: 1.67



### LD50 ft

- 2
wgt class

### Page 69 of 85 (grams)

Avian 20 0.08

100 0.01

1000 0.00

Mammal 15 0.19

35 0.10

1000 0.01

Formulas used in the calculations are in the User's Guide



### Appendix F: TerrPlant Input and Output (Turf)

Table I.1. Chemical Identity.

Chemical Name Bensulide

PC code 9801

Use Turf
Application Method Broadcast

Application Form EC Solubility in Water (ppm) 56

Table I2. Input parameters used to derive EECs.

Input Parameter Symbol Value Units

Application Rate A 12.5 y

Incorpora tion I 1 none
Runoff Fraction R 0.01 none

Drift Fraction D 0.01 none

Table I.3. EECs for Bensulide. Units in y.

Description Equation EEC

Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.25

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 2.5 Spray dri ft A*D 0.125 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.375

Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 2.625

Table I.4. Plant survival and growth data used for RQ derivation. Units are in y.

Seedling Emergence Vegetative Vigor

Plant type EC 25 NOAEC EC 25 NOAEC

Monocot X 0.75 x 0.38

Dicot 1.3 0.38 x 6

Table I.5. RQ values for plants in dry and semi

- aquatic areas exposed to Bensulide through runoff and/or spray drift.*

### Page 70 of 85 Plant Type Listed Status Dry Semi

- Aquatic Spray Dr ift

Monocot non

- listed #VALUE! #VALUE! #DIV/0!

Monocot listed 0.50 3.50 0.33

Dicot non

- listed 0.29 2.02 <0.1

Dicot listed 0.99 6.91 0.33

*If RQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resulting in potential for risk to that plant group.



### Appendix G. Review of Open Literature Toxicity Data Available for Bensulide

A review of available bensulide toxicity data in the scientific literature was conducted using ECOTOX on 5/21/2007 for the CRLF effects determination (USEPA 2007). ECOTOX was searched in Sept ember 2015 for any studies submitted since then which may warrant review as endpoints more sensitive than registrant submitted data. No such endpoints were found in this search, so conclusions from the ECOTOX search in 2015 remain the same as those in the

2007 CRLF determination.

Appendix H Summary of Bensulide Toxicity

All available toxicity information for bensulide is below. Explanations are given for studies which are not deemed acceptable, or where additional information may be deemed helpful.



### Th e chronic avian studies show that bensulide can impair avian reproduction at relatively low dietary concentrations. The most serious effect appears to be a reduction of eggshell thickness, which begins to occur at dietary concentrations between 2.5 and 25 ppm a.i. At 250 ppm a.i., the reduction in eggshell thickness was severe ( 11% reduction in MRID 44486901 and 15 % in

MRID 43616002 ) which resulted in a significant increase in the number of cracked eggs (MRID

44486901 and 43616002 ). Compared to the control , the percentage of eggs cracked at 250 ppm a.i. represented a 2. 1x increase in MRID 44486901 and a 24.2X increase MRID 43616002

. Cracking of eggs usually causes the embryo to die before hatching. Additionally, a dietary concentration of 250 ppm a.i. fed to mallards reduced the percentage of eggs hatched and the percent survival to the 3

- week embryo and 14

- day

- old chick stages (MRID 44486901 and 43616002).

Avian Species %

a.i. Endpoint (ppm a.i.) Toxicity Category MRID No. Study

Classification

Northern Bobwhite quail
(Colinus virginianus)

Acute Oral 92.9 LD50 = 1386 slightly toxic 158455

Grimes 1986 Acceptable

Northern Bobwhite quail
(Colinus virginianus) 92.9 5

- Day LC50 > 5620 ppm Practically

nontoxic 158456

Grimes 1986 Acceptable

### Page 71 of 85 Acute Dietary

M allard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos )

Acute Dietary 92.9 5

- Day LC50 > 5620 ppm Practically

nontoxic 158457

Grimes 1986 Acceptable

Species %

a.i. NOAEL (ppm a.i.) LOAEL (ppm a.i.) Endpoint MRID No. Study

Classification

Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos )

Rep roduction 92.3 2.5 25 Eggshell

thickness 44860901 Acceptable

Northern Bobwhite quail
(Colinus virginianus)

Reproduction 92.4 250 600 Several endpoints concerning the hatching and

survival of

chicks 43616001 Acceptable

Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhyncho s )

Reproduction 92.4 Not

determine

d (< 250) 250 Eggshell thickness, percent of eggs

laid that are cracked percent of hatchlings

that survived to 14 days 4361 6 002 Supplemental

Mammal Species %

a.i. Endpoint Toxicity Category MRID No. Study

Classificat ion

Lab rat (Rattus norvegicus )

Acute oral 92.9 LD 50 = 270 mg/kg

- bw Moderately

toxic 92005011 Acceptable

Species %

a.i. NOAEL (ppm a.i.) LOAEL (ppm a.i.) Endpoint MRID No. Study

Classification

Lab rat (Rattus norvegicus )

Reproduction 92.4 150 900 F2 pup survival

ACH inhibition

at as low as 23 mg/kg/day

, 43948701 Acceptable

150 900 F2 pup survival

--- 25 Cholinesterase

inhibition

Other Mammal comments: No developmental effects were observed in rats administered oral doses as great

as 95 mg a.i./kg/day, which is approximately equivalent to 1900 ppm in the diet (MRID 00146585). Other chronic effects have been observed in rats and rabbits at doses between 25 and 95 mg a.i./kg/day (MRID 00146585 and 00152845), but EFED did not consider them to be ecologically significant. These effects included tremors (rabbits), increased liver/body weight (rabbits), decreased body weight, and decreased feed consumption.

### Page 72 of 85 

### The registrant has submitted a vegetative vigor and seedling emergence study testing t he bensulide formulation 4LF (MRID 447463

- 01) which are considered acceptable. The non

regulatory phytotoxicity endpoint was the most sensitive parameter observed in two species

- Cucumber vegetative vigor: EC25/NOAEC = 1.3 l b ai/A, 0.38 lb ai/A and Ryegra ss seedling

emeregence: EC25/NO AEC > 1.9 lb ai/A, 0.38 lb ai/A. The fresh weight endpoints are used for calculating RQs; however, it is noted low application rates can produce phytotoxic effects in some plants.

Terrestrial invertebrates

Species % a.i. End point (ppm a.i.) Toxicity Category MRID No. Study

Classification

Honey bee ( Apis mellifera

L. )

Acute contact Unknown LD 50 > 24.17 μg/bee Practically non

toxic 00036935 Acceptable

Terrestrial plants

Species % a.i. EC25 (lb ai/A) NOAEC (lb ai/A) Endpo int MRID No. Study

Classification

Monocot

– Corn ( Zea mays )

Vegetative Vigor

45.9 > 6.0 0.75 Shoot fresh weight

44746301 Acceptable Dicot

– Lettuce ( Lactuca

sativa )

Vegetative Vigor > 6.0 1.5 Shoot fresh weight

Monocot

– Onion ( Allium ce pa )

Seedling Emergence

45.9 3.1 0.75 Shoot fresh weight

44746301 Acceptable

Dicot

– Could

not determine

most sensitive

Seedling Emergence > 6.0 6.0 Shoot fresh weight



### The most sensitive acute fish toxicity study utilized the rainbow trout. The study was classified as supplemental (due to the lack of raw data), and the LC 50 

### was 0.72 mg a.i./L. (MRID 40098001).

### Page 73 of 85 

### This study showed bensulide to be highly toxic to freshwater fish. The two other freshwater fish LC50s were from an acceptable study

- 1.1 mg a.i./L (rainbow trout; MRID 157315) and a supplemental study (raw data not available )

- 0.81 mg a.i./L (bluegill sunfish; MRID 400980

- 01). An acute study (157316) with the rainbow trout was deemed invalid due to the presence of precipitates. 

### The fathea d minnow study (49378102/49001601) was classified as supplemental

due to inadequate number of embr yos used and pH deviations. That study is considered scientifically sound and data are appropriate for use in risk assessment.

Freshwater Fish Species %

a.i

. Endpoint (ppm a.i.) Toxicity Category MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Rainbow trout ( Oncorrhynchus mykiss )

Acute 92.9 LC 50 = 1.1 mg ai/L

NOAEC (visually estimated) = 0.2 mg ai/L Moderately to highly toxic 157315 Acceptable

Rainbow trout ( Oncorrhynchus mykiss )

Acute 95.0 0.72 Highly toxic 40098001 Supplemental

Raw data not

available.

Bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis

macrochirus )

Acute 95.0 0.81 Highly toxic 40098001 Supplemental

Raw data not

available.

Rainbow trout ( Oncorrhynchus mykiss )

Acute 92.9 1.4

-- 157316 Invalid

Presence of precipitates.

Species %

a.i. NOAEL (ppb a.i.) LOAEL (ppb a.i.) Endpoint MRID No. Study

Classification

Fathead

minnow ( Pimephales promelas )

ELS 92.4 374 789 Larval growth

and survival 44720408 Acceptabl e

Fathead

minnow ( Pimephales promelas )

Life

- cycle 97.7 169 369 Reproduction (number of

spawns, eggs per female per day, viable

eggs per female per day , and

percent viability) 49378102

49001601 Supplemental



### The one supplemental registrant

- submitted st udy testing bensulide, TGAI, toxicity to estuarine/marine fish did not have raw data available. This study using a non

- guideline species

### Page 74 of 85 

### yielded the most sensitive endpoint used the spot, Leiostomus xanthurus (MRID 40228401)

.

Estuarine/Marine Fish Speci es %

a.i. Endpoint (ppm a.i.) Toxicity Category MRID No. Study

Classification Sheepshead

Minnow

( Cyprinodon variegatus ) 92.0 LC50 = 0.56

NOAEC = 0.282 mg ai/L (visually estimated)

Sublethal effects: Erratic swimming and loss of equilibrium Endpoints b ased on

mean measured

concentrations highly toxic 42750201 Acceptable

Spot ( Leiostomus

xanthurus

Acute 95.0 0.32 highly toxic 40228401 Supplemental

USEPA

Gulfbreeze Laboratory

Data Species %

a.i. NOAEL (ppb a.i.) LOAEL (ppb a.i.) Endpoint MRID No. St udy

Classification Sheepshead

Minnow

( Cyprinodon variegatus )

Life

- cycle 97.7 36 74 

### F 0 

### 4

- week length , F 0 

### 8

- week length,

F 0 

### 17

- week survival, F 0 

### 17

- week length, F 0 

### 17

- week female length, F 0 

### 17

- week wet weight, F 0 

### 17

- week

female weight, F 1 

### 4

- week length 4 9059101 Acceptable



### The acute daphnid toxicity test (MRID 159322) was classified as supplemental because the dissolved oxygen at the four highest test concentrations was unacceptably low (27.2%

- 48.9%)

. However, since the dissolved oxygen problem probably reduced the observed LC 50 

### this value can be used to give a conservative ( i.e., possibly overprotective) assessment of risk. 

### The test with the amphipod (40098001) is considered supplemental because th e test procedure

deviated significantly from the guideli nes and notes LC50s are for mature organisms. The supplemental study ( MRID 450634 01) evaluating the chronic toxicity of bensulide on daphnids indicated that bensulide concentrations of 0.0042 mg a.i./L (lowest concentration tested) could reduce the growth and reproducti on of freshwater invertebrates . The study was classified as supplemental due to effects occurring at the lowest concentration tested

### Page 75 of 85 

### (NOAEC non

- definitive). The other chronic studies had solvent effects and were either

classified as invalid ( 48504301 ) or supplemental ( 44720407 ) with no established NOAECs.

Freshwater Invertebrates Species %

a.i. Endpoint (ppm a.i.) Toxicity Category MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Waterflea

(Daphnia magna)

Acute 92.9 LC50

- 0.58

NOAEC (visuall y estimated) = 0.10

1

Sublethal effects: Clumping, surfacing, lying on the bottom Highly toxic 159322 Supplemental

Scud

( Gammarus fasciatus ) 95.0 1.4 Moderately

toxic 40098001

( R2049421 mayer and

elersack 1986 ) Supplemental

Species %

a.i. NOAEL (ppb a.i.) LOAEL (ppb a.i.) Endpoint MRID No. Study

Classification

Waterflea

(Daphnia magna)

Life

- cycle 97.7 10.9 16 Reproduction (mean number of young per surviving adult) and growth (length) 49110401 Acceptable

Waterflea

(Daphnia magna)

Life

- cycle 94.3 < 4.2 4.2 Growth and reproduction 45063401

45303101 (amendment) Supplemental

Effects occurring at the

lowest

concentration

tested.

Waterflea

(Daphnia magna)

Life

- cycle 93.4 < 6.93 6.93 Growth and reproduction 44720407 Supplemental

Solvent ef fects

Waterflea

(Daphnia magna)

Life

- cycle 94.12 Young/Day 48504301 Invalid

Solvent effects



### The chronic mysid test ( 48424501 

### ) was deemed supplemental due to an apparent solvent effect on the day 14 endpoints; however, no effects were observed on the 28 day measurements and this study’s 28 day chronic endpoints were deemed acceptable for use in risk assessment.

### Page 76 of 85 Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates Species %

a.i. Endpoint (ppm a.i.) Toxicity Category MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Eastern o yster

(Crassostrea virginica)

Acute 92.0 EC50 = 0.25

NOAEC: Not

determined due to reduced shell deposition

in all treatment levels

Endpoint: shell growth

and based on mean

measured

concentrations Highly toxic 42750202 Acceptable

Mysid

(Mysidopsis

bah ia)

Acute 92.0 LC50 = 0.0624

NOAEC (visually estimated) = 0.0373 mg

ai/L

Sublethal effects: Lethargy and loss of equilibrium Endpoint based on mean

measured

concentrations Very highly

toxic 42750203 Acceptable

Species %

a.i. NOAEL (ppb a.i.) LOAEL (pp b a.i.) Endpoint MRID No. Study

Classification Mysid

(Mysidopsis bahia)

Life

- cycle 94.12 48.5 >48.5 No effects

were observed 48424501 Supplemental



### The registrant has submitted one supplemental vascular plant study testing bensulide, TGAI.

The vasurl ar plant study (447204

- 06) tested duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) and failed to establish

a NOAEC. The freshwater diatom study ( 44720405 ) with Navicula pelliculosa was classified

as invalid b ecause the test concentrations were not properly chosen

Aquatic plants

Species % a.i. EC50 (ppm) NOAEC (ppm) Endpoint MRID No. Study

Classification

Blue

- green algae ( Anabaena flos

- aquae ) 93.4 > 3.58 3.58 Density 44720403 Acceptable

### Page 77 of 85 Marine diatom

( Skeletonema

costatum ) 93.4 0.78 0.635 Density 44720405 Acceptable

Green algae

( Selenastrum capriconutum ) 93.4 1.8 EC 05 = 0.93 mg

a.i./L Density 44720402 Acceptable

Freshwater

diatom

( Navicula pelliculosa ) 93.4 0.56 EC 05 = 0.31 (estimated) Density 44720405 Invalid

Duckweed

( Lemna gibba 92.8 0.16 0 .0428 Frond number 45 334101 Draft review

Duckweed

( Lemna gibba ) 93.4 0.140 < 42.1

EC 05 = (estimated 0.017) Density 44720406 Supplemental



### Appendix I. Aggregate Incident Report for Bensulide:

No incidents were reported in EIIS or AIMS.

Table I .1. Total Count of Minor Inc idents from Aggregated Reports

From Date To Date Incident Package And Sequence Page# Product Name Total Incident

Count Incident Type*

WB PB ONT

4/1/2004 6/30/2004 015521

- 00033 34 BENSULIDE 2 0 2 0

1/1/2001 3/31/2001 011545

- 00205 246 GOOSEGRASS

CRABGRASS

CONTROL 1 0 1 0

4/1/2006 6/30/2006 017747

- 00775 918 BENSULIDE 1 0 1 0

7/1/2005 9/30/2005 016885

- 00124 195 BENSULIDE (CANADA) 3 0 3 0

4/1/2005 6/30/2005 016530

- 00600 863 BENSULIDE 6 0 5 0

8/30/2001 1/25/2002 012547

- 00001 1 BENSUMEC 4L F

PRE

EMERGENCE

GRASS & WEED

HERBICIDE 42 0 42 0

10/1/2005 12/31/2005 017190

- 00068 61 GREENSWEEP

CRABGRASS

PREVENTER 1 0 1 0

6/1/1997 6/30/1997 005672

- 00222 127 GREENSWEEP

PREEMERGENT 2 0 2 0

### Page 78 of 85 CRABGRASS

PREVENTER

SPRAY

- ON LIQUID

*WB = Minor Fish and Wildlife; PB = Minor Plant; ONT = “Other Nontarget” Incidents



### Appendix J : Aquatic animal and plant risk quotients uses of bensulide

Table J .1. Aquatic animal risk quotients

Application

Rate FWF

- A FWF

- C E/MF

- A E/MF

- C FWI

- A FWI

- C E/MI

- A E/MI

- C

EEC/

L C 50 = 1100 μg

ai/L EEC/

NOAEC = 169 μg

ai/L EEC/

LC 50 = 560 μg

ai/L EEC/

NOAEC = 6 μg

ai/L EEC/

LC 50 = 580 μg

ai/L EEC/

NOAEC = 11 μg

ai/L EEC/

LC 50 = 62.4 μg

ai/L EEC/

NOAEC = 48.5 μg

ai/L Golf course turf, Turf, and Ornamental lawns

Granular

- 2 apps@ 16 lb ai/A

FL Turf (W12834.dvf) 0.23 1.17 0.45 5.47 0.44 20.73 4.07 4.70

PA Turf (W12834.dvf) 0.40 2.07 0.79 9.72 0.76 36.09 7.05 8.19

TurfBSS (W13958.dvf) 0.28 1.53 0.54 7.19 0.52 25.45 4.87 5.77

CA TurfRLF (W23234.dvf) 0.29 1.64 0.58 7.69 0.56 28.00 5.16 6.35 Ground spray

- 2 apps@ 12.5 lb ai/A

FL Turf (W12834.dvf) 0.14 0.78 0.28 3.64 0.27 12.82 2.47 2.91

PA Turf (W12834.dvf) 0.18 0.95 0.34 4.47 0.33 16.18 3.09 3.67

TurfBSS (W13958.dvf) 0.16 0.87 0.31 4.08 0.30 14.64 2.79 3.32

CA TurfRLF (W23234 .dvf) 0.15 0.85 0.29 3.97 0.28 14.00 2.60 3.18

Granular

- 2 apps@ 12.5 lb ai/A

FL Turf (W12834.dvf) 0.18 0.91 0.36 4.28 0.34 16.18 3.19 3.67

PA Turf (W12834.dvf) 0.31 1.62 0.61 7.58 0.59 28.18 5.50 6.39

TurfBSS (W13958.dvf) 0.22 1.20 0.42 5.61 0.41 19. 91 3.80 4.52

CA TurfRLF (W23234.dvf) 0.24 1.28 0.46 6.00 0.45 21.91 4.15 4.97

Granular

- 2 apps@ 7.5 lb ai/A

FL Turf (W12834.dvf) 0.11 0.55 0.21 2.58 0.21 9.73 1.91 2.21

PA Turf (W12834.dvf) 0.19 0.97 0.37 4.56 0.36 16.91 3.30 3.84

### Page 79 of 85 TurfBSS (W13958.dvf ) 0.13 0.72 0.25 3.36 0.24 11.91 2.28 2.70

CA TurfRLF (W23234.dvf) 0.14 0.77 0.28 3.61 0.27 13.18 2.50 2.99

Artichokes etc. 1

Ground spray

- 3 apps@ 6 lb ai/A FL Peppers (W12844.dvf) 0.51 3.05 1.01 14.33 0.98 49.91 9.07 11.32 FL Cabbage (W12842.dvf) 0. 35 2.04 0.69 9.56 0.67 33.18 6.23 7.53

CA Lettuce (W23273.dvf) 0.50 2.63 0.98 12.33 0.94 45.91 8.77 10.41

CA Avocado (W23188.dvf) 0.10 0.60 0.20 2.83 0.19 9.82 1.81 2.23 Ground spray

- 2 apps@ 6 lb ai/A

FL Peppers (W12844.dvf) 0.37 2.08 0.73 9.78 0.7 1 34.73 6.59 7.88 FL Cabbage (W12842.dvf) 0.31 1.78 0.60 8.36 0.58 29.09 5.42 6.60

CA Lettuce (W23273.dvf) 0.35 1.98 0.69 9.28 0.67 33.09 6.20 7.51

CA Avocado (W23188.dvf) 0.07 0.41 0.14 1.92 0.14 6.73 1.27 1.53 Ground spray

- 1 app@ 6 lb ai/A

FL Pe ppers (W12844.dvf) 0.18 1.04 0.36 4.89 0.34 17.00 3.19 3.86 FL Cabbage (W12842.dvf) 0.16 0.88 0.31 4.14 0.29 14.36 2.74 3.26

CA Lettuce (W23273.dvf) 0.21 1.18 0.41 5.56 0.40 19.73 3.72 4.47

CA Avocado (W23188.dvf) 0.05 0.25 0.09 1.19 0.09 4.36 0.83 0. 99

Carrot

Ground spray

- 1 app@ 6 lb ai/A

TXCorn (W13958.dvf) 0.15 0.77 0.30 3.61 0.29 13.55 2.69 3.07 Cantaloupe etc. 2

Ground spray

- 2 apps@ 9 lb ai/A

CA
Melons_RLF (W93193.dvf) 0.16 0.91 0.32 4.25 0.31 15.36 2.88 3.48

NJ Melons_Std (W13781.dvf) 0 .24 1.30 0.46 6.11 0.45 21.73 4.17 4.93 Ground spray

- 1 app@ 9 lb ai/A

CA
Melons_RLF 0.10 0.52 0.20 2.44 0.19 9.00 1.78 2.04

### Page 80 of 85 (W93193.dvf)

NJ Melons_Std (W13781.dvf) 0.12 0.66 0.24 3.11 0.23 11.09 2.16 2.52



### Table J .2. Aquatic RQs for aquatic plants f rom bensulide uses

Application Rate Vascular Plants

non

- listed Vascular Plants

listed Non

- Vascular Plants

non

- listed Non

- Vascular Plants

listed

EEC/

EC 50 = 140 μg ai/L EEC/

NOAEC < 42.1 μg ai/L EEC/

EC 50 = 780 μg ai/L EEC/ NOAEC = 635 μg ai/L

Golf cour se turf, Turf, and Ornamental lawns

Granular

- 2 apps@ 16 lb ai/A

FL Turf (W12834.dvf) 1.81 N/C 0.33 0.4

PA Turf (W12834.dvf) 3.14 N/C 0.56 0.69

TurfBSS (W13958.dvf) 2.17 N/C 0.39 0.48

CA TurfRLF (W23234.dvf) 2.3 N/C 0.41 0.51

Ground spray

- 2 apps@ 12.5 lb ai/A

FL Turf (W12834.dvf) 1.1 N/C 0.2 0.24

PA Turf (W12834.dvf) 1.38 N/C 0.25 0.3

TurfBSS (W13958.dvf) 1.24 N/C 0.22 0.27

CA TurfRLF (W23234.dvf) 1.16 N/C 0.21 0.26

Granular

- 2 apps@ 12.5 lb ai/A

FL Turf (W12834.dvf) 1.42 N/C 0.26 0.31

PA T urf (W12834.dvf) 2.45 N/C 0.44 0.54

TurfBSS (W13958.dvf) 1.69 N/C 0.3 0.37

CA TurfRLF (W23234.dvf) 1.85 N/C 0.33 0.41

Granular

- 2 apps@ 7.5 lb ai/A

FL Turf (W12834.dvf) 0.85 N/C 0.15 0.19

PA Turf (W12834.dvf) 1.47 N/C 0.26 0.32

TurfBSS (W13958.dvf) 1.01 N/C 0.18 0.22

### Page 81 of 85 CA TurfRLF (W23234.dvf) 1.11 N/C 0.2 0.25

Artichokes etc. 1

Ground spray

- 3 apps@ 6 lb ai/A FL Peppers (W12844.dvf) 4.04 N/C 0.73 0.89 FL Cabbage (W12842.dvf) 2.78 N/C 0.5 0.61

CA Lettuce (W23273.dvf) 3.91 N/C 0.7 0.86

CA Avocado (W23188.dvf) 0.81 N/C 0.14 0.18 Ground spray

- 2 apps@ 6 lb ai/A FL Peppers (W12844.dvf) 2.94 N/C 0.53 0.65 FL Cabbage (W12842.dvf) 2.41 N/C 0.43 0.53

CA Lettuce (W23273.dvf) 2.76 N/C 0.5 0.61

CA Avocado (W23188.dvf) 0.56 N/C 0.1 0.12 Ground spra y
- 1 app@ 6 lb ai/A FL Peppers (W12844.dvf) 1.42 N/C 0.26 0.31 FL Cabbage (W12842.dvf) 1.22 N/C 0.22 0.27

CA Lettuce (W23273.dvf) 1.66 N/C 0.3 0.37

CA Avocado (W23188.dvf) 0.37 N/C 0.07 0.08

Carrot

Ground spray

- 1 app@ 6 lb ai/A

TXCorn (W13958.d vf) 1.2 N/C 0.22 0.26

Cantaloupe etc. 2

Ground spray

- 2 apps@ 9 lb ai/A
CA Melons_RLF (W93193.dvf) 1.29 N/C 0.23 0.28
NJ Melons_Std (W13781.dvf) 1.86 N/C 0.33 0.41 Ground spray

- 1 app@ 9 lb ai/A
CA Melons_RLF (W93193.dvf) 0.79 N/C 0.14 0.17

NJ Mel ons_Std (W13781.dvf) 0.96 N/C 0.17 0.21

N/C

– Not calcula ted

### Page 82 of 85 

### Appendix K : STIR and SIP Input s and Outpu t s

Table K .1. STIR Input and Output

Input

Application and Chemical Information

Enter Chemical Name Bensulide

Enter Chemical Use Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) y If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) ground Enter Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mole) 397.5 Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 8.20E

- 07 Enter Application Rate (lb ai /acre) 12.5

Toxicit y Properties

**Bird**

Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD 50 (mg/kg bw) 1386 Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15 Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 0.178

**Mammal**

Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD 50 (mg/kg bw) 270

Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC 50 (mg/L) 1.75

D uration 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 ) 1.75E

- 02

Maximum 1

- hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.21E

- 03
Adjuste d Inhalation LD 50 5.01E+01
Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 4.40E

- 05 Exposure not Likely Significant

Maximum Post

- treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.20E+00 Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted

Inhalation LD 50 2.40E

- 0 2 Exposure not Likely Significant

Results Mammalian (0.015 kg ) Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m 3 ) 1.75E

- 02

Maximum 1

- hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.77E

- 03
Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 1.04E+02
Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 2.66E

- 05 Exposure not Likely Significant

Maximum Post

- treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.51E+00 Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted

Inhalation LD 50 1.45E

- 02 Exposure not Likely Significant

### Page 83 of 85 Table K

. 2

. SIP Inputs

Parameter Value

Chemical name Bensulide Solubility (in water at 25 o C; mg/L) 5

. 6

Mammalian LD 50 (mg/kg

- bw) 270 Mammalian test species laboratory rat Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg

- bw) 7.5 Mammalian test species laboratory rat Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Avian LD 50 (mg/kg

- bw) 1386 Avian test species northern bobwhite quail Body weight (g) of "other" avian species

Mineau scali ng factor 1.15

Mallard NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) 2.5 * Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) 12.5 * NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) for other bird species 0 Body weight (g) of other avian species NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) for 2nd other bird species 0 Body weight (g) of 2nd other avian species *Value calculated by dividing NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet by 20) = 150/20

– Mallard; 250/20

- Quail

.

Table K

. 3

. SIP Mammalian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic Upper bound exposure (mg/kg

- bw) 9.6320 0.9632 Adjusted to xicity value (mg/kg

- bw) 207.6734 5.7687 Ratio of exposure to toxicity 0.0464 0.1670

Conclusion* Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potential concern for

mammals Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potential

concern for mammals

Table K .4. S IP Avian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic Upper bound exposure (mg/kg

- bw) 4.5360 4.5360 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg

- bw) 998.5153 0.1240
Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 0.0045 36.5714

### Page 84 of 85 Conclusion* Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potenti al 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 85 of 85